Supreme Court case information
Listed below are the substantive Supreme Court cases for the year along with appeals still to be determined or cases awaiting hearing.
Information giving an overview of the case is included along with media releases and links to judgments being appealed when available.
All 2024 - 2014 Supreme Court cases dismissed or deemed to be dismissed where a notice of abandonment was received can be found here.
Transcripts for cases heard before the Supreme Court are included provided they are not suppressed. Transcripts from pre-trial hearings are not published until the final disposition of trial. These are unedited transcripts and they are not a formal record of the Court’s proceedings. The Ministry of Justice does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any material and recommends that users exercise their own skill and care with respect to its use.
19 June 2026
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 89 KB)
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 126 KB)
All years
Case name
NR v MR and Jackson Russell and District Court at Auckland
Case number
SC 116/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the process followed by the Court of Appeal in determining the applicant’s appeal was consistent with the principles of natural justice. [2016] NZCA 429 CA461/2014
Result
A The applications for recusal and leave to appeal are dismissed.
B Costs of $5,000 are awarded to the first respondent.
6 December 2016
B Costs of $5,000 are awarded to the first respondent.
6 December 2016
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
NR v MR [2016] NZSC 160 [6 December 2016] (PDF, 89 KB)
Case name
Rae Beverly Adlam v John Tionga Savage, Lawrence Te Aokahari Niao, Patrick Mayne Savage, Samuel Kelvin Barnes and Tamati Drawbridge as Trustees of the Matata Parish 39A 2A Ahu Whenua Trust; and Helen Maria Savage and Raelyn Arihia Peita as Trustees of
Case number
SC 120/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reinstating the order of the Māori Land Court requiring the applicant to account to the Bath Trust in the amount of $11,200,000. [2016] NZCA 454 CA223/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the first respondents.
C The order for stay of the determination of the Court of Appeal made on 23 November 2016 is discharged.
17 February 2017
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the first respondents.
C The order for stay of the determination of the Court of Appeal made on 23 November 2016 is discharged.
17 February 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
X v YFT
Case number
SC 127/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to lift a grant of interim name suppression given to an entity defending historic sexual abuse allegations. [2016] NZCA 475 CA741/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B We make no award of costs.
7 March 2017
B We make no award of costs.
7 March 2017
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
X v YFT [2017] NZSC 25 7 March 2017 (PDF, 72 KB)
Judgment appealed from
X v Attorney-General [2016] NZCA 475 not published online
Case name
Y v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 128/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to grant name suppression for proposed witnesses in a case concerning historic sexual abuse allegations. [2016] NZCA 474 CA271/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B We make no award of costs. 7 March 2017
B We make no award of costs. 7 March 2017
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Y v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2017] NZSC 26 7 March 2017 (PDF, 72 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Gary Owen Burgess v Malley & Co
Case number
SC 130/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to review the Registrar’s decision to decline to dispense with security for costs. [2016] NZCA 484 CA251/2016
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
16 February 2017
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
16 February 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Burgess v Malley & Co [2016] NZCA 484 not available
Case name
Affco New Zealand Limited v New Zealand Meat Workers and related Trades Union Incorporated and Ors
Case number
SC 131/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding concession by counsel – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding applicant’s conduct defeated existing rights of employees – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 82 of the Employment Relations Act. [2016] NZCA 482 CA700/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (AFFCO New Zealand Ltd v New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union Inc and Ors [2016] NZCA 482).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that a breach of s 82 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 had occurred when the applicant required seasonal workers to enter into new individual employment agreements before commencing work for the 2015/2016 season.
9 March 2017
____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $35,000 plus reasonable disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
7 September 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that a breach of s 82 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 had occurred when the applicant required seasonal workers to enter into new individual employment agreements before commencing work for the 2015/2016 season.
9 March 2017
____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $35,000 plus reasonable disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
7 September 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 and 21 June 2017 (PDF, 857 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 135 (PDF, 251 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Employment Court decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Eric Meserve Houghton v Timothy Ernest Corbett Saunders, Samuel John Magill, John Michael Feeney, Craig Edgeworth Horrocks, Peter David Hunter, Peter Thomas and Joan Withers, and Credit Suisse Private Equity Inc, and Credit Suisse First Boston Asian Me
Case number
SC 135/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Securities Act 1978 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the Securities Act 1978, ss 2, 55 and 56 – Whether the Court of Appeal findings preclude Fair Trading Act 1986 claims. [2016] NZCA 493 CA578/2014
Result
A The appeal in relation to the fourth and fifth respondents is dismissed.
B The appeal in relation to the first, second and third respondents is allowed to the limited extent described below.
C The Court of Appeal’s finding that the forecast of revenue for the financial year ended 30 June 2004 (the untrue statement) was, at the time of allotment of the shares offered for subscription in the Feltex prospectus, an untrue statement for the purposes of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978, is upheld.
D The Court of Appeal’s findings that the untrue statement did not give rise to liability under s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and was not in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 are set aside.
E We find that the untrue statement was in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986.
F The questions of whether plaintiffs represented by the appellant: (i) invested on the faith of the prospectus in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so; (ii) suffered any loss by reason of the untrue statement in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so, the quantum of such loss; and (iii) are entitled to any remedy under the Fair Trading Act 1986 are left for resolution by the High Court at the stage 2 hearing.
G In all other respects, the appeal in relation to the first to third respondents is dismissed.
H Costs in this Court and the Courts below are reserved. Submissions on costs should be filed and served according to the following timetable: (i) Appellant: 20 working days after the date of this judgment. (ii) First to third respondents: 10 working days after the appellant’s submissions are filed. (iii) Fourth and fifth respondents: 10 working days after the first to third respondents’ submissions are filed. (iv) Appellant in reply: 10 working days after the fourth and fifth respondents’ submissions are filed.
15 August 2018
_________________________________
A The first to third respondents must pay the appellant costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements.
B Costs in the High Court should be reconsidered by that Court in light of this Court’s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal should be determined in light of this Court’ s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment if the agreement between the parties as to costs in that Court expressly or impliedly allows for such a determination to occur.
22 November 2018
B The appeal in relation to the first, second and third respondents is allowed to the limited extent described below.
C The Court of Appeal’s finding that the forecast of revenue for the financial year ended 30 June 2004 (the untrue statement) was, at the time of allotment of the shares offered for subscription in the Feltex prospectus, an untrue statement for the purposes of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978, is upheld.
D The Court of Appeal’s findings that the untrue statement did not give rise to liability under s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and was not in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 are set aside.
E We find that the untrue statement was in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986.
F The questions of whether plaintiffs represented by the appellant: (i) invested on the faith of the prospectus in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so; (ii) suffered any loss by reason of the untrue statement in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so, the quantum of such loss; and (iii) are entitled to any remedy under the Fair Trading Act 1986 are left for resolution by the High Court at the stage 2 hearing.
G In all other respects, the appeal in relation to the first to third respondents is dismissed.
H Costs in this Court and the Courts below are reserved. Submissions on costs should be filed and served according to the following timetable: (i) Appellant: 20 working days after the date of this judgment. (ii) First to third respondents: 10 working days after the appellant’s submissions are filed. (iii) Fourth and fifth respondents: 10 working days after the first to third respondents’ submissions are filed. (iv) Appellant in reply: 10 working days after the fourth and fifth respondents’ submissions are filed.
15 August 2018
_________________________________
A The first to third respondents must pay the appellant costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements.
B Costs in the High Court should be reconsidered by that Court in light of this Court’s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal should be determined in light of this Court’ s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment if the agreement between the parties as to costs in that Court expressly or impliedly allows for such a determination to occur.
22 November 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 April 2017 (PDF, 284 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 74 (PDF, 68 KB)
Additional document
Transcript hearing date 5 September 2017 (PDF, 1.4 MB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
HOUGHTON v SAUNDERS & ORS [2017] NZSC 55 (PDF, 113 KB)
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Mark Albert Horsfall v Diana Jane Potter and 168 Group Limited
Case number
SC 138/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – s 44 Property (Relationships) Act 1976 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 44.[2016] NZCA 514 CA720/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Potter v Horsfall [2016] NZCA 514).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the disposition of the proceeds of the College Street property was made by the applicant to defeat the claim or rights of the first respondent for the purposes of s 44 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.
2 March 2017
_________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay the first respondent costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
21 December 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the disposition of the proceeds of the College Street property was made by the applicant to defeat the claim or rights of the first respondent for the purposes of s 44 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.
2 March 2017
_________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay the first respondent costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
21 December 2017
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 196 (PDF, 285 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Hearing date : 15 June 2017
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and McGrath JJ.
Case name
New Health New Zealand Inc v South Taranaki District Council and Attorney-General (for and on behalf of the Minister of Health)
Case number
SC 141/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (New Health New Zealand Inc v South Taranaki District Council [2016] NZCA 462, [2017] 2 NZLR 13).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals of the appellant in CA159/2014, CA615/2014 and CA529/2015.
20 February 2017
___________________________________________________
The application for leave to admit the TDB report annexed to the affidavit of Philip Barry is dismissed.
30 October 2017
_________________________________________________
A The appeals from the decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to CA529/2015 and CA615/2014, referred to respectively as the Regulations and Medicines Act appeals, are dismissed.
B Costs are reserved. Any memoranda on costs may be filed by 31 July 2018. 27 June 2018 A The appeal is dismissed. B The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements.
C We make no award of costs in favour of the second respondent.
27 June 2018
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals of the appellant in CA159/2014, CA615/2014 and CA529/2015.
20 February 2017
___________________________________________________
The application for leave to admit the TDB report annexed to the affidavit of Philip Barry is dismissed.
30 October 2017
_________________________________________________
A The appeals from the decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to CA529/2015 and CA615/2014, referred to respectively as the Regulations and Medicines Act appeals, are dismissed.
B Costs are reserved. Any memoranda on costs may be filed by 31 July 2018. 27 June 2018 A The appeal is dismissed. B The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements.
C We make no award of costs in favour of the second respondent.
27 June 2018
Date of hearing
16 November 2017
- 17 November 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 and 17 November 2017 (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 59 and MR [2018] NZSC 60 (PDF, 259 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Case name
David Brown and Glen Sycamore v New Zealand Basing Limited
Case number
SC 145/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that by selecting a different legal jurisdiction to govern their relationship, the parties could contract out of the right in the Employment Relations Act to be free from dismissal and discrimination based on age.[2016] NZCA 525 CA12/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (New Zealand Basing Ltd v Brown [2016] NZCA 525, [2017] 2 NZLR 93).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that age discrimination provisions of the Employment Relations Act 2000 do not apply to the employment agreements between the applicants and the respondent.
17 February 2017
_________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Employment Court is restored.
B The order for costs made in the Court of Appeal is set aside.
C The respondent is to pay the appellants costs in respect of the Court of Appeal hearing, to be fixed by that Court, and in respect of this appeal costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 September 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that age discrimination provisions of the Employment Relations Act 2000 do not apply to the employment agreements between the applicants and the respondent.
17 February 2017
_________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Employment Court is restored.
B The order for costs made in the Court of Appeal is set aside.
C The respondent is to pay the appellants costs in respect of the Court of Appeal hearing, to be fixed by that Court, and in respect of this appeal costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 September 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 13 June 2017 (PDF, 611 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 139 (PDF, 260 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 65 of 107