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
Vivien Judith Madsen-Ries and David Stuart Vance as Liquidators of Petranz Limited (in liquidation) and Petranz Limited (in liquidation) v Darrell Warren Karaneihana and Diana Joy Petera
Case number
SC 46/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 161– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in taking into consideration that if the liquidators were successful that surplus funds would be returned to the directors and shareholders pursuant to Morgenstern v Jeffreys [2014] NZSC 176 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that ss 131–138 are codification of directors’ duties. [2016] NZCA 103 CA198/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs. 28 July 2016
B There is no order for costs. 28 July 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Case name
Murray Athold Osmond and Janet Doreen Osmond v David Murray Blanchett and Colin Thomas McCloy as liquidators of Arai Korp Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 69/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to hearing an appeal from summary judgment proceedings – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its evaluation of the evidence. [2016] NZCA 204 CA358/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed
B The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $2,500
26 August 2016
B The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $2,500
26 August 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
David Obiaga v The Queen
Case number
SC 77/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding no mistrial due to trial counsel error or juror ill-health – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding no misuse of co-defendant’s statement – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding sentence. [2016] NZCA 270 CA390/2015, CA395/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
8 December 2016
8 December 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
DAVID OBIAGA v R [2016] NZSC 162 8 December 2016 (PDF, 87 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Alistair Stuart Lyon v The Queen
Case number
SC 81/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Conviction Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its analysis of trial counsel competence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the evidence. [2016] NZCA 293 CA746/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
29 September 2016
29 September 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Alexander Pieter van Heeren v Michael David Kidd
Case number
SC 94/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the decision of the High Court finding that an issue estoppel can arise in New Zealand proceedings based on findings made by a foreign court –Whether the Court of Appeal then erred in upholding the direction of the High Court for a summary account. [2016] NZCA 401 CA 247/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
9 December 2016
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
9 December 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
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
Amanda Adele White and Anne Leoline Emily Freeman v Christopher Maurice Lynch and Stuart Gordon Spence
Case number
SC 137/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to grant an extension of time to file case on appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing application to debar counsel. [2016] NZCA 513 CA740/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
16 February 2017
________________
A The application to recall the judgment is dismissed.
B We direct the Registrar not to accept any further applications by the applicants in respect of their dispute with the respondents.
16 March 2017
16 February 2017
________________
A The application to recall the judgment is dismissed.
B We direct the Registrar not to accept any further applications by the applicants in respect of their dispute with the respondents.
16 March 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
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
Case name
Antony Thomas Gough, Tracy Owen Gough and Harcourt David Gough v Gough Holdings Limited and Gina Louise Satherthwaite and others
Case number
SC 50/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Interpretation of clause in company constitution – Whether Court of Appeal correct in interpretation – Whether Court of Appeal correctly used extrinsic aids to interpretation.[2015] NZCA 130 CA 380/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondents.
29 July 2015
29 July 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Rawiri David Lawson v The Queen
Case number
SC 69/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the applicant was unable to instruct counsel or present a defence – Whether the Crown’s presentation of evidence differed from the Crown’s closing – Whether propensity evidence was wrongfully admitted – Whether a charge was withdrawn too late to avoid unfair trial – Whether jury directed to speculate over matters of which there was no evidence of – Whether the evidence was insufficient to convict.[2014] NZCA 463 CA 397/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 6 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 8 of 13