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.

3 July 2026

Case information summary (as at 3 July 2026) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 88 KB)
Case information summary (as at 3 July 2026)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 127 KB) 

All years

Case name
Robert Alfred Stevenson v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections   
Case number
SC 66/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Habeas corpus – Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 14(2)(a) and New Zealand Bill Of Rights Act 1990, s 25(h) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to issue a writ of habeas corpus – Whether s 14(2)(a) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001 applies in this case – Whether s 25(h) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 impacts on the interpretation of s 14(2)(a) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not considering all relevant evidence.[2014] NZCA 308  CA 321/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
4 September 2014
___________

The application for recall is dismissed.
18 September 2014
____________
Nothing new raised in what is effectively a second recall application. It is dismissed.
Registrar directed not to receive for filing further such applications.
25 September 2014
Case name
KW v The Queen
Case number
SC 71/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to deal with a number of grounds of appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not allowing vital evidence to be provided to the Court.[2014] NZCA 241  CA 526/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
10 September 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Not publicly available
Judgment appealed from

not electronically available

Case name
Hakaoro Hakaoro v The Queen
Case number
SC 76/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sentencing – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it was open to the District Court Judge to rely upon an opinion expressed in the probation report that the applicant lacked remorse when there existed independent evidence to the contrary – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it was open to the District Court Judge to rely solely on the opinion of the probation officer when deciding that home detention would not be granted.[2014] NZCA 310  CA 176/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 20 November 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Kathryn Frances Boswell v Owen Ross Millar
Case number
SC 79/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in taking into account improper evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the trial Judge’s finding that there was no evidence of a failure to cooperate.[2014] NZCA 314  CA 293/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements.
7 October 2014
Case name
The Queen v TWW
Case number
SC 80/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, ss 28, 30 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that admissions by the accused obtained through a police undercover operation employing the “scenario technique” were unfairly and thus improperly obtained – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in adopting a Bill of Rights analysis where the accused’s rights were not breached – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that exclusion of the admissions was proportionate to the impropriety – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the admissions were unreliable.[2014] NZCA 339 CA 852/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted ([2014] NZCA 339).
The questions on which leave is given are whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that:
(a)     the appellant’s confession to “Scott” was unfairly obtained; and
(b)    evidence of it should be excluded.
10 October 2014
______________________
The appeal is allowed and the evidence in question is ruled to be admissible.
18 December 2015
Transcripts
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Gary Owen Burgess v TSB Bank Limited
Case number
SC 81/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 35 – Whether the Court of Appeal, on an application to review a Court of Appeal Registrar’s decision on security for costs, must provide a notice of hearing and the opportunity to provide evidence and submissions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not granting an extension of time for the Registrar to consider the appropriate quantum of costs on consolidation.[2014] NZCA 334 CA 47/2014; CA 126/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicant must pay to the respondent costs on the application of $1,000 together with disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.

10 October 2014
Case name
The Wanaka Gym Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council
Case number
SC 84/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Building Act 2004 – Whether the High Court erred in classifying the residential building as other than a single household unit – Whether High Court erred in holding that the C/AS1 purpose group SA was the appropriate proxy to meet the Building Code fire safety requirements for a residential building – Whether the High Court failed to take proper account of the different criminal and civil standards of proof – Whether the convictions were based on improperly obtained evidence – Whether leave to adduce fresh evidence should be granted. [2012] NZHC 284
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 December 2014
Case name
Fiona Caroline Graham  v Queenstown Lakes District Council
Case number
SC 85/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Building Act 2004 – Whether the High Court erred in classifying the residential building as other than a single household unit – Whether High Court erred in holding that the C/AS1 purpose group SA was the appropriate proxy to meet the Building Code fire safety requirements for a residential building – Whether the High Court failed to take proper account of the different criminal and civil standards of proof – Whether the convictions were based on improperly obtained evidence – Whether leave to adduce fresh evidence should be granted.[2012] NZHC 284
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 December 2014
Case name
Mariam Tohuia Filihia  v The Queen
Case number
SC 94/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant’s trial counsel made no error in the conduct of the case which resulted in a miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the reconstructive evidence was admissible – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the 17 year minimum period of imprisonment.[2014] NZCA 401  CA 786/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
29 October 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Arthur Sylvan Morgenstern and Tanya May Lavas v Stephanie Beth Jeffreys and Timothy Wilson Downes
Case number
SC 109/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993, ss 131, 135, 137, 138 and 301 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that, in a claim for breach of ss 131 (duty to act in good faith and in the best interests of the company), 135 (duty not to agree to, cause or allow reckless trading) and 137 (duty of care), in relation to selling an asset (shares) to the company at an alleged undervalue, the onus is on the director to prove that the asset was transferred for fair value – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a director facing claims under ss 131, 135 and 137, who relied on professional advice, is required by s 138 to plead this as an affirmative defence and bears the onus of proof – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that, in a claim under s 301, the onus is on the director to prove that the breach caused no loss to the company – Whether the Court of Appeal erred, in fixing the amount to be paid or contributed under s 301, by proceeding on a restitutionary basis and failing to take into account the actual loss caused to creditors – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that an inference could be drawn against the first appellant, by reason of failure to call evidence from the company’s accountants, when the respondents, as liquidators, were in an equal or better position to call that evidence.[2014] NZCA 449     CA 122/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar. 2 December 2014