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
Christian John Gillibrand and Mary Caecilia Gillibrand (as trustees of The Chris and Mary Gillibrand family trust) v George Peter Swanepoel
Case number
SC 106/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the admissibility of evidence under s 25 of the Evidence Act 2006.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
21 February 2019
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
21 February 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Peter John Chambers v The Queen
Case number
SC 118/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by not admitting evidence under section 44 of the Evidence Act 2006.
Result
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
22 February 2019
22 February 2019
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Donna Michelle Ritchie v Accident Compensation Corporation
Case number
SC 2/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Accident Compensation Act 2001, s 110(3) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 110(3) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying McGrath v Accident Compensation Corporation [2011] NZSC 77, [2011] 3 NZLR 733 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of evidence.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
1 May 2017
1 May 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Anna Elizabeth Osborne and Sonya Lynne Rockhouse v Worksafe New Zealand and District Court at Wellington
Case number
SC 23/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the first respondent had not exercised its prosecutorial discretion unlawfully or unreasonably – Whether the dismissal of charges by the second respondent was ultra vires because the Judge hearing the matter had earlier recused herself from the proceedings.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Osborne v Worksafe New Zealand [2017] NZCA 11).
B Subject to the qualification discussed at [1], the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal to that Court.
19 June 2017
_______________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B A declaration is made that the decision of WorkSafe New Zealand to offer no evidence in the prosecution of Peter William Whittall was unlawful.
C Costs are reserved. The parties may file memoranda by 31 January 2018 if an order for costs is sought.
23 November 2017
B Subject to the qualification discussed at [1], the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal to that Court.
19 June 2017
_______________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B A declaration is made that the decision of WorkSafe New Zealand to offer no evidence in the prosecution of Peter William Whittall was unlawful.
C Costs are reserved. The parties may file memoranda by 31 January 2018 if an order for costs is sought.
23 November 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 October 2017 (PDF, 241 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 175 (PDF, 272 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Alister James Reid v The Queen
Case number
SC 29/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the hearsay statement by the complainant was correctly admitted as evidence at the applicant’s trial.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
7 July 2017
7 July 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ALISTER JAMES REID v R [2017] NZSC 108 7 July 2017 (PDF, 69 KB)
Judgment appealed from
DC (not available publicly) :
Case name
Bruce James Spittle v The Queen
Case number
SC 47/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its determination that the verdict of the jury in the applicant’s trial was not unreasonable having regard to the evidence.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 6 July 2017
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BRUCE JAMES SPITTLE v R [2017] NZSC 105 6 July 2017 (PDF, 80 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
David Charles Browne and David Browne Contractors Limited and David Browne Mechanical Limited v David Ross Petterson as liquidator of Polyethylene Pipe Systems Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 57/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to, and appreciation of, the evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of ss 295(a), 299(1) and 299(3) of the Companies Act 1993. [2016] NZCA 189 CA291/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal by Mr Browne is dismissed.
B Leave to appeal is granted to David Browne Contractors Ltd and David Browne Mechanical Ltd.
The approved question is whether the orders for repayment ought to have been made against them.
C Costs are reserved.
16 August 2016
____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $30,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be
determined by the Registrar in the absence of agreement). We certify for two counsel.
7 August 2017
B Leave to appeal is granted to David Browne Contractors Ltd and David Browne Mechanical Ltd.
The approved question is whether the orders for repayment ought to have been made against them.
C Costs are reserved.
16 August 2016
____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $30,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be
determined by the Registrar in the absence of agreement). We certify for two counsel.
7 August 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 November 2016 (PDF, 512 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 116 (PDF, 267 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Maythem Kamil Radhi v District Court at Manukau and The Commonwealth of Australia
Case number
SC 57/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Extradition Act 1999, s 48 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that it would not be unjust or oppressive to extradite the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application to adduce further evidence.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Radhi v District Court at Manukau [2017] NZCA 157).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that circumstances of the applicant did not warrant a reference to the Minister of Justice under s 48(4)(a)(ii) of the Extradition Act 1999.
18 August 2017
________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The appellant’s case is referred to the Minister of Justice pursuant to s 48(4)(a)(ii) of the Extradition Act 1999.
C Costs are reserved.
21 December 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that circumstances of the applicant did not warrant a reference to the Minister of Justice under s 48(4)(a)(ii) of the Extradition Act 1999.
18 August 2017
________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The appellant’s case is referred to the Minister of Justice pursuant to s 48(4)(a)(ii) of the Extradition Act 1999.
C Costs are reserved.
21 December 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 17 August 2017 (PDF, 207 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 198 (PDF, 331 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Transcription hearing date 11 October 2017 (PDF, 269 KB)
Additional document
Transcription hearing date 22 November 2017 (PDF, 162 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
Dennis Rangiaho Hohua v The Queen
Case number
SC 59/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, ss 37 and 44 – Whether the Courtof Appeal was correct to uphold the trial Judge’s ruling that evidence of anallegedly false prior complaint by the complainant was inadmissible at trial.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
22 August 2017
22 August 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Akuhatua Tihi v The Queen
Case number
SC 66/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing an appeal against conviction for murder – Whether there was a breach of s 32 of the Evidence Act 2006 leading to a miscarriage of justice.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
21 September 2017
21 September 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 9 of 46