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
Clive Richard Bradbury and Gregory Alan Peebles v Judicial Conduct Commissioner
Case number
SC 103/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the judicial review application – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it was not judicial misconduct for a judge to have unsatisfied liabilities to a party that are not disclosed in cases involving that party, to sit in such cases, and to deny such liabilities - Whether the Judicial Conduct Commissioner failed to adopt a proper process – Whether the judicial review proceedings are abuse of process – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in awarding indemnity costs.[2014] NZCA 441 CA 357/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Costs are reserved. If the respondents wish to obtain orders for costs they should apply within 14 days setting out in detail the orders sought. If such applications are made, the applicants may respond within a further 14 days.
2 December 2014
________________
Leave is granted under s 76(2) of the Insolvency Act 2006 to permit continuation of the applications for costs in respect of SC 87/2014 and SC 103/2014. We fix costs and disbursements as follows: To the Judicial Conduct Commissioner in the sum of $5,294.50; To the Hon Justice Venning in the sum of $2,829.
8 June 2015
Costs are reserved. If the respondents wish to obtain orders for costs they should apply within 14 days setting out in detail the orders sought. If such applications are made, the applicants may respond within a further 14 days.
2 December 2014
________________
Leave is granted under s 76(2) of the Insolvency Act 2006 to permit continuation of the applications for costs in respect of SC 87/2014 and SC 103/2014. We fix costs and disbursements as follows: To the Judicial Conduct Commissioner in the sum of $5,294.50; To the Hon Justice Venning in the sum of $2,829.
8 June 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Costs judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court and Ministry of Justice
Case number
SC 104/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Insolvency Act 2006 – Whether judicial review proceedings are within the scope of s 101(1)(b) of the Insolvency Act 2006.[2014] NZCA 481
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
2 December 2014
_______________
The application to recall the judgment of 2 December 2014 and the second application for leave to appeal against the judgment of French J are dismissed.
23 December 2014
Further application for recall dismissed.
9 March 2015
2 December 2014
_______________
The application to recall the judgment of 2 December 2014 and the second application for leave to appeal against the judgment of French J are dismissed.
23 December 2014
Further application for recall dismissed.
9 March 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Zoggs International Limited v Sexwax Incorporated
Case number
SC 105/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Trade Marks Act 2002 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the test for comparing the existing and proposed trade marks under s 17(1)(a) of the Act –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider granting the applicant’s trade mark application in part – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning earlier findings of fact which were not plainly wrong.[2014] NZCA 311 CA 461/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500, plus reasonable disbursements. 2 March 2015
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500, plus reasonable disbursements. 2 March 2015
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
The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar. 2 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Peter Guy Goodricke v The Queen
Case number
SC 111/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the procedure on appeal complied with the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.CRI 2010-485-26
Result
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
5 December 2014
Case name
Jacobus van der Lubbe v The Queen
Case number
SC 112/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider relevant evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider a number of other issues raised.[2014] NZCA 495 CA 305/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
17 December 2014
17 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Medhi Jaffari and Tracy Jaffari v Livia Grabowski
Case number
SC 114/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Reciprocal Enforcements of Judgments Act 1934, s 6(d); Svirkis v Gibson [1977] 2 NZLR 4 (CA); and Syal v Howard [1948] 2 KB 443 (CA) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to afford the appellants natural justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to give the appellants leave to adduce additional evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to properly consider relevant matters – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to properly apply the law set out in Svirkis v Gibson and Syal v Howard – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by incorrectly stating and unfairly discounting the appellant’ s evidence.[2014] NZCA 399 CA 52/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicants are to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
11 February 2015
The applicants are to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
11 February 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
The Queen v Shivneel Shahil Kumar
Case number
SC 115/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Right to refrain from making a statement under s 23(4) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether admissions made to undercover police officers in holding cell after applicant arrested were actively elicited – Whether evidence obtained in consequence of a breach of ss 23(4) and 24(c) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – Whether evidence obtained unfairly – Whether exclusion of evidence was proportionate to the Police impropriety. [2014] NZCA 489 CA 86/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted ([2014] NZCA 489).
19 November 2014
______________________
The appeal is dismissed.
6 August 2015
19 November 2014
______________________
The appeal is dismissed.
6 August 2015
Case name
Patrick Dean Norris v Bruce Donald Gemmell and Rhys James Cain
Case number
SC 119/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993, ss 255 and 283 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by ignoring the requirements of s 255(2)(b) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by misdirecting themselves on the statutory purpose and the natural wording of s 283(2) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that liquidators appointed pursuant to s 283 are not required to advise the Registrar of their appointment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that a liquidator’s statutory ability to act as liquidator does not commence immediately on appointment as has been long held in law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that pursuant to s 283(2) if the person who wishes to resign is not currently the liquidator there can be no resignation and no new appointment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that there was a vacancy when Messrs Gemmell and Cain were appointed by the Official Assignee – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the Official Assignee was able to arbitrarily remove and replace a statutorily appointed and properly acting liquidator – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that Mr Churchill was never validly appointed – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not allowing leave to adduce certain new evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in their approach to costs.[2014] NZCA 490 CA 857/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondents costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
19 December 2014
The applicant is to pay the respondents costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
19 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
NR v District Court at Auckland and MR
Case number
SC 120/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Deputy Registrar’s decision not to provide the applicant with information he requested.[2014] NZCA 514
Result
The application to file further submissions is declined.
The interlocutory application of 1 December 2014 is dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 are to be paid by the applicant to Ms M.
19 December 2014
_____________
A The applications for leave to appeal in SC 77/2014, SC 120/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 are dismissed.
B The application for recall of this Court’s judgment dated 19 December 2014 ([2014] NZSC 189) is dismissed.
C The other interlocutory applications of 12 January 2015 are dismissed.
D Costs of $10,000 are to be paid by the applicant to Ms M (as first respondent in SC 77/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 and second respondent in SC 120/2014).
E Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents in SC 77/2014 and SC 125/2014.
27 February 2015
The interlocutory application of 1 December 2014 is dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 are to be paid by the applicant to Ms M.
19 December 2014
_____________
A The applications for leave to appeal in SC 77/2014, SC 120/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 are dismissed.
B The application for recall of this Court’s judgment dated 19 December 2014 ([2014] NZSC 189) is dismissed.
C The other interlocutory applications of 12 January 2015 are dismissed.
D Costs of $10,000 are to be paid by the applicant to Ms M (as first respondent in SC 77/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 and second respondent in SC 120/2014).
E Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents in SC 77/2014 and SC 125/2014.
27 February 2015
Court of Appeal decision
Supreme court decision
N v M [2014] NZSC 189 [19 December 2014] (PDF, 95 KB)
Supreme court decision
N v M [2015] NZSC 15 [27 February 2015] (PDF, 164 KB)
Page 60 of 137