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
MTR v The Queen
Case number
SC 123/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the evidence ought to be admitted at trial – Whether the evidence was obtained in breach of the Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning – The proper manner in which s 30(5) and (6) of the Evidence Act 2006 where there has been a breach of the Practice Note.[2014] NZCA 520 CA404/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
11 December 2014
11 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
[2014] NZCA 520 not available online
Case name
Jianyoung Guo, Jiaxi Guo, Jiaming Guo v Minister of Immigration
Case number
SC 124/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Immigration – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 26(2) – Human Rights Act 1993, s 21(1)(l)(iv) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the deportation order against Mr Guo was unjust on the basis that it involved double jeopardy, in breach of s 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the deportation orders against the remaining applicants were unjust on the basis that they involved discriminating on a ground expressly prohibited by s 21(1)(l)(iv) of the Human Rights Act, being a relative of a particular person – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to give leave to appeal in relation to the grounds advanced in the application for leave to appeal to the High Court.[2014] NZCA 513 CA263/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal by Jianyong Guo is dismissed.
B The applications for leave to appeal by Jiaxi Guo and Jiaming Guo are granted (Guo v Minister of Immigration [2014] NZCA 513).
C The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was right to decline the applications of Jiaxi Guo and Jiaming Guo for leave to appeal to the High Court against the decision of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal dismissing their appeals against deportation.
3 June 2015
____________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The appellants are granted leave to appeal to the High Court against the dismissal by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal of their appeals on the question whether the Tribunal erred in law in concluding that it would not be unjust or unduly harsh to deport them from New Zealand.
C All issues as to costs, including the order for costs made in the High Court, are reserved. Any application in respect of costs is to be made within 10 working days.
2 September 2015
B The applications for leave to appeal by Jiaxi Guo and Jiaming Guo are granted (Guo v Minister of Immigration [2014] NZCA 513).
C The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was right to decline the applications of Jiaxi Guo and Jiaming Guo for leave to appeal to the High Court against the decision of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal dismissing their appeals against deportation.
3 June 2015
____________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The appellants are granted leave to appeal to the High Court against the dismissal by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal of their appeals on the question whether the Tribunal erred in law in concluding that it would not be unjust or unduly harsh to deport them from New Zealand.
C All issues as to costs, including the order for costs made in the High Court, are reserved. Any application in respect of costs is to be made within 10 working days.
2 September 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 1 April 2015 (PDF, 93 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 132 (PDF, 247 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Transcript Hearing date 9 July 2015 (PDF, 577 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
NR v M and others
Case number
SC 125/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether there were a number of material errors in the Court of Appeal’s hearing and judgment[2014] NZCA 526 CA 144/2014
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
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
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
N v M [2014] NZSC 189 [19 December 2014] (PDF, 95 KB)
Substantive judgment
N v M [2015] NZSC 15 [27 February 20 (PDF, 164 KB)
Case name
Robert Clifford Hoani Cribb v Evia Rural Finance Limited and The Official Assignee
Case number
SC 126/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal decision had a sound factual basis – Whether the Court of Appeal decision failed to consider the appellant’s argument – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to admit the further evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the appellant to be insolvent – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in supporting the exercise of the discretion by the Associate Judge.[2014] NZCA 543 CA 179/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 18 February 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated and Kristine Bartlett
Case number
SC 127/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Equal Pay Act 1972 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 3(1)(b) of the Equal Pay Act 1972. [2014] NZCA 516 CA 631/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
22 December 2014
22 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
John Douglas Tamati Te Hoko-Whitu-Atu Hauraki as trustee of the Ngawapurua and Rua Roa Trusts v Richard Tatere
Case number
SC 134/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Maori land – Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in treating the trustees’ children as if they were income beneficiaries when there was irrefutable evidence that eight of the nine children had ceased to be and were not income beneficiaries for the purposes of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by ignoring the only condition of the consents of both sets of beneficiaries, that due and proper consideration be given to the claims relating to “tipuna whenua” , “whakapapa” and “taonga tuku iho” – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by declining to consider whakapapa which it had provisionally allowed to be adduced.[2014] NZCA 532 CA 451/2013
Result
Notice of abandonment being filed, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed. 20 February 2015
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Wendy Maree Whitehead v The Queen
Case number
SC 136/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, ss 229A(b) and 228(b); and Accident Compensation Act 2001 – Whether insufficient direction was given to the jury as to what constituted a de facto relationship – Whether loss of entitlement ought to have been determined before the criminal trial.[2014] NZCA 573 CA 300/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
30 March 2015
30 March 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
WENDY MAREE WHITEHEAD v R [2015] NZSC 29 30 March 2015 (PDF, 124 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Michael Christopher Cruickshank v The Queen
Case number
SC 140/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the trial Judge misdirected the jury as to the state of the applicant’s knowledge of whether the medical certificate was accurate – Whether the trial Court had jurisdiction to determine loss or abatement of entitlement in light of the Accident Compensation Act 2001, section 133(5) – Whether there was a sufficient evidential foundation for an award of reparation[2014] NZCA 574 CA 367/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
31 March 2015
31 March 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Ngāti Wāhiao v Ngāti Hurungaterangi, Ngāti Taeotu Me Ngāti Te Kahu O Ngāti Whakaue
Case number
SC 141/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Arbitration Act 1996, Whether there was any credible basis for the Court of Appeal to find, if it did so find, that the arbitral tribunal misunderstood its task – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the leave requirements of cl 5 of the Second Schedule to the Arbitration Act.[2014] NZCA 592 CA 592/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B We make no award of costs.
15 May 2015
B We make no award of costs.
15 May 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date : 1 April 2015 (PDF, 433 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Ranjit Keshvara v David Murray Blanchett & Grant Edward Burns as liquidators of APG Holdings Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 1/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 19(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that it was not necessary for a Court to hear evidence as to the particular circumstances giving rise to the supply of information used for the composition of business records before a Court can rule on admissibility of hearsay statements contained in those business records. [2012] NZCA 553 CA 665/2011
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay to the respondents costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
21 March 2013.
Page 61 of 137