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
Shark Experience Limited v Pauamac5 Incorporated, Director-General of Conservation and Shark Dive New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 86/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Wildlife Act 1953.
Result
A The application for an extension of time is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is granted (PauaMAC5 Inc v Director-General of Conservation [2018] NZCA 348).
C The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that shark cage diving is an offence under s 63A of the Wildlife Act 1953.
11 December 2018
________________________________
A The application for leave to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The Court of Appeal’s declaration that “Shark cage diving is an offence under s 63A Wildlife Act 1953” is set aside.
D There is no order as to costs.
11 October 2019
B The application for leave to appeal is granted (PauaMAC5 Inc v Director-General of Conservation [2018] NZCA 348).
C The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that shark cage diving is an offence under s 63A of the Wildlife Act 1953.
11 December 2018
________________________________
A The application for leave to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The Court of Appeal’s declaration that “Shark cage diving is an offence under s 63A Wildlife Act 1953” is set aside.
D There is no order as to costs.
11 October 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 March 2019 (PDF, 687 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 111 (PDF, 98 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Robt Jones Holdings Limited v Anthony John McCullagh and Stephen Mark Lawrence liquidators of Northern Crest Investments Limited
Case number
SC 87/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993, s 292 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there is no requirement in s 292 that a voidable transaction diminish the pool of assets available to creditors.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Robt Jones Holdings Ltd v McCullagh [2018] NZCA 358).
B The approved question is whether the payments totalling $262,758.05 made to the applicant by MSH No 2 Pty Ltd on behalf of Northern Crest Investments Ltd were insolvent transactions as defined in s 292 of the Companies Act 1993.
6 December 2018
___________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondents costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
9 August 2019
B The approved question is whether the payments totalling $262,758.05 made to the applicant by MSH No 2 Pty Ltd on behalf of Northern Crest Investments Ltd were insolvent transactions as defined in s 292 of the Companies Act 1993.
6 December 2018
___________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondents costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
9 August 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 30 April 2019 (PDF, 353 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 86 (PDF, 63 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Mark Edward Lundy v The Queen
Case number
SC 95/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 385 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction under the proviso to s 385(1) despite finding that certain evidence presented at trial was inadmissible.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Lundy v R [2018] NZCA 410) in relation to the approved question below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the proviso to s 385(1) of the Crimes Act 1961.
6 May 2019
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the proviso to s 385(1) of the Crimes Act 1961.
6 May 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 - 28 August 2019 (PDF, 537 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing August 2019 (PDF, 319 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 152 (PDF, 194 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Additional document
Transcription leave hearing 2 May 2019 (PDF, 148 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
MARK EDWARD LUNDY v R [2019] NZSC 45 [6 May 2019] (PDF, 227 KB)
Substantive judgment
MARK EDWARD LUNDY v R [2019] NZSC 152 [20 December 2019] (PDF, 420 KB)
Case name
H v The Queen
Case number
SC 97/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that s 322 of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 does not apply to the applicant’ s charge of rape – If s 322 does apply to the charge, whether the rape charge should have been dismissed prior to the applicant’s trial.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal against the conviction for rape is granted (H (CA376/2017) v R [2018] NZCA 376).
B The approved question is whether, in dealing with delay, the Court of Appeal correctly dealt with the age of the appellant (including the application of s 322 of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989).
21 February 2019
_______________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
3 July 2019
B The approved question is whether, in dealing with delay, the Court of Appeal correctly dealt with the age of the appellant (including the application of s 322 of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989).
21 February 2019
_______________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
3 July 2019
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 69 (PDF, 65 KB)
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave granted
H (SC 97/2018) v R [2019] NZSC 4 [21 February 2019] (PDF, 183 KB)
Substantive judgment
H (SC 97/2018) v R [2019] NZSC 69 [3 July 2019] (PDF, 122 KB)
Case name
Mark Arona v The Queen
Case number
SC 98/2018
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
Jia Wen Mao v Inno Capital No.4 Limited, Damien Grant and Steven Khov as Liquidators of Chen Hong Co Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 100/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – High Court Rules 2016, Part 31 – Companies Act 1993, s 250 – Termination of a liquidation order – Substitution of creditors – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the substitution order was made under r 31.24 of the High Court Rules.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the second respondent costs of $2,500.
26 February 2019
B The applicant must pay the second respondent costs of $2,500.
26 February 2019
Court of Appeal decision
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
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
Gerardus Peter van Uden v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 108/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Income Tax Act 1994, s OE 1 – Meaning of “ permanent place of abode” –Taxation of income in New Zealand while working overseas – Whether the Court of Appeal was right to dismiss the applicant’s appeal against the High Court’s decision.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
19 March 2019
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
19 March 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Shreesh Basnyat v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 113/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sentencing Act 2002 – Whether there are exceptional circumstances justifying a direct appeal against a decision of the High Court dismissing an appeal against a refusal to discharge the applicant without conviction.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
5 March 2019
5 March 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Lodge Real Estate Limited, Monarch Real Estate Limited, Brian King and Jeremy O'Rourke v Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 116/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Commerce Act 1986, s 30 – Whether there must be a moral obligation for the purposes of price fixing – Whether there was an agreement to vendor fund – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the respondent’s appeal against the High Court’s decision.
Result
A An extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal is granted.
B Leave to appeal is granted (Commerce Commission v Lodge Real Estate Ltd [2018] NZCA 523) on the question whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the respondent’s appeal to that Court except as set out at C below.
C To the extent the application for leave seeks to argue that the respondent had not adequately pleaded and to appeal from the dismissal of the applicants’ cross appeal the application is dismissed.
19 March 2019
___________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements to the respondent.
2 April 2020
B Leave to appeal is granted (Commerce Commission v Lodge Real Estate Ltd [2018] NZCA 523) on the question whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the respondent’s appeal to that Court except as set out at C below.
C To the extent the application for leave seeks to argue that the respondent had not adequately pleaded and to appeal from the dismissal of the applicants’ cross appeal the application is dismissed.
19 March 2019
___________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements to the respondent.
2 April 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 21-22 August 2019 (PDF, 839 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 25 (PDF, 68 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 17 of 117