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
John Blackwood Williamson v The Queen 
Case number
SC 8/2016
Summary
Criminal appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no miscarriage of justice occurred despite trial counsel acting inconsistently with his client’s instructions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the Animal Welfare Act 1999, s 28 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining an application to adduce further evidence.[2015] NZCA 621  CA 399/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 26  April 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
DOUGLAS JOHN WILLIAMSON v R [2016] NZSC 42    26 April 2016 (PDF, 73 KB)
Judgment appealed from

WILLIAMSON v R [2015] NZCA 621    18 December 2015
Case name
Karl Leslie Raymond Marwood v The Commissioner of Police and others
Case number
SC 11/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the High Court has no power to exclude improperly obtained evidence in a proceeding under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court Judge was wrong to exclude evidence. [2015] NZCA 608   CA 487/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Commissioner of Police v Marwood [2015] NZCA 608).
B The approved question is:Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that the High Court had no jurisdiction (or power) to exclude the challenged evidence obtained by search of the applicant’ s premises and, if so, should the challenged evidence be excluded in this proceeding?11 April 2016
_____________
A The disputed evidence is admissible in these proceedings.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.26 October 2016
Transcripts
Media Releases
Court of Appeal decision
THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v MARWOOD & ORS [2015] NZCA 608 [17 December 2015]
Leave judgment - leave granted
KARL LESLIE RAYMOND MARWOOD v THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2016] NZSC 36 [11 April 2016] (PDF, 63 KB)
Substantive judgment
KARL LESLIE RAYMOND MARWOOD v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2016] NZSC 139 [26 October 2016] (PDF, 350 KB)
Case name
The Queen v GJA and Privacy Commissioner (intervener)
Case number
SC 12/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in excluding evidence on the basis that it was improperly obtained.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (R v Alsford [2015] NZCA 628).
B The issues are:
(i)  whether the electricity consumption records were improperly obtained from the service provider;
(ii) whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that evidence that had earlier been excluded as improperly obtained could not be relied on; and
(iii)  whether, even if improperly obtained, the evidence should be admitted under s 30(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 2006.
15 March 2016
_____________
A The appeal is allowed. The evidence obtained from the searches conducted on 19 December 2012 is admissible at trial.
B Order prohibiting publication of the judgment or any part of the proceedings (including the result) in the news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the trial. Publication in a law report or law digest permitted.
29 March 2017
Date of hearing
16 June 2016
Leave judgment - leave granted
R v GREGORY JOHN ALSFORD [2016] NZSC 21 [15 March 2016] (PDF, 12 KB)
Substantive judgment
R v GREGORY JOHN ALSFORD [2017] NZSC 42 [29 March 2017] (PDF, 505 KB)
Case name
Auckland Council v Wendco (NZ) Limited and Wiri Licensing Trust
Case number
SC 14/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991, s 95E – Whether the Court of Appeal interpreted the phrase “related to” in s 95E too broadly – Whether the first respondent is an affected person in terms of the second respondent’s application for resource consent. [2015] NZCA 617  CA 379/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Wendco (NZ) Ltd v Auckland Council [2015] NZCA 617).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the Auckland Council was required to give Wendco (NZ) Ltd notification of the resource consent application made by the Wiri Licensing Trust.
16 June 2016
_____________________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the judgment of Peters J reinstated.
B Costs in the High Court are to be fixed in that Court.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal are to be fixed by that Court.  
D In this Court, the first respondent is to pay the appellant costs of $10,000 and the second respondent costs of $5,000 along with, in both instances, reasonable disbursements.
17 July 2017
Transcripts
Media Releases
High Court decision
WENDCO (NZ) LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2014] NZHC 1481 [27 June 2014]
Court of Appeal decision
WENDCO (NZ) LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2015] NZCA 617 [18 December 2015]
Leave judgment - leave granted
AUCKLAND COUNCIL v WENDCO (NZ) LIMITED [2016] NZSC 67 [16 June 2016] (PDF, 9 KB)
Substantive judgment
AUCKLAND COUNCIL v WENDCO (NZ) LIMITED [2017] NZSC 113 [17 July 2017] (PDF, 368 KB)
Case name
Mangawhai Ratepayers’ and Residents’ Association Inc v Kaipara District Council
Case number
SC 15/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of ss 117–120 of the Local Government Act 2002 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the scope of the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Act 2013 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in awarding costs against the Association.[2015] NZCA  612   CA 331/2014
Result
A   The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.  
B   The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.        
3 May 2016
High Court decision
MANGAWHAI RATEPAYERS' AND RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION INC v KAIPARA DISTRICT COUNCIL [2014] NZHC 1147     28 May 2014
High Court decision
MANGAWHAI RATEPAYERS' AND RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION INC v KAIPARA DISTRICT COUNCIL [2014] NZHC 1742     25 July 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MANGAWHAI RATEPAYERS' AND RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED v KAIPARADISTRICT COUNCIL [2016] NZSC 48         3 May 2016 (PDF, 128 KB)
Judgment appealed from

MANGAWHAI RATEPAYERS AND RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED v KAIPARA DISTRICT COUNCIL [2015] NZCA 612     17 December 2015
Case name
New Zealand Aluminium Smelters Limited v Weller & Ors
Case number
SC 20/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 7A of the Holidays Act 1981. [2016] NZCA 19    CA 313/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
27 April 2016
Employment Court decision
NEW ZEALAND ALUMINIUM SMELTERS LIMITED v WELLER and 63 others NZEmpCCHRISTCHURCH [2014] NZEmpC 74       16 May 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
NEW ZEALAND ALUMINIUM SMELTERS LTD v ANDREW WELLER & OTHERS [2016] NZSC 44 27 April 2016 (PDF, 127 KB)
Judgment appealed from

NEW ZEALAND ALUMINIUM SMELTERS LIMITED v ANDREW WELLER AND 63 OTHERS
[2016] NZCA 19    22 February 2016
Case name
John Morgan MacKenzie v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 21/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Limitation Act 1950 – Whether the High Court erred in its interpretation of the Limitation Act 1950.   [2015] NZHC 1876    CIV 2012-470-000977
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.                      
1 June 2016                                                                                           __
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JOHN MORGAN MACKENZIE v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2016] NZSC 60    1 June 2016 (PDF, 12 KB)
Recall judgment
JOHN MORGAN MACKENZIE v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2016] NZSC 110 [23 August 2016] (PDF, 12 KB)
Judgment appealed from

MACKENZIE v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2015] NZHC 1876     11 August 2015
Case name
C v The Queen
Case number
SC 23/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the offence for controlled drug analogues is sufficiently certain to found a safe prosecution – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Trial Judge’s directions were correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in regard to the mens rea requirements for the offence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in relation to the defences available to the applicants – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that the question whether a substance is a controlled drug analogue is one for the jury.[2016] NZCA 48  CA 287/2015 CA 161/2015
Result

A Leave to appeal against conviction is granted to all applicants (JPC v R [2016] NZCA 48) (Ellen France P, Wild and Miller JJ).
B Subject to order C below, the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the applicants’ appeal against conviction.
C In relation to JPC's application for leave to appeal against conviction, the approved question is qualified so as to exclude his contention that the verdicts on one charge on which he was acquitted and another on which he was convicted were inconsistent.
D JPC’s application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

14 July 2016

____________________

Judgment released                                                                                              

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final dispositon of related trials of Appellants C (SC 23/2016) and L (SC 24/2016). Publication in Law Report or Law Digest permitted.                                                                                                                       

19 June 2017                            
Leave judgment

not publicly available
Judgment appealed from

JPC v R [2016] NZCA 48) (Ellen France P, Wild and Miller JJ not electronically available
Case name
AL v The Queen
Case number
SC 24/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the offence for controlled drug analogues is sufficiently certain to found a safe prosecution – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Trial Judge’s directions were correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in regard to the mens rea requirements for the offence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in relation to the defences available to the applicants – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that the question whether a substance is a controlled drug analogue is one for the jury.[2016] NZCA 48 CA 287/2015 CA 161/2015 
Result

A Leave to appeal against conviction is granted to all applicants (JPC v R [2016] NZCA 48) (Ellen France P, Wild and Miller JJ).
B Subject to order C below, the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the applicants’ appeal against conviction.
C In relation to JPC's application for leave to appeal against conviction, the approved question is qualified so as to exclude his contention that the verdicts on one charge on which he was acquitted and another on which he was convicted were inconsistent.
D JPC’s application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

14 July 2016

____________________

Judgment released                                                                                              

Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final dispositon of related trials of Appellants C (SC 23/2016) and L (SC 24/2016). Publication in Law Report or Law Digest permitted.

19 June 2017                       
Leave judgment

not publicly available
Judgment appealed from

[2016] NZCA 48 CA 287/2015 CA 161/2015 not available
Case name
SL v The Queen
Case number
SC 25/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the offence for controlled drug analogues is sufficiently certain to found a safe prosecution – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Trial Judge’s directions were correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in regard to the mens rea requirements for the offence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in relation to the defences available to the applicants – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that the question whether a substance is a controlled drug analogue is one for the jury  [2016] NZCA 48  CA 162/2015
Result

A Leave to appeal against conviction is granted to all applicants (JPC v R [2016] NZCA 48) (Ellen France P, Wild and Miller JJ).
B Subject to order C below, the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the applicants’ appeal against conviction.
C In relation to JPC's application for leave to appeal against conviction, the approved question is qualified so as to exclude his contention that the verdicts on one charge on which he was acquitted and another on which he was convicted were inconsistent.
D JPC’s application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

14 July 2016

__________________________

A notice of abandonment having been lodged, the appeal is deemed dismissed.
31 March 2017
Hearing

21 and 22 November 2016

William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O'Regan and McGrath JJ
Judgment appealed from

[2016] NZCA 48 CA 287/2015 CA 161/2015 not available
Page 24 of 117