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
KSC  v The Queen
Case number
SC 26/2016
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 356/2015
Result

Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.

15 April 2016
Judgment appealed from

[2016] NZCA 48  CA 356/2015 not available
Case name
JBG  v The Queen
Case number
SC 27/2016
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 160/2015
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 160/2015 not available
Case name
JPC  v The Queen
Case number
SC 28/2016
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 145/2015 
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 145/2015 not available
Case name
BM v The Queen
Case number
SC 31/2016
Summary
Criminal appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 195 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding the sentence was not manifestly excessive.[2016] NZCA 53  CA 599/2015
Result
The Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.                       20 June 2016                                                                                                            __
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
M(SC 31/2016) v R [2016] NZSC 72     20 June 2016 (PDF, 81 KB)
Judgment appealed from

M (CA559/2015) v R [2016] NZCA 53   9 March 2016
Case name
Prattley Enterprises Limited v Vero Insurance New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 32/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal incorrectly assessed the applicant’s entitlement under the insurance policy issued by the respondent – Whether the applicant is entitled to relief from the parties’ settlement agreement under s 6 of the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977.[2016] NZCA 67  CA 400/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Prattley Enterprises Limited v Vero Insurance New Zealand Limited [2016] NZCA 67).
B The approved grounds are:
(a) the nature and extent of the respondent’s liability under the insurance policy; and
(b) the effect of the release.
20 June 2016
____________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Prattley is to pay Vero costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.                                   
6 December 2016
Transcripts
Media Releases
High Court decision
PRATTLEY ENTERPRISES LIMITED v VERO INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1444 [24 June 2015]
Court of Appeal decision
PRATTLEY ENTERPRISES LIMITED v VERO INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2016] NZCA 67 [14 March 2016]
Leave judgment - leave granted
PRATTLEY ENTERPRISES LTD v VERO INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2016] NZSC 70 [20 June 2016] (PDF, 112 KB)
Substantive judgment
PRATTLEY ENTERPRISES LIMITED v VERO INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2016] NZSC 158 [6 December 2016] (PDF, 378 KB)
Case name
Michael Marino v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 35/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Application for habeus corpus – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of ss 91(1) and 90(2) of the Parole Act 2002.[2016] NZCA 117   CA 129/2016
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Marino v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZCA 133).  
B The approved question is: Did the Court of Appeal err in its interpretation of ss 90 and 91 of the Parole Act 2002 or in the application of those sections to the position of the applicant?       
6 May 2016
______________
A Mr Marino’s appeal is allowed.  Costs are reserved.
B Mr Booth’ s appeal is dismissed.
22 September 2016
Transcripts
Media Releases
High Court decision
MARINO v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2016] NZHC 459 [16 March 2016]
Court of Appeal decision
MICHAEL MARINO v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2016] NZCA 133 [15 April 2016]
Leave judgment - leave granted
MICHAEL MARINO v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2016] NZSC 52 [6 May 2016] (PDF, 13 KB)
Substantive judgment
EDWARD THOMAS BOOTH v R [2016] NZSC 127 [22 September 2016] (PDF, 368 KB)
Supreme court decision
Costs: MICHAEL MARINO v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2016] NZSC 148 [8 November 2016] (PDF, 76 KB)
Case name
Martin James Mailley v District Court at North Shore and New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 36/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 48(4) of the Extradition Act 1999.      [2016] NZCA 83   CA716/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.                       20 June 2016
High Court decision
MAILLEY v THE DISTRICT COURT AT NORTH SHORE [2014] NZHC 2816   12 November 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MARTIN JAMES MAILLEY v DISTRICT COURT AT NORTH SHORE [2016] NZSC 73    20 June 2016 (PDF, 72 KB)
Judgment appealed from

MAILLEY v DISTRICT COURT AT NORTH SHORE [2016] NZCA 83 23 March 2016
Case name
Cecilia Victoria Uhrle v The Queen
Case number
SC 38/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 66(2) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction – Whether the trial Judge’s direction to the jury incorrectly conflated foresight and intention in terms of common purpose liability under s 66(2).   [2015] NZCA 412   CA265/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
13 June 2016.
High Court decision
R v Uhrle [2013] NZHC 922  30 April 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CECILIA VICTORIA UHRLE v R [2016] NZSC 64    13 June 2016 (PDF, 74 KB)
Judgment appealed from

UHRLE & ORS v R [2015] NZCA 412    4 September 2015
Case name
Amanda Adele White and Anne Leoline Emily Freeman v Christopher Maurice Lynch and Stuart Gordon Spence
Case number
SC 42/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908, s 61A(2) - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the applicants had no further right of review.   [2016] NZCA 149   CA 740/2015
Result
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.                17 May 2016
High Court decision
White v Lynch [2015] NZHC 3202  15 December 2015 
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
AMANDA ADELE WHITE v CHRISTOPHER MAURICE LYNCH [2016] NZSC 55   17 May 2016 (PDF, 71 KB)
Judgment appealed from

WHITE v LYNCH [2016] NZCA 149    22 April 2016
CA judgment

White v Lynch [2016] NZCA 78    22 March 2016
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 44/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908, s 88B – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in expanding the scope of the order preventing the applicant from instituting civil proceedings without the leave of the High Court.   [2016] NZCA 43   CA278/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.                    
B Costs of $2,500 are payable to the respondent.                     21 June 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2016] NZSC 75 [21 June 2016] (PDF, 73 KB)
High Court decision
Attorney-General v Siemer [2014] NZHC 859    30 April 2014
Judgment appealed from

SIEMER v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2016] NZCA 43    4 March 2016
Page 25 of 117