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
B v Waitemata District Health Board
Case number
SC 60/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the respondent’s smoke-free policy did not breach the applicant’ s rights under the Bill of Rights Act 1990. [2016] NZCA 184 CA524/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (B v Waitemata District Health Board [2016] NZCA 184).
B Costs are reserved.
25 August 2016
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
14 June 2017
B Costs are reserved.
25 August 2016
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
14 June 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 November 2016 (PDF, 533 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 88 (PDF, 260 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
ASG v Harlene Hayne
Case number
SC 61/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Criminal procedure Act, s 200 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of "publication" under s 200 – Was information relied on by the employer obtained contrary to an order made under s 200 and if so, does it matter. [2016] NZCA 203 CA703/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (ASG v Hayne [2016] NZCA 203)
B The approved questions are:
(i) Did the disclosure to the respondent of information relating to the applicant’s appearance in the District Court breach s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011? And, if so
(ii) Was it nonetheless open to the respondent to rely on and use that information in relation to the applicant?
18 August 2016
___________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay to the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary).
3 May 2017
B The approved questions are:
(i) Did the disclosure to the respondent of information relating to the applicant’s appearance in the District Court breach s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011? And, if so
(ii) Was it nonetheless open to the respondent to rely on and use that information in relation to the applicant?
18 August 2016
___________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay to the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary).
3 May 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 February 2017 (PDF, 301 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 59 (PDF, 266 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Camille Iriana Thompson v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 63/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 compensation in relation to judicial acts. [2016] NZCA 215 CA590/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B We make no award of costs.
7 October 2016
________________________________________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 7 October 2016 (Thompson v The Attorney-General [2016] NZSC 134) is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
27 March 2023
B We make no award of costs.
7 October 2016
________________________________________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 7 October 2016 (Thompson v The Attorney-General [2016] NZSC 134) is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
27 March 2023
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Michael Brian Ogden v The Queen
Case number
SC 66/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the error made by the District Court Judge in considering a formal written statement which was on the court file but had not been admitted in evidence was not so gross, prejudicial or irremediable as to render the trial unfair. [2016] NZCA 214 CA609/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
3 August 2016
3 August 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MICHAEL BRIAN OGDEN v R [2016] NZSC 97 3 August 2016 (PDF, 81 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Olivia Waiyee Lee v Whangarei District Council
Case number
SC 68/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the limitation provisions of the Building Act 2004 and Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006.[2016] NZCA 258 CA656/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Olivia Waiyee Lee v Whangarei District Council [2016] NZCA 258).
B The approved question is whether, in terms of s 37 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006, the application for an assessor’ s report, “stopped the clock” for limitation purposes with regard to the proceedings against the respondent.
C In all other respects the application is dismissed.
3 August 2016
____________
A The appeal is allowed. The order for summary judgment is set aside.
B Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellant. We certify for second counsel.
C If not agreed, costs are to be set in the High Court and the Court of Appeal in the light of this judgment.
22 December 2016
B The approved question is whether, in terms of s 37 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006, the application for an assessor’ s report, “stopped the clock” for limitation purposes with regard to the proceedings against the respondent.
C In all other respects the application is dismissed.
3 August 2016
____________
A The appeal is allowed. The order for summary judgment is set aside.
B Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellant. We certify for second counsel.
C If not agreed, costs are to be set in the High Court and the Court of Appeal in the light of this judgment.
22 December 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 19 October 2016 (PDF, 425 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 173 (PDF, 258 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Murray Athold Osmond and Janet Doreen Osmond v David Murray Blanchett and Colin Thomas McCloy as liquidators of Arai Korp Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 69/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to hearing an appeal from summary judgment proceedings – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its evaluation of the evidence. [2016] NZCA 204 CA358/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed
B The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $2,500
26 August 2016
B The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $2,500
26 August 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Derek Peter Wheeldon and Carol Ann Wheeldon, Anthony John Butcher and Ruth Barbara Rogers, Larry Lawrence Small and KM Trustees Services Limited, Ivor Anthony Millington and Neville Eade v Body Corporate 342525
Case number
SC 70/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal –– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 138(1)(d) of the Unit Titles Act 2010 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 49(1) of the Building Act 2004 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Building Code. [2016] NZCA 247 CA290/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed B The applicants are to pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
14 September 2016
14 September 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Auckland Council and James Hardie New Zealand v Weathertight Homes Tribunal, and The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and Body Corporate 19500, and Gefei Liang and Others
Case number
SC 72/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the effect of s 141(4) of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 is that the multi-unit complex claim does not need to independently meet the s 16(a) eligibility criterion for resolution – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the effect of s 141(4) of the 2006 Act is that all of the claimants represented in the multi-unit complex claim receive the benefit of the date the withdrawn claim was brought under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 for the purposes of s 37 of the 2006 Act.[2016] NZCA 256 CA552/2015, CA564/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants to the second respondent.
C Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants to the third and fourth respondents.
16 September 2016
B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants to the second respondent.
C Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants to the third and fourth respondents.
16 September 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Sara-Jane Skeet v The Queen
Case number
SC 74/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against her convictions for blackmail and kidnapping – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the elements of the offence of blackmail as set out in s 237 of the Crimes Act 1961. [2016] NZCA 198 CA210/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
6 September 2016
6 September 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SARA-JANE SKEET v R [2016] NZSC 120 6 September 2016 (PDF, 84 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Peter Anthony Williams v Trevor Nelson Cameron and Robin Whalley and Richards Woodhouse
Case number
SC 78/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining an application for extension of time to appeal, on the basis that the applicant alleges that the respondents’ lawyers have acted in breach of Rules of Conduct and Client Care. [2016] NZCA 317 CA136/2016
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed
B The applicant must pay the respondents costs of $2,500
5 September 2016
B The applicant must pay the respondents costs of $2,500
5 September 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 27 of 117