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
Alistair Stuart Lyon v The Queen
Case number
SC 81/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Conviction Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its analysis of trial counsel competence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the evidence. [2016] NZCA 293 CA746/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
29 September 2016
29 September 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Bodie Hoani Ngapaki Stewart v The Queen
Case number
SC 82/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Juries Act 1981, s 22– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusion that the trial Judge was not wrong to discharge the second juror. [2016] NZCA 217 CA27/2016
Result
A The application for an extension of time to appeal is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
3 October 2016
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
3 October 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Narayan Prasad v The Queen
Case number
SC 83/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that deficiencies in reliability warning did not lead to a miscarriage of justice – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding no deficiencies in directions on previous acquittal evidence. [2016] NZCA 163 CA695/2014
Result
A An extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
3 November 2016
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
3 November 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
NARAYAN PRASAD v R [2016] NZSC 146 3 November 2016 (PDF, 83 KB)
High Court decision
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Green Growth No. 2 Limited v Queen Elizabeth The Second National Trust
Case number
SC 84/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the respondent was entitled to rectification of the covenant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the covenant was not invalid – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the respondent’s notification of the covenant was not wrongful in terms of s 81 of the Land Transfer Act 1952. [2016] NZCA 308 CA47/2015
Result
A The appeal is allowed to the extent only that the order for rectification is set aside.
B There is a declaration that for the purposes of cls 2 and 7 of the second schedule of the open space covenant references to “protected area” mean the whole block of land subject to the covenant.
C The appellant is to pay the respondent costs of $25,000 and usual disbursements.
17 August 2018
_______________________
A The application for partial recall of this Court’s judgment of 17 August 2018 (Green Growth No 2 Ltd v Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust [2018] NZSC 75) is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
26 November 2018
B There is a declaration that for the purposes of cls 2 and 7 of the second schedule of the open space covenant references to “protected area” mean the whole block of land subject to the covenant.
C The appellant is to pay the respondent costs of $25,000 and usual disbursements.
17 August 2018
_______________________
A The application for partial recall of this Court’s judgment of 17 August 2018 (Green Growth No 2 Ltd v Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust [2018] NZSC 75) is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
26 November 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 13 February 2018 (PDF, 547 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 75 (PDF, 68 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Case name
D v Immigration and Protection Tribunal New Zealand and Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Case number
SC 85/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Immigration Act 2009, s 249 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of s 249. [2016] NZCA 320 CA642/2015
Result
A notice of abandonment having been lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Yao Wei He v Zhixiong Chen
Case number
SC 88/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to grant an application for leave to adduce further evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal of the decision of the High Court. [2016] NZCA 340 CA435/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal and the application to adduce further evidence are dismissed.
B Costs of $7,500 are payable to the respondent.
21 November 2016
B Costs of $7,500 are payable to the respondent.
21 November 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Judgment appealed from
Case name
PricewaterhouseCoopers v Robert Bruce Walker and Ors
Case number
SC 89/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding an assignment of debt and security impermissible – Whether Court of Appeal erred in not finding proceedings to be an abuse of process.[2016] NZCA 338 CA475/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (PricewaterhouseCoopers v Walker [2016] NZCA 338)
B The approved question is: Did the Court of Appeal err in upholding the High Court’s refusal to stay the proceeding?
13 December 2016
_____________________________
A Leave is granted to the respondents and the intervener to adduce new evidence.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C We make no award of costs.
6 October 2017
B The approved question is: Did the Court of Appeal err in upholding the High Court’s refusal to stay the proceeding?
13 December 2016
_____________________________
A Leave is granted to the respondents and the intervener to adduce new evidence.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C We make no award of costs.
6 October 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 March 2017 (PDF, 360 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 151 (PDF, 272 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
G v The Queen
Case number
SC 92/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to hold that information obtained from a third party without a search warrant or production order is admissible as evidence in the applicant’ s trial. [2016] NZCA 390 CA161/2016
Result
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 disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
4 May 2017
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 disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
4 May 2017
Judgment appealed from
[2016] NZCA 390 CA161/2016
Case name
J v Accident Compensation Corporation
Case number
SC 93/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Accident Compensation Act 2001, s 103(2) – Whether High Court erred in holding the District Court was wrong to find that the applicant was unable because of personal injury to return to pre-injury employment.[2016] NZHC 1683 CIV-2015-412-000125
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
9 February 2017
9 February 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Leave hearing date : 25 November 2016
William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ
Case name
Scott v Williams
Case number
SC 95/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether value of legal practice properly set by High Court ¬– Whether Court of Appeal erred in value of award made under s 15 PRA – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding decision of the High Court to order sale of property. [2016] NZCA 356 CA 58/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal and leave to cross appeal are granted (Scott v Williams [2016] NZCA 356).
B The approved questions are:
(i) Was the approach taken in the lower courts to the valuation of the respondent’s practice correct?
(ii) Was the amount awarded to the applicant under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 correct?
(iii) Should the order that the Remuera properties be sold, rather than vested in the applicant, have been made?
9 November 2016
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed to the extent set out below.
B The cross-appeal is dismissed.
C The vesting order made by the Family Court is restored.
D The valuation by the Family Court of the respondent’s law practice is restored. The appellant’s share is $225,000.
E An order in the appellant’s favour of $520,000 is made under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. If not able to be agreed, the parties may file submissions on interest on or before 1 February 2018.
F Costs of $25,000 are awarded to the appellant, plus usual disbursements to be set by the Registrar if not agreed. The Court allows for two counsel.
11 December 2017
B The approved questions are:
(i) Was the approach taken in the lower courts to the valuation of the respondent’s practice correct?
(ii) Was the amount awarded to the applicant under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 correct?
(iii) Should the order that the Remuera properties be sold, rather than vested in the applicant, have been made?
9 November 2016
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed to the extent set out below.
B The cross-appeal is dismissed.
C The vesting order made by the Family Court is restored.
D The valuation by the Family Court of the respondent’s law practice is restored. The appellant’s share is $225,000.
E An order in the appellant’s favour of $520,000 is made under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. If not able to be agreed, the parties may file submissions on interest on or before 1 February 2018.
F Costs of $25,000 are awarded to the appellant, plus usual disbursements to be set by the Registrar if not agreed. The Court allows for two counsel.
11 December 2017
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 185 (PDF, 275 KB)
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
SCOTT v WILLIAMS [2016] NZSC 149 [9 November 2016] (PDF, 114 KB)
Substantive judgment
SCOTT v WILLIAMS [2017] NZSC 185 [11 December 2017] (PDF, 1.3 MB)
Supreme court decision
Page 28 of 117