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
Janet Elsie Lowe v Director General of Health, Ministry of Health and Chief Executive, Capital and Coast District Health Board
Case number
SC 97/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000, s 5 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the term “engaged” in the definition of “homeworker” in s 5 – Whether the Court of Appeal acted outside its jurisdiction. [2016] NZCA 369 CA169/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved question is whether the applicant was a “homeworker” within the meaning of s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and deemed to be an employee of the first and second respondents when she undertook support care pursuant to the Carer Support scheme.
2 November 2016
_____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no award of costs.
7 August 2017
________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 7 August 2017 (Lowe v Director-General of Health [2017] NZSC 115) is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
18 December 2017
B The approved question is whether the applicant was a “homeworker” within the meaning of s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and deemed to be an employee of the first and second respondents when she undertook support care pursuant to the Carer Support scheme.
2 November 2016
_____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no award of costs.
7 August 2017
________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 7 August 2017 (Lowe v Director-General of Health [2017] NZSC 115) is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
18 December 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 February 2017 (PDF, 510 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 115 (PDF, 263 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Transcription hearing date 23 November 2017 (PDF, 183 KB)
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Case name
Lakes International Golf Management Limited and The Lakes International Golf Course Limited v Hartley Clendon Vincent
Case number
SC 99/2016
Summary
Civil Proceedings – Whether the Court of Appeal adopted the correct approach to the use of extrinsic evidence when interpreting a covenant. [2016] NZCA 382 CA 699/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Vincent v Lakes International Golf Management Ltd [2016] NZCA 382).
B The approved questions are:
(i) Was the Court of Appeal correct to take into account, in its interpretation of the instrument creating the registered covenant (the covenant), extrinsic evidence of the factual matrix in which the covenant came into existence?
(ii) Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the Lakes Resort Golf Club operated by the First Applicant is not the “Golf Club” for the purposes of cl 7 of the covenant?
21 November 2016
____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The respondent is entitled to $25,000 costs plus usual disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We certify for second counsel.
29 June 2017
B The approved questions are:
(i) Was the Court of Appeal correct to take into account, in its interpretation of the instrument creating the registered covenant (the covenant), extrinsic evidence of the factual matrix in which the covenant came into existence?
(ii) Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the Lakes Resort Golf Club operated by the First Applicant is not the “Golf Club” for the purposes of cl 7 of the covenant?
21 November 2016
____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The respondent is entitled to $25,000 costs plus usual disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We certify for second counsel.
29 June 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 March 2017 (PDF, 682 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 99 (PDF, 258 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Dean James Charlton v The Queen
Case number
SC 102/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was sufficient evidence to support the applicant’s conviction for rape. [2016] NZCA 212 CA452/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
9 February 2017
9 February 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
DEAN JAMES CHARLTON v R [2017] NZSC 5 9 February 2017 (PDF, 120 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company Limited v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated and Minister of Conservation
Case number
SC 106/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Conservation Act 1987, s 18(7). [2016] NZCA 411 CA118/2016
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are granted (Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated v Minister of Conservation [2016] NZCA 411).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.
13 December 2016
_____________________
A The appeals are dismissed.
B Costs are reserved. If an order for costs is sought, the parties may file written submissions within one month of the date of judgment.
6 July 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.
13 December 2016
_____________________
A The appeals are dismissed.
B Costs are reserved. If an order for costs is sought, the parties may file written submissions within one month of the date of judgment.
6 July 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 - 28 February 2017 (PDF, 1.2 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 106 (PDF, 267 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Minister of Conservation v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated and Hawke's Bay Regional Investment Company Limited
Case number
SC 107/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Conservation Act 1987, s 18(7). [2016] NZCA 411 CA118/2016
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are granted (Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated v Minister of Conservation [2016] NZCA 411).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.
13 December 2016
__________________________
A The appeals are dismissed.
B Costs are reserved. If an order for costs is sought, the parties may file written submissions within one month of the date of judgment.
6 July 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.
13 December 2016
__________________________
A The appeals are dismissed.
B Costs are reserved. If an order for costs is sought, the parties may file written submissions within one month of the date of judgment.
6 July 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 - 28 February 2017 (PDF, 1.2 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 106 (PDF, 267 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Dillin Pakai v The Queen
Case number
SC 110/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the jury verdicts were not unreasonable as the jury could reasonably have rejected that the applicants were acting in self defence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial Judge’s directions on youth and party liability were adequate – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the common law does not recognise a partial defence of excessive force – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the prosecutor had not improperly impeached the credibility of a defence witness – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that communications between the applicants were lawfully intercepted and so were admissible as evidence at trial.[2016] NZCA 343 CA663/2014
Result
A The time for filing the applications for leave to appeal is extended.
B The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
8 March 2017
B The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
8 March 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
DILLIN PAKAI v R [2017] NZSC 27 8 March 2017 (PDF, 83 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Shane Pierre Harrison v The Queen
Case number
SC 111/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the jury verdicts were not unreasonable as the jury could reasonably have rejected that the applicants were acting in self defence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial Judge’s directions on youth and party liability were adequate – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the common law does not recognise a partial defence of excessive force – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the prosecutor had not improperly impeached the credibility of a defence witness – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that communications between the applicants were lawfully intercepted and so were admissible as evidence at trial. [2016] NZCA 343 CA554/2014
Result
A The time for filing the applications for leave to appeal is extended.
B The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed. 8 March 2017
B The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed. 8 March 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
DILLIN PAKAI v R [2017] NZSC 27 8 March 2017 (PDF, 83 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Samuel Owen Weenink v The Queen
Case number
SC 113/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Whether there has been a miscarriage of justice due to inconsistency of verdicts – Whether fresh evidence gives rise to a miscarriage of justice. [2016] NZCA 667 CA17/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
9 February 2017
9 February 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Morton v R [2013] NZCA 667 not available__
Case name
Dinh Tu Do v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 114/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the order made by the District Court Judge under s 65B of the Land Transport Act 1998 did not operate retrospectively – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding the sentencing Judge was not required to give a warning at the time of the first offence that a s 65B order could be made if a second offence was later committed. [2016] NZCA 420 CA600/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
13 February 2017
13 February 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Solicitor-General's Reference (No 1 of 2016) from CRI 2015-485-52, High Court at Christchurch
Case number
SC 118/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Land Transport Act 1998 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the requirements of s 90 of the Land Transport Act 1998 had not been met – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding the correct remedy was the quashing of the defendant’s conviction. [2016] NZCA 417 CA663/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Solicitor-General’s Reference (No 1 of 2016) [2016] NZCA 417).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to answer the two questions before it in the way that it did.
19 December 2016
______________
A The appeal is allowed. The answers given by the Court of Appeal to the questions on the Solicitor-General’ s reference are set aside.
B In substitution, the questions of law are answered as follows:
(a) Question One: Was the High Court correct to conclude that the requirements of s 90 of the Land Transport Act 1998 had not been met in this case?
Answer: No.
(b) Question Two: If the requirements of s 90 were not met, was the correct remedy the quashing of the defendant’ s conviction?
Answer: Does not arise for determination.
3 May 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to answer the two questions before it in the way that it did.
19 December 2016
______________
A The appeal is allowed. The answers given by the Court of Appeal to the questions on the Solicitor-General’ s reference are set aside.
B In substitution, the questions of law are answered as follows:
(a) Question One: Was the High Court correct to conclude that the requirements of s 90 of the Land Transport Act 1998 had not been met in this case?
Answer: No.
(b) Question Two: If the requirements of s 90 were not met, was the correct remedy the quashing of the defendant’ s conviction?
Answer: Does not arise for determination.
3 May 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 28 March 2017 (PDF, 243 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 58 (PDF, 310 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 29 of 117