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
David Brown and Glen Sycamore v New Zealand Basing Limited
Case number
SC 145/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that by selecting a different legal jurisdiction to govern their relationship, the parties could contract out of the right in the Employment Relations Act to be free from dismissal and discrimination based on age.[2016] NZCA 525 CA12/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (New Zealand Basing Ltd v Brown [2016] NZCA 525, [2017] 2 NZLR 93).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that age discrimination provisions of the Employment Relations Act 2000 do not apply to the employment agreements between the applicants and the respondent.
17 February 2017
_________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Employment Court is restored.
B The order for costs made in the Court of Appeal is set aside.
C The respondent is to pay the appellants costs in respect of the Court of Appeal hearing, to be fixed by that Court, and in respect of this appeal costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 September 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that age discrimination provisions of the Employment Relations Act 2000 do not apply to the employment agreements between the applicants and the respondent.
17 February 2017
_________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Employment Court is restored.
B The order for costs made in the Court of Appeal is set aside.
C The respondent is to pay the appellants costs in respect of the Court of Appeal hearing, to be fixed by that Court, and in respect of this appeal costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 September 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 13 June 2017 (PDF, 611 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 139 (PDF, 260 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
H v The Queen
Case number
SC 146/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 35 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that evidence of the complainant’s prior consistent statement was properly admitted at trial – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against sentence. [2016] NZCA 413 CA498/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 18 August 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited v McIntyre and Williamson Partnership & Ors
Case number
SC 150/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – s 106 Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondents were “new entrants” for the purpose of s 106 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the appellant breached s 106 in offering the respondents the terms of supply set out in the milk supply agreements signed by the respondents.CA 736/2015 [2016] NZCA 538
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Fonterra Co Operative Group Ltd v McIntyre and Williamson Partnership [2016] NZCA 538).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to answer the following two questions in the affirmative:
(a) Were the respondents “new entrants” for the purposes of s 106 of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001?
(b) If so, did the appellant breach s 106 in offering the respondents the terms of supply set out in the milk supply agreements signed by the respondents?
10 April 2017
__________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay the respondents costs of $30,000 and reasonable disbursements to be determined by the Registrar if necessary. We allow for second counsel.
21 December 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to answer the following two questions in the affirmative:
(a) Were the respondents “new entrants” for the purposes of s 106 of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001?
(b) If so, did the appellant breach s 106 in offering the respondents the terms of supply set out in the milk supply agreements signed by the respondents?
10 April 2017
__________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay the respondents costs of $30,000 and reasonable disbursements to be determined by the Registrar if necessary. We allow for second counsel.
21 December 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 - 28 July 2017 (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 197 (PDF, 289 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Michael Kristian Olsen v The Queen
Case number
SC 152/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the applicant’s claim of trial counsel error – Whether fresh evidence undermines the safety of the applicant’s conviction. [2016] NZCA 256 CA632/2014
Result
A The application for an extension of time is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 2 March 2017
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 2 March 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MICHAEL KRISTIAN OLSEN v R [2017] NZSC 18 2 March 2017 (PDF, 132 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Kamal Singh v The Queen
Case number
SC 153/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 44 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 44. CA 197/2016 [2016] NZCA 552
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
24 March 2017
24 March 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
KAMAL SINGH v R [2017] NZSC 37 [24 March 2017] (PDF, 89 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Duncan John Napier and Sara Ann Napier v Torbay Holdings Limited and Torbay Rest Home Limited
Case number
SC 155/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Restitution – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicants were liable for money had and received – s 161 Employment Relations Act 2000 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that an action for negligence did not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority.CA 647/2015 [2016] NZCA 608
Result
A notice of abandonment having been filed the appeal is deemed to be dismissed. 06 April 2017
Case name
K v Immigration and Protection Tribunal and Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Case number
SC 1/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Immigration – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to properly consider the evidence in breach of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal misapplied ss 130 and 131 of the Immigration Act 2009 – Whether it was incorrect to dismiss the proceedings on a summary basis.[2014] NZCA 585 CA 500/214
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 14 May 2015
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Ioane Teitiota v The Chief Executive of Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment
Case number
SC 7/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Immigration Act 2009, s 245 – Whether the word “Refugee” constitutes and incorporates those who are refugees by way of climate change – Whether the Tribunal erred in its finding that because all people in Kiribati suffer the same results of global warming, that this disqualifies the application from claiming refugee status – Whether the Tribunal failed to consider indirect human agency – Whether the Tribunal failed to consider the relevant international law relevant to the welfare of the applicant’s children – Whether the tribunal erred in failing to consider the children of the applicant separately – Whether the Tribunal erred when it made a finding of fact that the applicant’ s supplies of food and water were adequate.[2014] NZCA 173 CA 50/2014
Result
A The application for leave to adduce further evidence is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order for costs. 20 July 2015
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order for costs. 20 July 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date : 1 April 2015 (PDF, 433 KB)
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Transcript
Immigration and Protection Tribunal decision
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer and Jane Dinsdale Siemer v Kevin Stanley Brown and others
Case number
SC 8/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial Review – Whether the High Court incorrectly applied test for apprehended bias – Whether the High Court provided counsel with opportunity to be heard – Whether there was an inordinate delay of judgment – Whether the High Court made factual findings contrary to uncontested evidence – Whether the Judge was required to disqualify himself under Section F(1) of the New Zealand Guidelines for Judicial Conduct – Whether there was a breach of natural justice.[2014] NZHC 3175 Civ 2008 044 517
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 April 2015
_____________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
5 May 2015
20 April 2015
_____________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
5 May 2015
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Dawn Lorraine Greenfield v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
Case number
SC 10/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that significant physical presence in New Zealand is required for an applicant to be ‘ ordinarily resident in New Zealand’ within the meaning of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its treatment of the applicant’ s intention to resume living in New Zealand.[2014] NZCA 611 CA 351/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted (Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development v Greenfield [2014] NZCA 611). The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted the phrase “ordinarily resident in New Zealand” in s 8(a) of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001.
11 May 2015
________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
24September 2015
___________________
Application for recall dismissed.
27 October 2015
11 May 2015
________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
24September 2015
___________________
Application for recall dismissed.
27 October 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 August 2015 (PDF, 410 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 139 (PDF, 250 KB)
Additional document
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 31 of 117