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
Alan Ivo Greer v Ray Smith and Jack Harrison
Case number
SC 80/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Habeus Corpus Act 2001 – Whether High Court correctly applied Habeus Corpus Act. [2014] NZHC 326 CIV 2015-412-15
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
21 September 2015
____________________________________________
Application for recall is dismissed.
10 February 2016
21 September 2015
____________________________________________
Application for recall is dismissed.
10 February 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Additional document
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Morton v The Queen
Case number
SC 86/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against pre-trial ruling – Evidence Act 2006, s 49 – Appellant charged as party to offending when principals convicted in previous trial – Whether exceptional circumstances exist to direct that convictions are not conclusive evidence of principal offending.[2015] NZCA 322 CA 266/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (M v R [2015] NZCA 322).B The approved question is:“Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of ss 44 and 49 of the Evidence Act 2006”.
27 August 2015
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B Permission under s 49(2)(a) of the Evidence Act 2006 is given to the appellant to adduce evidence from himself and the co-defendants in which they may give their accounts of their interactions with the complainant on the night of the offending and as to the prior sexual relationship of one of the co-defendants with the complainant.
C Permission is refused in respect of the recantation and inconsistent conduct evidence and the evidence referred to in [74] (other than that identified in [77]).
D There is no direction under s 49(2)(b).
5 May 2016
27 August 2015
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B Permission under s 49(2)(a) of the Evidence Act 2006 is given to the appellant to adduce evidence from himself and the co-defendants in which they may give their accounts of their interactions with the complainant on the night of the offending and as to the prior sexual relationship of one of the co-defendants with the complainant.
C Permission is refused in respect of the recantation and inconsistent conduct evidence and the evidence referred to in [74] (other than that identified in [77]).
D There is no direction under s 49(2)(b).
5 May 2016
Date of hearing
18 November 2015
Judges
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Substantive judgment
Case name
JWB v The Queen
Case number
SC 88/2015
Summary
Criminal appeal – Whether the trial Judge’s directions in relation to s 168 of the Crimes Act 1961 risked miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002. [2015] NZCA 306 CA 687/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
16 March 2016
Case name
Carter Holt Harvey Limited v Minister of Education, Secretary for Education, Ministry for Education, and Board of Trustees of Orewa Primary School
Case number
SC 93/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Negligence – Building Act 2004, s 392(2) limitation period – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the longstop limitation provision under s 393(2) of the Building Act does not apply to claims made in this proceeding – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding not to strike out the respondents’ claims in negligence against Carter Holt Harvey.[2015] NZCA 321 CA 238/2014
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal are granted (Carter Holt Harvey Ltd v Minister of Education [2015] NZCA 321, (2015) 14 TCLR 106).
B The approved grounds are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that:
(i) The claims in negligence are arguable;
(ii) The claims for negligent misstatement are not arguable; and(iii) Section 393 of the Building Act 2004 does not apply to the claims.
30 November 2015
____________________
A The appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
B The respondents’ cross-appeal is allowed.
C The order striking out the negligent misstatement cause of action is quashed.D The appellant must pay to the respondents (collectively) costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
29 July 2016
B The approved grounds are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that:
(i) The claims in negligence are arguable;
(ii) The claims for negligent misstatement are not arguable; and(iii) Section 393 of the Building Act 2004 does not apply to the claims.
30 November 2015
____________________
A The appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
B The respondents’ cross-appeal is allowed.
C The order striking out the negligent misstatement cause of action is quashed.D The appellant must pay to the respondents (collectively) costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
29 July 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 13 - 15 April 2016 (PDF, 1.5 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] 95 (PDF, 248 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Brown v The Queen
Case number
SC 94/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Refusal of pre-trial application to dismiss charges based on delay – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of s 322 of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989. [2015] NZCA 3215 CA 320/2015
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 October 2015
20 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Brown v R [2015] NZCA 325 (Wild, Keane and Kó s JJ) not available
Case name
Dion Edward Gurran v The Queen
Case number
SC 96/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in stating that the trial Judge’s reliability warning was sufficient for the purposes of s 122 of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not granting leave to adduce fresh evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial Judge adequately summarised the defence case to the jury. [2015] NZCA 347 CA 412/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
1 February 2016
1 February 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Jeremy George Edward McLaughlin v The Queen
Case number
SC 97/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether DNA evidence was misused at trial – Whether the trial judge’s direction as to lies was inadequate – Whether a direction under s 32 Evidence Act 2006 was required – Whether the summing up was unfair. [2015] NZCA 339 CA 752/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
3 November 2015
3 November 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
John Grant Cuthers v The Queen
Case number
SC 99/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, ss 167(b) and 168(1)(a) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the High Court Judge was correct not to direct that jury that they had to be unanimous as to the applicant’ s knowledge.[2015] NZCA 366 CA 186/014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
22 August 2016
22 August 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Gary Owen Burgess v TSB Bank Limited
Case number
SC 100/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Mortgagee sale – Property Law Act 2007, s 119 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the notice issued under s 119 was not invalid – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondent did not have to specify the consequences of not remedying the default. [2015] NZCA 361 CA 47/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The applicant must pay the respondent costs on an indemnity basis.
3 February 2016
3 February 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Escrow Holdings Forty-One Limited and Kallina Limited v District Court at Auckland and Body Corporate 341188 and others
Case number
SC 108/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property Law Act 1952 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the land covenant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to give any weight to extrinsic evidence in the interpretation of the covenant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to give proper weight to the distinction between a covenant and an easement as distinguished in the Property Law Act. [2015] NZCA 393 CA 185/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Body Corporate 341188 v District Court at Auckland [2015] NZCA 393).
B The approved ground is:Does the Deed of Covenant (when read alongside the Memorandum of Encumbrance) confer on the registered proprietors of Lot 2 the exclusive right to use the area shown as “A” on the plan attached to the Deed of Covenant (area “A”) for the purposes of car parking and the right to use the right of way shown as “F” and “G” on the same plan to access area “A”?
C We make a direction that service on the fourteenth to thirty-ninth respondents be dispensed with.
10 December 2015
___________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the second to twelfth respondents costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements, to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We certify for two counsel.
20 December 2016
B The approved ground is:Does the Deed of Covenant (when read alongside the Memorandum of Encumbrance) confer on the registered proprietors of Lot 2 the exclusive right to use the area shown as “A” on the plan attached to the Deed of Covenant (area “A”) for the purposes of car parking and the right to use the right of way shown as “F” and “G” on the same plan to access area “A”?
C We make a direction that service on the fourteenth to thirty-ninth respondents be dispensed with.
10 December 2015
___________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the second to twelfth respondents costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements, to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We certify for two counsel.
20 December 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 28 June 2016 (PDF, 624 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 167 (PDF, 251 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 35 of 117