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
Sajo Oyang Corporation and Southern Storm Fishing (2007) Limited v The Ministry for Primary Industries and The Director - General of the Ministry for Primary Industries
Case number
SC 35/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that non-defendant third parties do not have standing to participate in an application relating to the special circumstances exception to automatic forfeiture of property following conviction for specified fisheries offences under s 255C of the Fisheries Act 1996[2014] NZCA 46 CA 167/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $2,500 to the first and second respondents.
17 June 2014
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $2,500 to the first and second respondents.
17 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Paul Anthony Blair v The Queen
Case number
SC 36/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal –Evidence Act 2006, ss 46 and 126 – Whether voice identification evidence was admitted at trial contrary to the provisions of s 46 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that admitting the voice identification evidence did not materially affect the result and therefore there was no miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the case against the defendant did not depend “substantially” on the voice identification evidence within the meaning of the word contained at section 126.[2014] NZCA 101 CA 92/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal refused.
21 July 2014
21 July 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
PAUL ANTHONY BLAIR v R [2014] NZSC 92 21 July 2014 (PDF, 43 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Peter Charles York and Alpine Glacier Motel Limited v Westland District Council
Case number
SC 37/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Limitation Act 1950 – The Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the action was time-barred under the Limitation Act.[2014] NZCA 59 CA 774/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
16 June 2014
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
16 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Hamish McIntosh v John Howard Ross Fisk and David John Bridgman
Case number
SC 39/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the “gave value” defence pursuant to Allied Concrete v Meltzer [2015] NZSC 7 and s 296(3)(c) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the “alteration of position” defence in s 296(3)(c). [2016] NZCA 74 CA384/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal and to cross-appeal is granted (McIntosh v Fisk [2016] NZCA 74).
B The approved questions are:
(i) Whether an order should have been made setting aside all or part of the payment made by Ross Asset Management Limited (RAM) to the applicant and requiring the applicant to pay the relevant amount to the respondents.
(ii) If so, whether the order should have been to set aside the payment of all of the $954,047 paid to the applicant or $454,047, being the difference between the amount paid to the applicant and the $500,000 he invested with RAM.
26 May 2016
___________
A The appeal and cross appeal are dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay costs of $15,000 to the respondents together with reasonable disbursements.
26 May 2017
_________________
A The appellant is to pay interest at the rate of five per cent per annum on the sum of $454,047.62 from the date of the liquidators’ appointment (17 December 2012).
B There is no order as to costs.
31 August 2017
B The approved questions are:
(i) Whether an order should have been made setting aside all or part of the payment made by Ross Asset Management Limited (RAM) to the applicant and requiring the applicant to pay the relevant amount to the respondents.
(ii) If so, whether the order should have been to set aside the payment of all of the $954,047 paid to the applicant or $454,047, being the difference between the amount paid to the applicant and the $500,000 he invested with RAM.
26 May 2016
___________
A The appeal and cross appeal are dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay costs of $15,000 to the respondents together with reasonable disbursements.
26 May 2017
_________________
A The appellant is to pay interest at the rate of five per cent per annum on the sum of $454,047.62 from the date of the liquidators’ appointment (17 December 2012).
B There is no order as to costs.
31 August 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 July 2016 (PDF, 416 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 129 (PDF, 247 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Media release substantive judgment 26 May 2017 (PDF, 265 KB)
Supreme court decision
Case name
Abraham Eparaima Kohai v The Queen
Case number
SC 42/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – s 385 Crimes Act 1961 – Miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal should have granted an adjournment – Whether the Court of Appeal pre-determined the case – Whether relevant evidence was not properly considered by the Court of Appeal – Whether expert evidence was wrongly admitted at trial. [2014] NZCA 83 CA 101/2013
Result
Leave to appeal is granted (Kohai v R [2014] NZCA 83).
The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeal.
16 July 2014
____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
16 April 2015
The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeal.
16 July 2014
____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
16 April 2015
Case name
West City Construction Limited v Henry David Levin and David Stuart Vance as liquidators of St George Developments Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 43/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that there was no agreement to assign and/or equitable assignment of the bond monies – Whether the deed of assignment enabled the applicant to receive more towards the satisfaction of debt than it would receive or be likely to receive in the debtor’s liquidation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the sum payable under s 295 of the Companies Act 1993.[2014] NZCA 98 CA 101/2013
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Levin v West City Construction [2014] NZCA 98).
B The approved grounds of appeal are:
Whether the assignment of the development bond is a voidable transaction under s 292 of the Companies Act 1993; and
Whether the Court of Appeal correctly exercised the discretion under s 295 of the Companies Act.
7 August 2014
_______________________________________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the judgment of the Associate Judge in the High Court is restored.
B The liquidators are to pay the appellant costs and disbursements in respect of the appeal to the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court and costs in relation to the appeal to this Court in the sum of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
15 December 2014
B The approved grounds of appeal are:
Whether the assignment of the development bond is a voidable transaction under s 292 of the Companies Act 1993; and
Whether the Court of Appeal correctly exercised the discretion under s 295 of the Companies Act.
7 August 2014
_______________________________________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the judgment of the Associate Judge in the High Court is restored.
B The liquidators are to pay the appellant costs and disbursements in respect of the appeal to the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court and costs in relation to the appeal to this Court in the sum of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
15 December 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 17 November 2014 (PDF, 462 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 183 (PDF, 192 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
John David Wright v The Queen
Case number
SC 46/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sentencing Act 2002 – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong in principle – Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly categorised the offending as within band three of Nuku v R [2012] NZCA 584, [2013] 2 NZLR 39 – Whether the Court of Appeal paid insufficient regard to the sentencing hierarchy, the principles of sentence indication and other matters.[2014] NZCA 119 CA 831/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
7 July 2014
7 July 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JOHN DAVID WRIGHT v R [2014] NZSC 87 7 July 2014 (PDF, 50 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case Number
SC 46/2014
Case name
Christine Hamilton Thompson v Michael Leith Thompson
Case number
SC 50/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a sum received for a restraint of trade covenant against Mr Thompson personally was not relationship property under ss 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(l) of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a sum received for a restraint of trade covenant against Mr Thompson personally should not be treated, in the Court’s discretion, as relationship property, either in whole or in part, under s 9(4) of the Act. [2014] NZCA 117 CA 701/2013; CA 711/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Thompson v Thompson [2014] NZCA 117).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the sum received by the respondent for giving the restraint of trade covenant:
(a) was not relationship property under s 8(1)(e) or s 8(1)(l) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976; and, in the alternative,
(b) should not be treated
5 August 2014
_________________________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside.
B The $8 million restraint of trade payment received by Mr Thompson is declared to be relationship property.
C The case is remitted to the Family Court for the making of such orders as may be necessary to give effect to the declaration.
D The appellant is awarded costs of $25,000 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar in respect of the appeal to this Court and costs and disbursements in respect of the proceedings in the Family Court, High Court and Court of Appeal to be fixed by those Courts.
13 March 2015
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the sum received by the respondent for giving the restraint of trade covenant:
(a) was not relationship property under s 8(1)(e) or s 8(1)(l) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976; and, in the alternative,
(b) should not be treated
5 August 2014
_________________________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside.
B The $8 million restraint of trade payment received by Mr Thompson is declared to be relationship property.
C The case is remitted to the Family Court for the making of such orders as may be necessary to give effect to the declaration.
D The appellant is awarded costs of $25,000 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar in respect of the appeal to this Court and costs and disbursements in respect of the proceedings in the Family Court, High Court and Court of Appeal to be fixed by those Courts.
13 March 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 4 December 2014 (PDF, 551 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 26 (PDF, 245 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Ronald van Wakeren v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 53/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Habeas Corpus Act 2001 – Whether the Court of Appeal resentenced the applicant in relation to all offending or only in relation to the burglary charge – Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly issued the warrant of imprisonment in relation to offending other than the burglary charge.[2013] NZCA 71 CA 93/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
6 June 2014 ________________________
Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
24 June 2014
6 June 2014 ________________________
Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
24 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Philip John Woolley v The Queen
Case number
SC 54/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the applicant’s convictions for offences against s 13 of the Resource Management Act 1991 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing his appeal against sentence. [2014] NZCA 178 CA 687/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 5 August 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 40 of 117