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
Vincent Ross Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court and Ministry of Justice
Case number
SC 91/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908, s 61A(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that they lacked jurisdiction to make the order sought under s 61A(1) – Whether the law requires that publicly recorded judgments be issued to dispose of such applications. Minute 28 August 2014.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
15 September 2014
____________
Application for recall dismissed.
10 October 2014
15 September 2014
____________
Application for recall dismissed.
10 October 2014
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Mark Stephen Hotchin v The New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Limited and Perpetual Trust Limited
Case number
SC 92/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it is necessary for both tortfeasors to have a coordinate liability to the plaintiff on a claim for contribution against a co-tortfeasor under s 17(1)(c) of the Law Reform Act 1936 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the same contribution principles apply to both tort and equity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it was unarguable that the applicant and the respondents are potentially liable for the same damage suffered by investors – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant’s claim for equitable contribution is unarguable.[2014] NZCA 400 CA 494/2013
Result
A The application to appeal is granted (Hotchin v The New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Limited [2014] NZCA 400).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to uphold the striking out of Mr Hotchin’s third party claims against the respondents.
30 October 2014
_________________
A. The appeal is allowed.
B. Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellant. We certify for second counsel.
C. The costs orders in the High Court and the Court of Appeal are set aside.15 March 2016
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to uphold the striking out of Mr Hotchin’s third party claims against the respondents.
30 October 2014
_________________
A. The appeal is allowed.
B. Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellant. We certify for second counsel.
C. The costs orders in the High Court and the Court of Appeal are set aside.15 March 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 March 2015 (PDF, 561 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 24 (PDF, 405 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Tagioa Ah-Chong v The Queen
Case number
SC 93/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its identification of the mens rea requirement for liability under s 129(2) of the Crimes Act 1961. [2014] NZCA 385 CA 814/2013
Result
Leave to appeal is granted (A (CA 814/2013) v The Queen [2014] NZCA 385).
The approved ground of appeal is whether the Judge’s direction to the jury on the mens rea elements of the offence in s 129(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 was wrong.
31 October 2014
___________________
Appeal dismissed.
17 June 2015
The approved ground of appeal is whether the Judge’s direction to the jury on the mens rea elements of the offence in s 129(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 was wrong.
31 October 2014
___________________
Appeal dismissed.
17 June 2015
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 83 (PDF, 249 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
A (SC 93/2014) v R [2014] NZSC 157 [31 October 2014] (PDF, 32 KB)
Substantive judgment
TAGIAO AH-CHONG v R [2015] NZSC 83 [17 June 2015] (PDF, 590 KB)
Case name
Mariam Tohuia Filihia v The Queen
Case number
SC 94/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant’s trial counsel made no error in the conduct of the case which resulted in a miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the reconstructive evidence was admissible – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the 17 year minimum period of imprisonment.[2014] NZCA 401 CA 786/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
29 October 2014
29 October 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
FILIHIA v R [2014] NZSC 154 29 October 2014 (PDF, 64 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Collins Eze v The Queen
Case number
SC 97/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sentencing Act 2002 – Whether the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal is manifestly excessive – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider the disparity between the applicant’ s sentence and the sentences imposed on co-offenders.[2014] NZCA 529 CA 760/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 12 November 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Registrar of the Supreme Court and Ministry of Justice
Case number
SC 99/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in affirming the Registrar’s decision that refused to dispense with security for costs.[2014] NZCA 456 CA 318/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 to the respondent. 8 December 2014
Costs of $2,500 to the respondent. 8 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Elvis Heremia Teddy v New Zealand Poice
Case number
SC 101/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Maritime Transport Act 1994 – Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 65 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 applied extraterritorially to New Zealand ships – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the arrest powers in the Crimes Act 1961 empower the New Zealand Police to stop and board New Zealand ships and to arrest offenders extraterritorially.[2014] NZCA 422 CA 614/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
17 February 2015
17 February 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Clive Richard Bradbury and Gregory Alan Peebles v Judicial Conduct Commissioner
Case number
SC 103/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the judicial review application – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it was not judicial misconduct for a judge to have unsatisfied liabilities to a party that are not disclosed in cases involving that party, to sit in such cases, and to deny such liabilities - Whether the Judicial Conduct Commissioner failed to adopt a proper process – Whether the judicial review proceedings are abuse of process – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in awarding indemnity costs.[2014] NZCA 441 CA 357/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Costs are reserved. If the respondents wish to obtain orders for costs they should apply within 14 days setting out in detail the orders sought. If such applications are made, the applicants may respond within a further 14 days.
2 December 2014
________________
Leave is granted under s 76(2) of the Insolvency Act 2006 to permit continuation of the applications for costs in respect of SC 87/2014 and SC 103/2014. We fix costs and disbursements as follows: To the Judicial Conduct Commissioner in the sum of $5,294.50; To the Hon Justice Venning in the sum of $2,829.
8 June 2015
Costs are reserved. If the respondents wish to obtain orders for costs they should apply within 14 days setting out in detail the orders sought. If such applications are made, the applicants may respond within a further 14 days.
2 December 2014
________________
Leave is granted under s 76(2) of the Insolvency Act 2006 to permit continuation of the applications for costs in respect of SC 87/2014 and SC 103/2014. We fix costs and disbursements as follows: To the Judicial Conduct Commissioner in the sum of $5,294.50; To the Hon Justice Venning in the sum of $2,829.
8 June 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Costs judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court and Ministry of Justice
Case number
SC 104/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Insolvency Act 2006 – Whether judicial review proceedings are within the scope of s 101(1)(b) of the Insolvency Act 2006.[2014] NZCA 481
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
2 December 2014
_______________
The application to recall the judgment of 2 December 2014 and the second application for leave to appeal against the judgment of French J are dismissed.
23 December 2014
Further application for recall dismissed.
9 March 2015
2 December 2014
_______________
The application to recall the judgment of 2 December 2014 and the second application for leave to appeal against the judgment of French J are dismissed.
23 December 2014
Further application for recall dismissed.
9 March 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Zoggs International Limited v Sexwax Incorporated
Case number
SC 105/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Trade Marks Act 2002 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the test for comparing the existing and proposed trade marks under s 17(1)(a) of the Act –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider granting the applicant’s trade mark application in part – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning earlier findings of fact which were not plainly wrong.[2014] NZCA 311 CA 461/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500, plus reasonable disbursements. 2 March 2015
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500, plus reasonable disbursements. 2 March 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 43 of 117