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
Arthur Sylvan Morgenstern and Tanya May Lavas v Stephanie Beth Jeffreys and Timothy Wilson Downes
Case number
SC 109/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993, ss 131, 135, 137, 138 and 301 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that, in a claim for breach of ss 131 (duty to act in good faith and in the best interests of the company), 135 (duty not to agree to, cause or allow reckless trading) and 137 (duty of care), in relation to selling an asset (shares) to the company at an alleged undervalue, the onus is on the director to prove that the asset was transferred for fair value – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a director facing claims under ss 131, 135 and 137, who relied on professional advice, is required by s 138 to plead this as an affirmative defence and bears the onus of proof – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that, in a claim under s 301, the onus is on the director to prove that the breach caused no loss to the company – Whether the Court of Appeal erred, in fixing the amount to be paid or contributed under s 301, by proceeding on a restitutionary basis and failing to take into account the actual loss caused to creditors – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that an inference could be drawn against the first appellant, by reason of failure to call evidence from the company’s accountants, when the respondents, as liquidators, were in an equal or better position to call that evidence.[2014] NZCA 449 CA 122/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar. 2 December 2014
The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar. 2 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Peter Guy Goodricke v The Queen
Case number
SC 111/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the procedure on appeal complied with the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 and New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.CRI 2010-485-26
Result
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
5 December 2014
Case name
Jacobus van der Lubbe v The Queen
Case number
SC 112/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider relevant evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider a number of other issues raised.[2014] NZCA 495 CA 305/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
17 December 2014
17 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Medhi Jaffari and Tracy Jaffari v Livia Grabowski
Case number
SC 114/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Reciprocal Enforcements of Judgments Act 1934, s 6(d); Svirkis v Gibson [1977] 2 NZLR 4 (CA); and Syal v Howard [1948] 2 KB 443 (CA) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to afford the appellants natural justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to give the appellants leave to adduce additional evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to properly consider relevant matters – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to properly apply the law set out in Svirkis v Gibson and Syal v Howard – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by incorrectly stating and unfairly discounting the appellant’ s evidence.[2014] NZCA 399 CA 52/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicants are to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
11 February 2015
The applicants are to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
11 February 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
The Queen v Shivneel Shahil Kumar
Case number
SC 115/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Right to refrain from making a statement under s 23(4) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether admissions made to undercover police officers in holding cell after applicant arrested were actively elicited – Whether evidence obtained in consequence of a breach of ss 23(4) and 24(c) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – Whether evidence obtained unfairly – Whether exclusion of evidence was proportionate to the Police impropriety. [2014] NZCA 489 CA 86/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted ([2014] NZCA 489).
19 November 2014
______________________
The appeal is dismissed.
6 August 2015
19 November 2014
______________________
The appeal is dismissed.
6 August 2015
Case name
Patrick Dean Norris v Bruce Donald Gemmell and Rhys James Cain
Case number
SC 119/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993, ss 255 and 283 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by ignoring the requirements of s 255(2)(b) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by misdirecting themselves on the statutory purpose and the natural wording of s 283(2) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that liquidators appointed pursuant to s 283 are not required to advise the Registrar of their appointment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that a liquidator’s statutory ability to act as liquidator does not commence immediately on appointment as has been long held in law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that pursuant to s 283(2) if the person who wishes to resign is not currently the liquidator there can be no resignation and no new appointment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that there was a vacancy when Messrs Gemmell and Cain were appointed by the Official Assignee – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the Official Assignee was able to arbitrarily remove and replace a statutorily appointed and properly acting liquidator – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that Mr Churchill was never validly appointed – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not allowing leave to adduce certain new evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in their approach to costs.[2014] NZCA 490 CA 857/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondents costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
19 December 2014
The applicant is to pay the respondents costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
19 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
MTR v The Queen
Case number
SC 123/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the evidence ought to be admitted at trial – Whether the evidence was obtained in breach of the Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning – The proper manner in which s 30(5) and (6) of the Evidence Act 2006 where there has been a breach of the Practice Note.[2014] NZCA 520 CA404/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
11 December 2014
11 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
[2014] NZCA 520 not available online
Case name
Jianyoung Guo, Jiaxi Guo, Jiaming Guo v Minister of Immigration
Case number
SC 124/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Immigration – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 26(2) – Human Rights Act 1993, s 21(1)(l)(iv) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the deportation order against Mr Guo was unjust on the basis that it involved double jeopardy, in breach of s 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the deportation orders against the remaining applicants were unjust on the basis that they involved discriminating on a ground expressly prohibited by s 21(1)(l)(iv) of the Human Rights Act, being a relative of a particular person – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to give leave to appeal in relation to the grounds advanced in the application for leave to appeal to the High Court.[2014] NZCA 513 CA263/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal by Jianyong Guo is dismissed.
B The applications for leave to appeal by Jiaxi Guo and Jiaming Guo are granted (Guo v Minister of Immigration [2014] NZCA 513).
C The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was right to decline the applications of Jiaxi Guo and Jiaming Guo for leave to appeal to the High Court against the decision of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal dismissing their appeals against deportation.
3 June 2015
____________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The appellants are granted leave to appeal to the High Court against the dismissal by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal of their appeals on the question whether the Tribunal erred in law in concluding that it would not be unjust or unduly harsh to deport them from New Zealand.
C All issues as to costs, including the order for costs made in the High Court, are reserved. Any application in respect of costs is to be made within 10 working days.
2 September 2015
B The applications for leave to appeal by Jiaxi Guo and Jiaming Guo are granted (Guo v Minister of Immigration [2014] NZCA 513).
C The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was right to decline the applications of Jiaxi Guo and Jiaming Guo for leave to appeal to the High Court against the decision of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal dismissing their appeals against deportation.
3 June 2015
____________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The appellants are granted leave to appeal to the High Court against the dismissal by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal of their appeals on the question whether the Tribunal erred in law in concluding that it would not be unjust or unduly harsh to deport them from New Zealand.
C All issues as to costs, including the order for costs made in the High Court, are reserved. Any application in respect of costs is to be made within 10 working days.
2 September 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 1 April 2015 (PDF, 93 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 132 (PDF, 247 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Transcript Hearing date 9 July 2015 (PDF, 577 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
Robert Clifford Hoani Cribb v Evia Rural Finance Limited and The Official Assignee
Case number
SC 126/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal decision had a sound factual basis – Whether the Court of Appeal decision failed to consider the appellant’s argument – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to admit the further evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the appellant to be insolvent – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in supporting the exercise of the discretion by the Associate Judge.[2014] NZCA 543 CA 179/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 18 February 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated and Kristine Bartlett
Case number
SC 127/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Equal Pay Act 1972 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 3(1)(b) of the Equal Pay Act 1972. [2014] NZCA 516 CA 631/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
22 December 2014
22 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 44 of 117