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
Christopher Jacob Junior Shadrock v The Queen
Case number
SC 69/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Murder – Crimes Act 1961, s 167(b) and (d) – Whether trial Judge misdirected jury by referring to degrees of murder – Whether Court of Appeal correct to conclude there was no miscarriage of justice. [2013] NZCA 282 CA 496/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SHADROCK v R [2013] NZSC 96 [9 October 2013] (PDF, 64 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
9 October 2013
Case name
Terence Mario Tere The Queen
Case number
SC 70/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Murder / Accessory after the fact – Crimes Act 1961, s 167(b) and (d) – Whether trial Judge misdirected jury by referring to degrees of murder – Whether Court of Appeal correct to conclude there was no miscarriage of justice. [2013] NZCA 282 CA 462/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SHADROCK v R [2013] NZSC 96 [9 October 2013] (PDF, 64 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
9 October 2013
Case name
Michael Victor Bourneville and Mark Graham Blewden v Christine Jill Marshall
Case number
SC 71/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in identifying the proceeding as an application to the High Court to remove a caveat – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not making reference to the rules of law concerning the ability of the Court to interfere with the exercise of discretion on appeal – Whether the initiation of proceedings to establish a constructive trust constituted an abuse of process – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Respondent had a reasonably based expectation of an interest in the property – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relying solely on a submission by counsel for the Respondent, rather than properly introduced evidence in the High Court or Court of Appeal, in finding that the first Applicant and the Respondent had accumulated substantial assets by their joint endeavours – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first Applicant “obviously would have had knowledge of the circumstances giving rise to the expectation”.[2013] NZCA 271 CA 676/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants are to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements. 14 November 2013
B The applicants are to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements. 14 November 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Samuela Faletalavai Helu v Immigration and Protection Tribunal and the Minister of Immigration
Case number
SC 72/2013
Summary
Civil – Immigration – Immigration Act 1987, s 105 – International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, arts 12(4), 17(1), and 23 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the protection offered by art 12(4) of the ICCPR is limited to New Zealand citizens – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Tribunal’s approach to s 105 of the Immigration Act and arts 17(1) and 23 of the ICCPR was correct – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its evaluation of the correct approach to be taken in assessing the risk of reoffending under s 105(1) – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no evidence that the applicant’ s youth would reduce his risk of re-offending.[2013] NZCA 276 CA 395/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.The approved questions are:(a) Did the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, in assessing whether it would not be contrary to the public interest to allow Mr Helu to remain in New Zealand:
(i) fail to take into account all relevant considerations;
or (ii) apply the incorrect test.
(b) Even if either or both of those questions are answered in the affirmative would the Tribunal nevertheless necessarily have come to the same decision, given its findings of fact?
3 October 2013
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The Tribunal’s confirmation of the deportation order is quashed.
C The appeal to the Tribunal is remitted to it for reconsideration in the course of which the Tribunal is to apply the test under s 105 of the Immigration Act 1987 that is set out in paras [167] to [176] of the reasons.
D Costs are reserved. Application may be made in writing if necessary.
26 March 2015
(i) fail to take into account all relevant considerations;
or (ii) apply the incorrect test.
(b) Even if either or both of those questions are answered in the affirmative would the Tribunal nevertheless necessarily have come to the same decision, given its findings of fact?
3 October 2013
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The Tribunal’s confirmation of the deportation order is quashed.
C The appeal to the Tribunal is remitted to it for reconsideration in the course of which the Tribunal is to apply the test under s 105 of the Immigration Act 1987 that is set out in paras [167] to [176] of the reasons.
D Costs are reserved. Application may be made in writing if necessary.
26 March 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 4 March 2014 SC 72/2013 (PDF, 327 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 28 (PDF, 251 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Raeleen Rameka v The Queen
Case number
SC 73/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 66(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by misstating the test in respect of withdrawal under s 66(1).[2011] NZCA 75 CA 131/2010
Result
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.
New trial ordered.
30 October 2014
New trial ordered.
30 October 2014
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 153 (PDF, 262 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Hearing
11 March 2014
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Tipping JJ.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Tipping JJ.
Case name
C v The Queen
Case number
SC 74/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Pre-trial application – Blackmail, assault, assault with intent to injure – Whether trial Judge correctly concluded that text messages were not unlawfully interception – Crimes Act 1961, s 216B – Whether text messages could be lawfully obtained through a production order – Search and Surveillance Act 2012, ss 71¬–72 – Admissibility of text messages at trial – Evidence Act 2006, s 30.[2013] NZHC 1900 CRI 2012 009 11872
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CHAPMAN v R [2013] NZSC 83 [23 August 2013] (PDF, 49 KB)
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
23 August 2013
Case name
Acme Engineering Limited v Peter Esmond Farrell and Simon Paul Rogan as liquidators of Contract Engineering Ltd
Case number
SC 79/2013
Summary
Company law – Liquidation – Voidable transactions – Meaning of “gave value” under s 296(3)(c) of the Companies Act 1993 – Whether value must be given at the time payment is received from the company – Whether “new or additional value” must be provided at the time of receipt of such payment – Whether value received by the company at the time of the creation of an antecedent debt constitutes value.[2013] NZCA 91 CA 783/2012
Dates
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
26 September 2013
Case name
Fences and Kerbs Limited v Peter Esmond Farrell and Simon Paul Rogan as liquidators of Contract Engineering Ltd
Case number
SC 80/2013
Summary
Company law – Liquidation – Voidable transactions – Meaning of “gave value” under s 296(3)(c) of the Companies Act 1993 – Whether value must be given at the time payment is received from the company – Whether “new or additional value” must be provided at the time of receipt of such payment – Whether value received by the company at the time of the creation of an antecedent debt constitutes value.[2013] NZCA 91 CA 773/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved question is whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal (as the case may be) was correct to conclude that the payments made to Allied Concrete Ltd, Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Ltd and Fences and Kerbs Ltd should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them accordingly.
24 October 2013
_________________
A The appeals are allowed.
B The applications of the liquidators for the transactions to be voided are dismissed.
C The respondents in each appeal must pay costs of $10,000 to the appellant in the relevant appeal, plus the appellant’s reasonable disbursements.
D Absent agreement between the parties, costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be fixed by those Courts in light of this judgment.
18 February 2015
The approved question is whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal (as the case may be) was correct to conclude that the payments made to Allied Concrete Ltd, Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Ltd and Fences and Kerbs Ltd should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them accordingly.
24 October 2013
_________________
A The appeals are allowed.
B The applications of the liquidators for the transactions to be voided are dismissed.
C The respondents in each appeal must pay costs of $10,000 to the appellant in the relevant appeal, plus the appellant’s reasonable disbursements.
D Absent agreement between the parties, costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be fixed by those Courts in light of this judgment.
18 February 2015
Transcripts
- [2013] NZSC 102 (PDF, 13 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 7 (PDF, 255 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Limited v Jeffrey Philip Meltzer and Lloyd James Hayward as liquidators of Window Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 81/2013
Summary
Company law – Liquidation – Voidable transactions – Meaning of “gave value” under s 296(3)(c) of the Companies Act 1993 – Whether value must be given at the time payment is received from the company – Whether “new or additional value” must be provided at the time of receipt of such payment – Whether value received by the company at the time of the creation of an antecedent debt constitutes value.[2013] NZCA 91 CA 864/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved question is whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal (as the case may be) was correct to conclude that the payments made to Allied Concrete Ltd, Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Ltd and Fences and Kerbs Ltd should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them accordingly.
24 October 2013
________________
A The appeals are allowed.
B The applications of the liquidators for the transactions to be voided are dismissed.
C The respondents in each appeal must pay costs of $10,000 to the appellant in the relevant appeal, plus the appellant’s reasonable disbursements.
D Absent agreement between the parties, costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be fixed by those Courts in light of this judgment.
18 February 2015
The approved question is whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal (as the case may be) was correct to conclude that the payments made to Allied Concrete Ltd, Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Ltd and Fences and Kerbs Ltd should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them accordingly.
24 October 2013
________________
A The appeals are allowed.
B The applications of the liquidators for the transactions to be voided are dismissed.
C The respondents in each appeal must pay costs of $10,000 to the appellant in the relevant appeal, plus the appellant’s reasonable disbursements.
D Absent agreement between the parties, costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be fixed by those Courts in light of this judgment.
18 February 2015
Transcripts
- [2013] NZSC 102 (PDF, 13 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 7 (PDF, 255 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Environmental Defence Society Inc v The New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited and others
Case number
SC 82/2013
Summary
Civil – whether the High Court misinterpreted or misapplied policies 8, 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 – whether the High Court erred in is assessment of the Board of Inquiries application of Brown v Dunedin City Council to a private plan for aquaculture, involving the exclusory use of public domain costal marine area. [2013] NZHC 1992 CIV 2013 406 056
Result
1. The application under s 149V of the Resource Management Act 1991 by the Environmental Defence Society for leave to appeal the decision of the High Court dated 8 August 2013 is granted. The questions of law for determination on the appeal are:
(a) Was the Board of Inquiry’s approval of the Papatua plan change one made contrary to ss 66 and 67 of the Act through misinterpretation and misapplication of Policies 8, 13, and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement? This turns on:
(i) Whether, on its proper interpretation, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement has standards which must be complied with in relation to outstanding coastal landscape and natural character areas and, if so, whether the Papatua Plan Change complied with s 67(3)(b) of the Act because it did not give effect to Policies 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
(ii) Whether the Board properly applied the provisions of the Act and the need to give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement under s 67(3)(b) of the Act in coming to a “balanced judgment” or assessment “ in the round” in considering conflicting policies.
(b) Was the Board obliged to consider alternative sites or methods when determining a private plan change that is located in, or results in significant adverse effects on, an outstanding natural landscape or feature or outstanding natural character area within the coastal environment? This question raises the correctness of the approach taken by the High Court in Brown v Dunedin City Council [2003] NZRMA 420 and whether, if sound, the present case should properly have been treated as an exception to the general approach. Whether any error in approach was material to the decision made will need to be addressed if necessary.
18 October 2013
_______________________
The appeal is allowed.
The plan change in relation to Papatua at Port Gore did not comply with s 67(3)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 as it did not give effect to policies 13(1)(a) and 15(a) of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
Costs are reserved.
(a) By consent, the Minister of Conservation and the Director General of Primary Industries must each pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $5,625 by way of costs.
(b) The New Zealand King Salmon Company Ltd must pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $23,650 by way of costs, together with disbursements of $4,764.
19 November 2014
(a) Was the Board of Inquiry’s approval of the Papatua plan change one made contrary to ss 66 and 67 of the Act through misinterpretation and misapplication of Policies 8, 13, and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement? This turns on:
(i) Whether, on its proper interpretation, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement has standards which must be complied with in relation to outstanding coastal landscape and natural character areas and, if so, whether the Papatua Plan Change complied with s 67(3)(b) of the Act because it did not give effect to Policies 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
(ii) Whether the Board properly applied the provisions of the Act and the need to give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement under s 67(3)(b) of the Act in coming to a “balanced judgment” or assessment “ in the round” in considering conflicting policies.
(b) Was the Board obliged to consider alternative sites or methods when determining a private plan change that is located in, or results in significant adverse effects on, an outstanding natural landscape or feature or outstanding natural character area within the coastal environment? This question raises the correctness of the approach taken by the High Court in Brown v Dunedin City Council [2003] NZRMA 420 and whether, if sound, the present case should properly have been treated as an exception to the general approach. Whether any error in approach was material to the decision made will need to be addressed if necessary.
18 October 2013
_______________________
The appeal is allowed.
The plan change in relation to Papatua at Port Gore did not comply with s 67(3)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 as it did not give effect to policies 13(1)(a) and 15(a) of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
Costs are reserved.
(a) By consent, the Minister of Conservation and the Director General of Primary Industries must each pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $5,625 by way of costs.
(b) The New Zealand King Salmon Company Ltd must pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $23,650 by way of costs, together with disbursements of $4,764.
19 November 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 October 2013 (PDF, 284 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 38 (PDF, 98 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Page 50 of 117