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.
17 August 2026
Case information summary (as at 17 August 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 17 August 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 128 KB)
All years
Case name
Mita Michael Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Limited and The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 47/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that Landcorp’s entry into an agreement to sell Whārere Farm was not tainted by bad faith – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that certain actions of the Office of Treaty Settlements were not justiciable – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusions as to shareholding ministers’ powers to direct Landcorp.[2015] NZCA 160 CA 336/2014; CA 337/2014; CA 29/2015
Result
An order is made that the first respondent, Landcorp Farming Ltd, not proceed with the sale of the Wharere Farm until further order of the Court.
14 May 2015
______________________
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (The Attorney-General v Ririnui [2015] NZCA 160).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse the relief sought by the applicant based on:
(a) the claimed bad faith on the part of Landcorp;
(b) the acknowledged error of law by the Office of Treaty Settlements in its advice to Landcorp;
(c) the failure of the shareholding Ministers of Landcorp to intervene.
C The first respondent is restrained until further order of the Court from settling the agreement for sale and purchase of Whārere Farm, with leave reserved to the parties or to the purchaser to apply for discharge or variation of this order.
D The Registrar is directed to serve a copy of this judgment on the purchaser.
27 May 2015
________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B The following declarations are made:
(i) The decision of Landcorp Farming Limited’s shareholding Ministers and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations not to intervene in the tender process on behalf of Ngāti Whakahemo as they did on behalf of Ngāti Mākino was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
(ii) The decision by Landcorp Farming Limited on 28 February 2014 to sell Whārere farm to Micro Farms Limited was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
C All other forms of relief claimed by the appellant are declined.
D The restraining order made by this Court in Order C of its judgment granting leave to appeal (Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Ltd [2015] NZSC 72) is discharged.
E Costs are reserved. The parties may file written submissions as to costs in this Court and in the Courts below if they are unable to reach agreement.
9 June 2016
___________
A The orders of the Court of Appeal as to costs are quashed.
B The parties are to bear their own costs in all Courts.
1 May 2017
14 May 2015
______________________
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (The Attorney-General v Ririnui [2015] NZCA 160).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse the relief sought by the applicant based on:
(a) the claimed bad faith on the part of Landcorp;
(b) the acknowledged error of law by the Office of Treaty Settlements in its advice to Landcorp;
(c) the failure of the shareholding Ministers of Landcorp to intervene.
C The first respondent is restrained until further order of the Court from settling the agreement for sale and purchase of Whārere Farm, with leave reserved to the parties or to the purchaser to apply for discharge or variation of this order.
D The Registrar is directed to serve a copy of this judgment on the purchaser.
27 May 2015
________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B The following declarations are made:
(i) The decision of Landcorp Farming Limited’s shareholding Ministers and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations not to intervene in the tender process on behalf of Ngāti Whakahemo as they did on behalf of Ngāti Mākino was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
(ii) The decision by Landcorp Farming Limited on 28 February 2014 to sell Whārere farm to Micro Farms Limited was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
C All other forms of relief claimed by the appellant are declined.
D The restraining order made by this Court in Order C of its judgment granting leave to appeal (Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Ltd [2015] NZSC 72) is discharged.
E Costs are reserved. The parties may file written submissions as to costs in this Court and in the Courts below if they are unable to reach agreement.
9 June 2016
___________
A The orders of the Court of Appeal as to costs are quashed.
B The parties are to bear their own costs in all Courts.
1 May 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 May 2015 (PDF, 308 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 62 (PDF, 265 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Supreme Court - order made
Additional document
Transcription hearing 17 - 18 August 2015 (PDF, 1.5 MB)
Case name
Mohammed Munif Sahib v The Queen
Case number
SC 49/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether propensity evidence was correctly admitted – Whether s 44 of the Evidence Act 2006 was applied correctly by the trial judge.[2015] NZCA 112 CA 252/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
20 July 2015
20 July 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Transparency International New Zealand Incorporated
Case number
SC 51/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Deputy Registrar making an assessment of the merits of the relevant appeal when deciding whether to dispense with security for costs was consistent with Reekie [2014] NZSC 63, [2014] 1 NZLR 737.[2015] NZCA 188 CA 156/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
24 July 2015
_____________________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
4 August 2015
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
24 July 2015
_____________________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
4 August 2015
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court, Ministry of Justice
Case number
SC 52/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal decision was in breach of s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. [2015] NZCA 186 CA 118/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
24 July 2015
________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
4 August 2015
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
24 July 2015
________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
4 August 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Kenneth Angus Holmes and others v Kiriwai Consultants Limited
Case number
SC 56/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 2003, s 149 – Whether Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to make a finding on fact-based fiduciary duty – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding existence of fact-based fiduciary duty – Whether Court of Appeal erred in determining the fair value of shares.[2015] NZCA 149 CA 201/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent. The liability of the applicants is joint and several.
4 August 2015
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent. The liability of the applicants is joint and several.
4 August 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Tony Gordon Best v The Queen
Case number
SC 57/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 44 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in categorising the evidence excluded in the District Court as sexual experience evidence pursuant to s 44 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling that the evidence was inadmissible pursuant to that section – Whether even if properly excluded under s 44 the defence should have been permitted to elicit that the complainant had previously made a rape allegation. [2015] NZCA 159 CA 254/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is whether the applicant’s counsel should have been permitted to cross-examine the complainant as to her prior rape complaint and lead evidence to the effect that it was false.
3 November 2015
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
8 September 2016
B The approved ground is whether the applicant’s counsel should have been permitted to cross-examine the complainant as to her prior rape complaint and lead evidence to the effect that it was false.
3 November 2015
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
8 September 2016
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 122 (PDF, 250 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
TONY GORDON BEST v R [2015] NZSC 167 [3 November 2015] (PDF, 111 KB)
Substantive judgment
TONY GORDON BEST v R [2016] NZSC 122 [8 September 2016] (PDF, 434 KB)
Case name
John Gilbert and QSM Trustee Ltd (in receivership and in liquidation) v Body Corporate 162791
Case number
SC 59/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Gilbert was personally liable to pay certain body corporate levies under s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Gilbert’s liability was not limited or excused under s 32(7) of the Act.[2015] NZCA 185 CA 213/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert [2015] NZCA 185).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i) to hold that the first applicant was personally liable under s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 to pay body corporate levies to the respondent in relation to the second applicant’s units; and
(ii) to find that the first applicant had no arguable claim for relief from personal liability under s 32(7) of the Act.
4 September 2015
_______________
A The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.
B There is no order for costs.
2 June 2016
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i) to hold that the first applicant was personally liable under s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 to pay body corporate levies to the respondent in relation to the second applicant’s units; and
(ii) to find that the first applicant had no arguable claim for relief from personal liability under s 32(7) of the Act.
4 September 2015
_______________
A The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.
B There is no order for costs.
2 June 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 December 2015 (PDF, 393 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 61 (PDF, 250 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
D v The Queen
Case number
SC 60/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to admit expert evidence on appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was no miscarriage of justice due to a failure to give a reliability warning under s 122(e) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial Judge’s propensity direction to the jury was adequate.[2015] NZCA 171 CA 345/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
31 July 2015
31 July 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
D (SC 60/2015) v R [2015] NZSC 119 31 July 2015 (PDF, 93 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Justin Ames Johnston v The Queen
Case number
SC 61/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether propensity evidence was correctly admitted at trial – whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the jury’ s conclusion on intention – whether acts and omissions were sufficiently proximate to constitute an attempt. [2015] NZCA 162 CA 58/2014[2012] NZCA 559 CA 262/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Johnston v R [2015] NZCA 162).
B The approved question is whether the trial Judge was wrong to conclude that the actions of the applicant on the night of the alleged offending were sufficiently proximate to constitute the actus reus of an attempt.
15 October 2015
____________________
The appeal is dismissed.
6 July 2016
B The approved question is whether the trial Judge was wrong to conclude that the actions of the applicant on the night of the alleged offending were sufficiently proximate to constitute the actus reus of an attempt.
15 October 2015
____________________
The appeal is dismissed.
6 July 2016
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 83 (PDF, 244 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
JUSTIN AMES JOHNSTON v R [2016] NZSC 83 [6 July 2016] (PDF, 210 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ
Case name
Rapata Leef and others as the mandated representatives of the Hapū of Ngāti Taka v Colin Bidois and others as the mandated representatives of the Hapū of Pirirakau
Case number
SC 62/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Arbitration Act 1996 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding waiver of conflict – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding there was no process breach by the Arbitration Panel. [2015] NZCA 176 CA 441/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
24 August 2015
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
24 August 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 49 of 137