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.
31 July 2026
Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 131 KB)
All years
Case name
James John Duncan Macfarlane v Perpetual Trust Limited
Case number
SC 80/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s decision to remove a caveat over a property and grant vacant possession.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent
14 November 2018
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent
14 November 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Shark Experience Limited v Pauamac5 Incorporated, Director-General of Conservation and Shark Dive New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 86/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Wildlife Act 1953.
Result
A The application for an extension of time is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is granted (PauaMAC5 Inc v Director-General of Conservation [2018] NZCA 348).
C The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that shark cage diving is an offence under s 63A of the Wildlife Act 1953.
11 December 2018
________________________________
A The application for leave to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The Court of Appeal’s declaration that “Shark cage diving is an offence under s 63A Wildlife Act 1953” is set aside.
D There is no order as to costs.
11 October 2019
B The application for leave to appeal is granted (PauaMAC5 Inc v Director-General of Conservation [2018] NZCA 348).
C The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that shark cage diving is an offence under s 63A of the Wildlife Act 1953.
11 December 2018
________________________________
A The application for leave to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The Court of Appeal’s declaration that “Shark cage diving is an offence under s 63A Wildlife Act 1953” is set aside.
D There is no order as to costs.
11 October 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 March 2019 (PDF, 687 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 111 (PDF, 98 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Jesse-James Winter v The Queen
Case number
SC 102/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing an appeal against conviction.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Winter v R [2018] NZCA 469).
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
21 February 2019
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
21 February 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 May 2019 (PDF, 388 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 98 (PDF, 72 KB)
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Commercial Factors Limited v Jeffrey Philip Meltzer, Lloyd James Hayward and Arron Leslie Heath
Case number
SC 111/2018
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the appellant funder was not entitled to payment according to the terms of its litigation funding agreement with the respondents as liquidators of Blue Chip New Zealand Ltd.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay to the respondents costs of $2,500.
27 February 2019
B The applicant must pay to the respondents costs of $2,500.
27 February 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Craig Duthie and Kirsten Taylor-Ruiterman, and DRK Chartered Accountants Limited v Denise Michelle Roose, and Denise Developments Limited, and DMR Development Limited
Case number
SC 10/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the causes of action brought by the respondents in tort were not time barred.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Roose v Duthie [2016] NZCA 600).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the cause of action in tort accrued when the agreement for sale and purchase between Denise Developments Ltd and DMR Development Ltd was settled rather than when the agreement became unconditional.
2 May 2017
___________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are to pay costs of $25,000 to the respondents and reasonable disbursements.
6 October 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the cause of action in tort accrued when the agreement for sale and purchase between Denise Developments Ltd and DMR Development Ltd was settled rather than when the agreement became unconditional.
2 May 2017
___________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are to pay costs of $25,000 to the respondents and reasonable disbursements.
6 October 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 August 2017 (PDF, 577 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 152 (PDF, 266 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Substantive judgment
Case name
Alister James Reid v The Queen
Case number
SC 29/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the hearsay statement by the complainant was correctly admitted as evidence at the applicant’s trial.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
7 July 2017
7 July 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ALISTER JAMES REID v R [2017] NZSC 108 7 July 2017 (PDF, 69 KB)
Judgment appealed from
DC (not available publicly) :
Case name
Midgen Enterprises Limited and David James Midgen v Water Guard NZ Limited
Case number
SC 32/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning the costs award of the High Court.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants are to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
9 May 2017
B The applicants are to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
9 May 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Bruce James Spittle v The Queen
Case number
SC 47/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its determination that the verdict of the jury in the applicant’s trial was not unreasonable having regard to the evidence.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 6 July 2017
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BRUCE JAMES SPITTLE v R [2017] NZSC 105 6 July 2017 (PDF, 80 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Earl Raymond Hagaman v Andrew James Little
Case number
SC 53/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court erred in holding that the respondent was entitled to claim the defence of qualified privilege in relation to allegedly defamatory statements made by him about the applicant – Whether exceptional circumstances exist warranting a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
Result
A notice of abandonment having been lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
12 June 2017
Judgment appealed from -HC judgment
Case name
Craig Alexander Sanson and David John Bridgman v Ebert Construction Limited
Case number
SC 68/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the payments were not made by the insolvent company – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondent did not receive more than they would have in liquidation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a transaction was not an insolvent transaction.
Result
A notice of abandonment having been lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
High Court decision
Judgment appealed from
Page 8 of 15