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
Janferie Maeve Almond v Bruce James Read and Others, Ethne Glays Read, and Christopher John Read
Case number
SC 98/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to grant the applicant an extension of time to bring her appeal. [2016] NZCA 147 CA730/2015
Result
A The amended application for leave to appeal is granted (Almond v Read [2016] NZCA 147).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to refuse the appellant’s application for an extension of time to appeal.
2 November 2016
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The application for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal is granted.
C The stay will remain in effect until the determination of the appellant’s appeal in the Court of Appeal.
D The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $13,000 to the appellant, plus reasonable disbursements.
30 May 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to refuse the appellant’s application for an extension of time to appeal.
2 November 2016
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The application for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal is granted.
C The stay will remain in effect until the determination of the appellant’s appeal in the Court of Appeal.
D The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $13,000 to the appellant, plus reasonable disbursements.
30 May 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 December 2016 (PDF, 335 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 80 (PDF, 262 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Dean James Charlton v The Queen
Case number
SC 102/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was sufficient evidence to support the applicant’s conviction for rape. [2016] NZCA 212 CA452/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
9 February 2017
9 February 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
DEAN JAMES CHARLTON v R [2017] NZSC 5 9 February 2017 (PDF, 120 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Eric Meserve Houghton v Timothy Ernest Corbett Saunders, Samuel John Magill, John Michael Feeney, Craig Edgeworth Horrocks, Peter David Hunter, Peter Thomas and Joan Withers, and Credit Suisse Private Equity Inc, and Credit Suisse First Boston Asian Me
Case number
SC 135/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Securities Act 1978 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the Securities Act 1978, ss 2, 55 and 56 – Whether the Court of Appeal findings preclude Fair Trading Act 1986 claims. [2016] NZCA 493 CA578/2014
Result
A The appeal in relation to the fourth and fifth respondents is dismissed.
B The appeal in relation to the first, second and third respondents is allowed to the limited extent described below.
C The Court of Appeal’s finding that the forecast of revenue for the financial year ended 30 June 2004 (the untrue statement) was, at the time of allotment of the shares offered for subscription in the Feltex prospectus, an untrue statement for the purposes of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978, is upheld.
D The Court of Appeal’s findings that the untrue statement did not give rise to liability under s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and was not in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 are set aside.
E We find that the untrue statement was in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986.
F The questions of whether plaintiffs represented by the appellant: (i) invested on the faith of the prospectus in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so; (ii) suffered any loss by reason of the untrue statement in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so, the quantum of such loss; and (iii) are entitled to any remedy under the Fair Trading Act 1986 are left for resolution by the High Court at the stage 2 hearing.
G In all other respects, the appeal in relation to the first to third respondents is dismissed.
H Costs in this Court and the Courts below are reserved. Submissions on costs should be filed and served according to the following timetable: (i) Appellant: 20 working days after the date of this judgment. (ii) First to third respondents: 10 working days after the appellant’s submissions are filed. (iii) Fourth and fifth respondents: 10 working days after the first to third respondents’ submissions are filed. (iv) Appellant in reply: 10 working days after the fourth and fifth respondents’ submissions are filed.
15 August 2018
_________________________________
A The first to third respondents must pay the appellant costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements.
B Costs in the High Court should be reconsidered by that Court in light of this Court’s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal should be determined in light of this Court’ s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment if the agreement between the parties as to costs in that Court expressly or impliedly allows for such a determination to occur.
22 November 2018
B The appeal in relation to the first, second and third respondents is allowed to the limited extent described below.
C The Court of Appeal’s finding that the forecast of revenue for the financial year ended 30 June 2004 (the untrue statement) was, at the time of allotment of the shares offered for subscription in the Feltex prospectus, an untrue statement for the purposes of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978, is upheld.
D The Court of Appeal’s findings that the untrue statement did not give rise to liability under s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and was not in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 are set aside.
E We find that the untrue statement was in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986.
F The questions of whether plaintiffs represented by the appellant: (i) invested on the faith of the prospectus in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so; (ii) suffered any loss by reason of the untrue statement in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so, the quantum of such loss; and (iii) are entitled to any remedy under the Fair Trading Act 1986 are left for resolution by the High Court at the stage 2 hearing.
G In all other respects, the appeal in relation to the first to third respondents is dismissed.
H Costs in this Court and the Courts below are reserved. Submissions on costs should be filed and served according to the following timetable: (i) Appellant: 20 working days after the date of this judgment. (ii) First to third respondents: 10 working days after the appellant’s submissions are filed. (iii) Fourth and fifth respondents: 10 working days after the first to third respondents’ submissions are filed. (iv) Appellant in reply: 10 working days after the fourth and fifth respondents’ submissions are filed.
15 August 2018
_________________________________
A The first to third respondents must pay the appellant costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements.
B Costs in the High Court should be reconsidered by that Court in light of this Court’s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal should be determined in light of this Court’ s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment if the agreement between the parties as to costs in that Court expressly or impliedly allows for such a determination to occur.
22 November 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 April 2017 (PDF, 284 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 74 (PDF, 68 KB)
Additional document
Transcript hearing date 5 September 2017 (PDF, 1.4 MB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
HOUGHTON v SAUNDERS & ORS [2017] NZSC 55 (PDF, 113 KB)
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
James Gerard Mercer v Commonwealth of Australia
Case number
SC 143/2016
Summary
[2016] NZCA 503 CA134/2016
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B We make an order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (except for the parties’ names and result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of proceedings either by the Minister of Justice or in the Queensland courts. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
16 March 2017
B We make an order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (except for the parties’ names and result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of proceedings either by the Minister of Justice or in the Queensland courts. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
16 March 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Not publicly available
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Colin James Dallas v Wellington City Council
Case number
SC 14/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Fair Trading Act 1986, s 9 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding a breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act.[2014] NZCA 631 CA 148/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Wellington City Council v Dallas [2014] NZCA 631). B The approved questions are: (a) Was the Court of Appeal correct to have found the applicant liable under the Fair Trading Act 1986? (b) If so, should the applicant have been held liable for 50 per cent of the respondent’s loss? 26 June 2015 ________________________ Notice of abandonment being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed. 11 November 2015
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Doug Andrews Heating and Ventilation Limited and Multi KC Limited v Wayne James Dil, Gary Roy Mitchell and G & W Imports Limited'
Case number
SC 45/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the applicant’s appeal against the High Court’s decision dismissing the applicant’s claim of patent infringement.[2015] NZCA 122 CA 5/2014
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed.
B The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $5,000 in respect of both applications.
8 October 2015
B The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $5,000 in respect of both applications.
8 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Barrie James Skinner v The Queen
Case number
SC 79/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to decline the application to adduce further evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against conviction.[2015] NZCA 233 CA 573/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted on the question whether s 109 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 precluded conviction on counts 101–110 (Rowley v R [2015] NZCA 233, (2015) 27 NZTC. In all other respects the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed save that, in the case of Mr Rowley’s challenge to his sentence, this is with the reservation identified in [23].
15 February 2016
______________
The appeals are dismissed.
10 August 2016
15 February 2016
______________
The appeals are dismissed.
10 August 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 9 June 2016 (PDF, 456 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 101 (PDF, 239 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
SKINNER and ROWLEY v R [2016] NZSC 7 [15 February 2016] (PDF, 155 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
Shane James Old v The Queen
Case number
SC 83/2015
Summary
Criminal appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to evidential issues.[2015] NZCA 252 CA 739/2014
Result
The application for an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 18 November 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SHANE JAMES OLD v R [2015] NZSC 175 18 November 2015 (PDF, 75 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Morton v The Queen
Case number
SC 86/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against pre-trial ruling – Evidence Act 2006, s 49 – Appellant charged as party to offending when principals convicted in previous trial – Whether exceptional circumstances exist to direct that convictions are not conclusive evidence of principal offending.[2015] NZCA 322 CA 266/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (M v R [2015] NZCA 322).B The approved question is:“Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of ss 44 and 49 of the Evidence Act 2006”.
27 August 2015
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B Permission under s 49(2)(a) of the Evidence Act 2006 is given to the appellant to adduce evidence from himself and the co-defendants in which they may give their accounts of their interactions with the complainant on the night of the offending and as to the prior sexual relationship of one of the co-defendants with the complainant.
C Permission is refused in respect of the recantation and inconsistent conduct evidence and the evidence referred to in [74] (other than that identified in [77]).
D There is no direction under s 49(2)(b).
5 May 2016
27 August 2015
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B Permission under s 49(2)(a) of the Evidence Act 2006 is given to the appellant to adduce evidence from himself and the co-defendants in which they may give their accounts of their interactions with the complainant on the night of the offending and as to the prior sexual relationship of one of the co-defendants with the complainant.
C Permission is refused in respect of the recantation and inconsistent conduct evidence and the evidence referred to in [74] (other than that identified in [77]).
D There is no direction under s 49(2)(b).
5 May 2016
Date of hearing
18 November 2015
Judges
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Substantive judgment
Case name
Carl James Peterson v Attorney-General
Case number
SC 87/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether an extension of time should be granted – Whether leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court should be granted to allow the applicant to challenge the decision in Attorney-General v Chapman [2011] NZSC 110, [2012] 1 NZLR 462 – Whether Associate Judge Christiansen’ s judgment should be set aside. [2015] NZHC 1336 CIV 2015 463 22
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
23 October 2015
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
23 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 10 of 15