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.
3 July 2026
Case information summary (as at 3 July 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 88 KB)
Case information summary (as at 3 July 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 127 KB)
All years
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 117/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the expert evidence as to the quantum of loss is admissible – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against a refusal to strike out the respondent’ s defence under s 63 of the Securities Act 1978 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondents collectively and $2,500 to the second and third respondents collectively.
13 December 2019
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondents collectively and $2,500 to the second and third respondents collectively.
13 December 2019
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Case name
Geoffrey James Bird v The New Zealand Guardian Trust Company, Philip Anthony Bird, David Andrew Bird and Allen Roger Bird
Case number
SC 1/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court erred in removing the applicant as executor and trustee – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing an application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs.
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the second, third and fourth respondents. 8 February 2018
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the second, third and fourth respondents. 8 February 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Colin Graeme Craig v Jordan Henry Williams
Case number
SC 21/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Defamation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the decision of the High Court to order a full retrial – (cross-appeal) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’ s order setting aside the jury’s verdict on damages.
Result
A Leave to appeal and leave to cross appeal is granted (Williams v Craig [2018] NZCA 31).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the appeal to that Court in part and dismissing the cross appeal to that Court.
4 July 2018
_________________
A The appeal is allowed. The orders of the Court of Appeal entering judgment for the respondent on liability and directing a retrial of the respondent’s claim for damages are set aside. An order for a general retrial on liability and damages is substituted.
B The cross-appeal is dismissed.
C The respondent must pay the appellant costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
D The costs award made in the Court of Appeal is set aside. If costs in that Court cannot be agreed they should be set by the Court of Appeal in light of this judgment. Any costs issues arising in the High Court shall be considered by the High Court in light of this judgment.
11 April 2019
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the appeal to that Court in part and dismissing the cross appeal to that Court.
4 July 2018
_________________
A The appeal is allowed. The orders of the Court of Appeal entering judgment for the respondent on liability and directing a retrial of the respondent’s claim for damages are set aside. An order for a general retrial on liability and damages is substituted.
B The cross-appeal is dismissed.
C The respondent must pay the appellant costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
D The costs award made in the Court of Appeal is set aside. If costs in that Court cannot be agreed they should be set by the Court of Appeal in light of this judgment. Any costs issues arising in the High Court shall be considered by the High Court in light of this judgment.
11 April 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 4-5 September 2018 (PDF, 895 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 38 (PDF, 293 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Additional document
Case name
Jeremy James McGuire v The Secretary for Justice
Case number
SC 22/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Legal Services Act 2011 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in striking out the applicant’s application for judicial review – Whether a self-represented litigant who is a practising lawyer can receive a costs award.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (McGuire v The Secretary for Justice [2018] NZCA 37)
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-appeal
12 June 2018
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
27 November 2018
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-appeal
12 June 2018
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
27 November 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 1 August 2018 (PDF, 407 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 116 (PDF, 293 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Thomas James Luke Olliver v The Queen
Case number
SC 28/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the trial judge’s direction was adequate to the newly formed jury was adequate – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
15 June 2018
15 June 2018
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Jeremy James McGuire v New Zealand Law Society
Case number
SC 50/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that the issue was whether counsel had properly advised the client about the risk and financial implications of litigation.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
11 October 2018
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
11 October 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Douglas Craig Schmuck v Opua Coastal Preservation Incorporated and Far North District Council
Case number
SC 66/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the interpretation of the scope of easements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by not relying on resource consents when examining the easements at issue – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not considering the question of indefeasibility.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Opua Coastal Preservation Incorporated v Far North District Council [2018] NZCA 262).
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
21 February 2019
________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The decision of the second respondent as delegate of the Minister of Conservation to consent to the challenged easements referred to at [32] of the Reasons of the Court is reinstated.
C Costs are reserved.
D Leave is reserved to the parties to apply for consequential orders if required.
29 October 2019
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
21 February 2019
________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The decision of the second respondent as delegate of the Minister of Conservation to consent to the challenged easements referred to at [32] of the Reasons of the Court is reinstated.
C Costs are reserved.
D Leave is reserved to the parties to apply for consequential orders if required.
29 October 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 9 - 10 July 2019 (PDF, 589 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 118 (PDF, 71 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
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
Page 7 of 15