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
G v The Queen
Case number
SC 92/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to hold that information obtained from a third party without a search warrant or production order is admissible as evidence in the applicant’ s trial. [2016] NZCA 390 CA161/2016
Result
Judgment released.
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
4 May 2017
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
4 May 2017
Judgment appealed from
[2016] NZCA 390 CA161/2016
Case name
Proprietors of Wakatū and Rore Pat Stafford and others v Attorney-General and Ngāti Rārua Iwi Trust and Ngāti Kōata Trust
Case number
SC 13/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Crown breached legally enforceable obligations in respect of land acquired for the New Zealand Company’s Nelson Settlement – Whether lapse of time provides the Crown a defence – Whether the first and third appellants have standing.[2014] NZCA 628 CA 436/2012
Result
A The application by the first, second and third applicants for leave to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 19 December 2014 in Proprietors of Wakatū v Attorney-General [2014] NZCA 628, [2015] 2 NZLR 298 is granted.
B The cross-application by the respondent for leave to appeal against the finding of the Court of Appeal that the second applicant, Rore Pat Stafford, had standing to bring the proceeding is granted.
C The approved grounds are: Is the Crown in breach of duties arising out of the terms of the reservations from the land granted to the New Zealand Company in respect of its Nelson settlement and Western Te Tau Ihu? If so, are rights to seek relief for breach of such duties subject to defences available to the Crown through lapse of time? If not, do the three applicants each have standing to bring civil proceedings for breach of such duties against the Crown? If so, what relief is appropriate? Is relief barred by the terms of s 25 of the Ngā ti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Atiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Act 2014? D The appeal is set down for hearing in the Supreme Court for the four days beginning 12 October 2015.
8 May 2015
_____________________________
A The appeal by the second appellant is allowed in part and a declaration is made that the Crown owed fiduciary duties to reserve 15,100 acres for the benefit of the customary owners and, in addition, to exclude their pa, urupa and cultivations from the land obtained by the Crown following the 1845 Spain award.
B The appeals by the first appellant and the third appellant are dismissed.
C The cross-appeal by the respondent is dismissed.
D The claim by the second appellant is remitted to the High Court for determination of all remaining questions as to liability, loss and remedy to be determined in accordance with the reasons given in this Court.
E The respondent must pay the second appellant costs of $55,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. We certify for second counsel. All costs orders in the High Court and Court of Appeal are quashed. If costs are sought by the second appellant in respect of the lower Court hearings, application must be made to those Courts if the parties are unable to agree.
28 February 2017
B The cross-application by the respondent for leave to appeal against the finding of the Court of Appeal that the second applicant, Rore Pat Stafford, had standing to bring the proceeding is granted.
C The approved grounds are: Is the Crown in breach of duties arising out of the terms of the reservations from the land granted to the New Zealand Company in respect of its Nelson settlement and Western Te Tau Ihu? If so, are rights to seek relief for breach of such duties subject to defences available to the Crown through lapse of time? If not, do the three applicants each have standing to bring civil proceedings for breach of such duties against the Crown? If so, what relief is appropriate? Is relief barred by the terms of s 25 of the Ngā ti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Atiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Act 2014? D The appeal is set down for hearing in the Supreme Court for the four days beginning 12 October 2015.
8 May 2015
_____________________________
A The appeal by the second appellant is allowed in part and a declaration is made that the Crown owed fiduciary duties to reserve 15,100 acres for the benefit of the customary owners and, in addition, to exclude their pa, urupa and cultivations from the land obtained by the Crown following the 1845 Spain award.
B The appeals by the first appellant and the third appellant are dismissed.
C The cross-appeal by the respondent is dismissed.
D The claim by the second appellant is remitted to the High Court for determination of all remaining questions as to liability, loss and remedy to be determined in accordance with the reasons given in this Court.
E The respondent must pay the second appellant costs of $55,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. We certify for second counsel. All costs orders in the High Court and Court of Appeal are quashed. If costs are sought by the second appellant in respect of the lower Court hearings, application must be made to those Courts if the parties are unable to agree.
28 February 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 12 - 15 October 2015 (PDF, 2.2 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 17 (PDF, 291 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Bruce Brendon van Essen and Jason Patterson v The Attorney-General and others
Case number
SC 28/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Unreasonable Search and Seizure under New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether Court of Appeal applied correct test for public law remedies – Whether Court of Appeal correctly applied principles in Taunoa v Attorney General – Whether Court of Appeal correct in reliance on Independent Police Conduct Authority reports as a basis for assessing NZBORA compensation – Whether Court of Appeal correct in finding there was a proper basis for obtaining and executing search warrants – Whether Court of Appeal correct in finding that s 27 Crimes Act 1961 conferred immunity on defendants.[2015] NZCA 22 CA 320/2013; CA 339/2013; CA 593/2013; CA 594/2013
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B The applicants are to pay costs of $2,500 to both:
the first respondent, and the second and third respondents jointly.
13 July 2015
_________________
Reissued 3 November 2015.
A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
________________________
We certify that, were it not for s 45(2) of the Legal Services Act 2011, the applicants would have been ordered to pay the second and third respondents jointly costs of $2,500.
15 March 2016
B The applicants are to pay costs of $2,500 to both:
the first respondent, and the second and third respondents jointly.
13 July 2015
_________________
Reissued 3 November 2015.
A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
________________________
We certify that, were it not for s 45(2) of the Legal Services Act 2011, the applicants would have been ordered to pay the second and third respondents jointly costs of $2,500.
15 March 2016
Supreme court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Trustpower Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 74/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Income Tax Act 2004, s DA 2 – Whether Court of Appeal correct to consider ground of reassessment irrelevant – Whether Court of Appeal made unsupported findings of fact – Whether Court of Appeal correct to find that Feasibility Expenditure was incurred on capital account.[2015] NZCA 253 CA830/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (CIR v Trustpower [2015] NZCA 253).
B The approved questions are:(a) was the Court of Appeal wrong to consider the ground of reassessment set out in the Reassessment letter as irrelevant, or was the Court otherwise acting outside its jurisdiction in determining the appeal? If not, was the Court of Appeal correct in its conclusions on s DA 1?(b) Despite stating that it proceeded on the basis of accepting the High Court’s findings of fact, were any aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgment based on findings for which there was no evidence before the Court and/or that was contradicted by the evidence before the Court? If so, what is the significance of this?(c ) What is the correct approach to determining whether the expenditure of the type at issue in this proceeding has been incurred on revenue or capital account, for the purposes of s DA 2(1) of the Act?(d) Was the Commissioner correct, or at least not in error, to select the date by which the applicant had decided to apply for a resource consent as the point at which its expenditure was sufficiently connected to the capital purpose of obtaining a resource consent to be on capital account?
11 September 2015
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Trustpower is to pay the Commissioner costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
27 July 2016
B The approved questions are:(a) was the Court of Appeal wrong to consider the ground of reassessment set out in the Reassessment letter as irrelevant, or was the Court otherwise acting outside its jurisdiction in determining the appeal? If not, was the Court of Appeal correct in its conclusions on s DA 1?(b) Despite stating that it proceeded on the basis of accepting the High Court’s findings of fact, were any aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgment based on findings for which there was no evidence before the Court and/or that was contradicted by the evidence before the Court? If so, what is the significance of this?(c ) What is the correct approach to determining whether the expenditure of the type at issue in this proceeding has been incurred on revenue or capital account, for the purposes of s DA 2(1) of the Act?(d) Was the Commissioner correct, or at least not in error, to select the date by which the applicant had decided to apply for a resource consent as the point at which its expenditure was sufficiently connected to the capital purpose of obtaining a resource consent to be on capital account?
11 September 2015
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Trustpower is to pay the Commissioner costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
27 July 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 - 10 March 2016 (PDF, 1.4 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 91 (PDF, 246 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
KWK v The Queen
Case number
SC 4/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Admissibility of evidence – Improperly obtained evidence – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the availability of other investigatory techniques under s 30(3)(e) of the Evidence Act was a factor favouring admissibility of improperly obtained evidence – Whether s 30(3)(e) requires the person(s) exercising the unlawful search to have knowledge of the other investigatory techniques not involving any breach of rights.[2013] NZCA 616 CA 456/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
6 March 2014
6 March 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
[2013] NZCA 616 not available online
Case name
The Queen v TWW
Case number
SC 80/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, ss 28, 30 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that admissions by the accused obtained through a police undercover operation employing the “scenario technique” were unfairly and thus improperly obtained – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in adopting a Bill of Rights analysis where the accused’s rights were not breached – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that exclusion of the admissions was proportionate to the impropriety – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the admissions were unreliable.[2014] NZCA 339 CA 852/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted ([2014] NZCA 339).
The questions on which leave is given are whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that:
(a) the appellant’s confession to “Scott” was unfairly obtained; and
(b) evidence of it should be excluded.
10 October 2014
______________________
The appeal is allowed and the evidence in question is ruled to be admissible.
18 December 2015
The questions on which leave is given are whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that:
(a) the appellant’s confession to “Scott” was unfairly obtained; and
(b) evidence of it should be excluded.
10 October 2014
______________________
The appeal is allowed and the evidence in question is ruled to be admissible.
18 December 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 12 February 2015 (PDF, 506 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Case name
Jonathan Dixon v The Queen
Case number
SC 82/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 386(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in amending the charge and entering a conviction on the amended charge – Whether amending the charge breached the applicant’ s rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to consider and take into account relevant submissions and evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal’s failure to consider and take into account relevant submissions denied the applicant a proper opportunity of appeal under s 383 of the Crimes Act and resulted in a breach of the applicant’ s rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding a miscarriage of justice.[2014] NZCA 329 CA 518/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred when it dismissed the appeal.
23 October 2014
___________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The decision of the Court of Appeal quashing the appellant’s conviction for obtaining property contrary to s 249(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961 and substituting a conviction for obtaining a benefit contrary to s 249(1)(a) is quashed. The appellant’s original conviction is reinstated.
C The appellant is to contact the Probation Service in South Dunedin by 10.30 am on Wednesday 28 October 2015 to make arrangements to complete his sentence.
20 October 2015
The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred when it dismissed the appeal.
23 October 2014
___________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The decision of the Court of Appeal quashing the appellant’s conviction for obtaining property contrary to s 249(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961 and substituting a conviction for obtaining a benefit contrary to s 249(1)(a) is quashed. The appellant’s original conviction is reinstated.
C The appellant is to contact the Probation Service in South Dunedin by 10.30 am on Wednesday 28 October 2015 to make arrangements to complete his sentence.
20 October 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 24 March 2015 (PDF, 447 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 147 (PDF, 253 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
JONATHAN DIXON v R [2014] NZSC 151 [23 October 2014] (PDF, 42 KB)
Substantive judgment
JONATHAN DIXON v R [2015] NZSC 147 [20 October 2015] (PDF, 343 KB)
Case name
The Wanaka Gym Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council
Case number
SC 84/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Building Act 2004 – Whether the High Court erred in classifying the residential building as other than a single household unit – Whether High Court erred in holding that the C/AS1 purpose group SA was the appropriate proxy to meet the Building Code fire safety requirements for a residential building – Whether the High Court failed to take proper account of the different criminal and civil standards of proof – Whether the convictions were based on improperly obtained evidence – Whether leave to adduce fresh evidence should be granted. [2012] NZHC 284
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 December 2014
23 December 2014
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Fiona Caroline Graham v Queenstown Lakes District Council
Case number
SC 85/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Building Act 2004 – Whether the High Court erred in classifying the residential building as other than a single household unit – Whether High Court erred in holding that the C/AS1 purpose group SA was the appropriate proxy to meet the Building Code fire safety requirements for a residential building – Whether the High Court failed to take proper account of the different criminal and civil standards of proof – Whether the convictions were based on improperly obtained evidence – Whether leave to adduce fresh evidence should be granted.[2012] NZHC 284
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 December 2014
23 December 2014
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Clive Richard Bradbury and Gregory Alan Peebles v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 87/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to set aside a decision which has been the subject of an appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to indemnity costs – Whether the proceeding involves substantial relitigation of issues already determined by the courts.[2014] NZCA 350 CA 623/103
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. Costs are reserved. If the respondents wish to obtain orders for costs they should apply within 14 days setting out in detail the orders sought. If such applications are made, the applicants may respond within a further 14 days.
2 December 2014
_________
Leave is granted under s 76(2) of the Insolvency Act 2006 to permit continuation of the applications for costs in respect of SC 87/2014 and SC 103/2014. We fix costs and disbursements in favour of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in the sum of $10,653.99.
8 June 2015
2 December 2014
_________
Leave is granted under s 76(2) of the Insolvency Act 2006 to permit continuation of the applications for costs in respect of SC 87/2014 and SC 103/2014. We fix costs and disbursements in favour of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in the sum of $10,653.99.
8 June 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Supreme court decision
Page 2 of 8