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
Wiremu Kingi v Jillian Naera and others
Case number
SC 95/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Maori land law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of cl 3(a) of the Trust Order by finding that it empowered the trustees to enter into the Tikitere Project without reference to the owners of the land – Alternatively, if the interpretation of cl 3(a) given by the courts below is correct, whether it was within the power of the Maori Land Court to issue such a Trust Order under s 226(1) of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. NZCA 353 CA 542/2011
Result
A The application by Jillian Naera, Kereama Pene, Anaha Morehu, Warwick Morehu and Eric Hodge for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of 8 August 2013 is declined.
B The application by Pirihira Fenwick, Wiremu Kingi and Hiwinui Heke for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of 8 August 2013 is granted. The questions for determination on the appeal are:
1. Was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that the Tikitere Project Agreement was voidable because three of the trustees were beneficially interested in other trusts which were parties to the Agreement?
2. If so, was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that the remedy of rescission could be withheld only if third party interests were affected or should it have required general inquiry into whether rescission was in all the circumstances appropriate?
C No order for costs on the applications is made. 19 May 2014 __________________ A The appeal is allowed in part and the matter remitted to the Maori Land Court to decide on the conflicts and on the consequences of a breach of s 227A of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 in light of this judgment. B The reasonable costs and disbursements of the first respondents are to be paid by the Whakapoungakau 24 Ahu Whenua Trust (the Tikitere Trust). C The question of costs in the Maori Land Court, the Maori Appellate Court and the Court of Appeal should (if an application is made) be considered by those Courts in light of this judgment. 20 May 2015
B The application by Pirihira Fenwick, Wiremu Kingi and Hiwinui Heke for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of 8 August 2013 is granted. The questions for determination on the appeal are:
1. Was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that the Tikitere Project Agreement was voidable because three of the trustees were beneficially interested in other trusts which were parties to the Agreement?
2. If so, was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that the remedy of rescission could be withheld only if third party interests were affected or should it have required general inquiry into whether rescission was in all the circumstances appropriate?
C No order for costs on the applications is made. 19 May 2014 __________________ A The appeal is allowed in part and the matter remitted to the Maori Land Court to decide on the conflicts and on the consequences of a breach of s 227A of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 in light of this judgment. B The reasonable costs and disbursements of the first respondents are to be paid by the Whakapoungakau 24 Ahu Whenua Trust (the Tikitere Trust). C The question of costs in the Maori Land Court, the Maori Appellate Court and the Court of Appeal should (if an application is made) be considered by those Courts in light of this judgment. 20 May 2015
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 68 (PDF, 250 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Hearing date : 18 November 2014
McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, Blanchard JJ
Case name
LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Limited v Pacific Flight Catering Limited and PRI Flight Catering Limited
Case number
SC 103/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 69J of the Employment Relations Act 2000 had the effect of extinguishing the transferring employer’s accrued contractual obligations to a transferred employee – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 69J of the Employment Relations Act 2000 absolved the transferring employer from liability to the new employer for the accrued contractual entitlements of a transferred employee – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in using the Employment Relations Amendment Bill 2013 as an aid to interpretation of the Employment Relations Act 2000. [2013] NZCA 386 CA 758/2012
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The ground for appeal is whether, under Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act 2000, the respondents are liable to reimburse the applicant for the cost of accrued leave entitlements of the respondents’ former employees on their transfer to the applicant.
6 December 2013
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay the respondents costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
5 November 2014
B The ground for appeal is whether, under Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act 2000, the respondents are liable to reimburse the applicant for the cost of accrued leave entitlements of the respondents’ former employees on their transfer to the applicant.
6 December 2013
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay the respondents costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
5 November 2014
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 158 (PDF, 265 KB)
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Tauranga Law v John Appleton and Natalie Marie Ryan as trustees of the Appleton Family Trust and John Appleton.
Case number
SC 108/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Negligence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the issue of causation in particular whether, if properly advised, the applicant would nevertheless have entered the transaction.[2013] NZCA 420 CA 858/2011
Result
A. Leave to appeal is granted.
B. The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal’s judgment was correct on the issue of causation.
18 November 2013
________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The respondents are to pay the appellant costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary).
C The costs order made in the Court of Appeal are set aside and any costs order in the High Court is reinstated. If costs cannot be agreed for the Court of Appeal, costs should be set by that Court in the light of this judgment.
19 February 2015
B. The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal’s judgment was correct on the issue of causation.
18 November 2013
________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The respondents are to pay the appellant costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary).
C The costs order made in the Court of Appeal are set aside and any costs order in the High Court is reinstated. If costs cannot be agreed for the Court of Appeal, costs should be set by that Court in the light of this judgment.
19 February 2015
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 3 (PDF, 254 KB)
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
FMB v The Queen
Case number
SC 114/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Pre-trial – Cultivation of Cannabis – Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 9 – Breach of implied licence by police officer – Trespass – Evidence of cultivation obtained in the course of illegal search of property –Admission of improperly obtained evidence under Crimes Act 1961, s 379AB – Whether Court of Appeal correctly concluded that exclusion of the improperly obtained evidence would be disproportionate to the impropriety given the moderately serious breach of applicant’s rights and seriousness of the offending – Whether Court of Appeal correctly took into account the maximum penalty for the offence rather than the likely penalty the applicant would receive in their assessment of whether the offending was serious – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Admission of evidence is a substantial miscarriage of justice. [2013] NZCA 258 CA 66/2013
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
26 November 2014.
Case name
Jennings Roadfreight Limited (in liquidation) and Boris van Delden and Roy Horrocks as liquidators v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 118/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Tax Administration Act 1994 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the trust created by s 167(1) of the Tax Administration Act 1994 did not come to an end upon liquidation.[2013] NZCA 455 CA 432/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground for appeal is whether:
(a) the trust arising under s 167(1) of the Tax Administration Act 1994 continues in existence upon the liquidation of a company, in respect of funds held in the company’s account; or
(b) the trust is extinguished upon the liquidation, so that the funds held are dealt with in accordance with Schedule 7 of the Companies Act 1993.
14 February 2014
_________________
The appeal is allowed. The respondent must repay $14,076.38 to the appellants.
Costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary) are awarded to the appellants.
7 November 2014
The approved ground for appeal is whether:
(a) the trust arising under s 167(1) of the Tax Administration Act 1994 continues in existence upon the liquidation of a company, in respect of funds held in the company’s account; or
(b) the trust is extinguished upon the liquidation, so that the funds held are dealt with in accordance with Schedule 7 of the Companies Act 1993.
14 February 2014
_________________
The appeal is allowed. The respondent must repay $14,076.38 to the appellants.
Costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary) are awarded to the appellants.
7 November 2014
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 160 (PDF, 189 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
University of Canterbury v The Insurance Council of New Zealand, Christchurch City Council, Body Corporate 423446 (Oxford Body Corporate)
Case number
SC 120/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Building – Building Act 2004 – Local Government – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’ s declaration that the Christchurch City Council could not require earthquake-strengthening of existing buildings to a capacity of up to 67 per cent of the current building code requirements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Christchurch City Council was not given the power to require remediation work beyond 34 per cent of the new building standard. [2013}NZCA 471 CA 127/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted on the following question: Where a building is an earthquake-prone building in terms of s 122(1) of the Building Act 2004, is a council entitled under s 124(1)(c)(i) of the Act to require the building to be strengthened to an extent greater than is necessary to ensure that the building will not have its ultimate capacity exceeded in a moderate earthquake (as defined in reg 7 of the Building (Specified Systems, Change the Use and Earthquake-prone Buildings) Regulations 2005)? 26 February 2014
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 193 (PDF, 130 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Transcript
Hearing date : 11 November 2014
McGrath, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan, Blanchard JJ.
Case name
Firm PI 1 Limited v Zurich Australian Insurance Limited and Body Corporate 398983
Case number
SC 141/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Insurance – Earthquake Commission Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the clause in the insurance policy providing that the respondent’s liability would be limited to the amount of loss in excess of the cover under the Earthquake Commission Act limited the respondent’s liability for natural disaster damage from a single event to the difference between the maximum cover under the Act and the sum insured.[2013] NZCA 560 CA 3933/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The question is whether the sum insured for buildings under the material damage section of the contract of insurance is inclusive or exclusive of sums payable to the insured by the Earthquake Commission under the Earthquake Commission Act 1993 for natural disaster damage to the insured’s buildings from the 22 February 2011 earthquake.
17 March 2014
__________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
15 October 2014
The question is whether the sum insured for buildings under the material damage section of the contract of insurance is inclusive or exclusive of sums payable to the insured by the Earthquake Commission under the Earthquake Commission Act 1993 for natural disaster damage to the insured’s buildings from the 22 February 2011 earthquake.
17 March 2014
__________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
15 October 2014
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 147 (PDF, 186 KB)
Substantive judgment
Leave judgment - leave granted
Transcript
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
LM v The Queen
Case number
SC 143/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, ss 132 and 144A – Whether the offences in s 132 of the Crimes Act 1961 require physical contact with a child and a desire for sexual gratification – Whether New Zealand has the power to legislate against conduct beyond its own territory, in particular where the conduct is lawful in the place where it occurs – Whether or not the evidence justified the applicant’s convictions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the applicant’s guilty plea - [2013] NZCA 145 CA 217/2012
Result
Leave to appeal against conviction on the charge under s 144A of the Crimes Act 1961 is granted.
The approved ground of appeal is whether s 144A criminalises offending as a party under s 66 of the Crimes Act.
The application to appeal against conviction on the charge under ss 131A and 145A of the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 is dismissed.
20 February 2014
______________________
Appeal dismissed.
13 August 2014
The approved ground of appeal is whether s 144A criminalises offending as a party under s 66 of the Crimes Act.
The application to appeal against conviction on the charge under ss 131A and 145A of the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 is dismissed.
20 February 2014
______________________
Appeal dismissed.
13 August 2014
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 110 (PDF, 85 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
LM v R [2014] NZSC 9 [20 February 2014] (PDF, 44 KB)
Supreme court decision
LM v R [2014] NZSC 64 [5 June 2014] (PDF, 49 KB)
Substantive judgment
LM v R [2014] NZSC 110 [13 August 2014] (PDF, 186 KB)
Transcript
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Redcliffe Forestry Venture Limited and others
Case number
SC 8/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Jurisdiction – High Court Rules, r 5.49 – The respondents sought to set aside a High Court judgment, holding that a forestry investment structure was created for the dominant purpose of tax avoidance and that was upheld by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, on the basis that the Commissioner presented a false case to the Court by failing to disclose that another provision of the Income Tax Act 1994 was applicable – This was raised on appeal before the Supreme Court which refused to hear the argument – Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this proceeding – In the alternative, whether the proceeding should be struck out as an abuse of process.[2011] NZCA 638 CA 152/2010, CA 204/2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved questions are:
The approved questions are:
(i) whether the Commissioner’s challenge to the claim was appropriately brought under r 5.49; and
(ii) whether the judgment of the High Court should in any event have been upheld.
29 February 2012
_____________________________
Transcript
Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Gault JJ.
Case name
Shane Daniel Hannigan v The Queen
Case number
SC 20/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Evidence Act 2006, ss 43 and 94 – Appeal against conviction for arson – Propensity evidence – Whether propensity evidence admitted without regard to the balancing exercise required by s 43 to determine whether the probative value of the evidence is outweighed the risk that it would be unfairly prejudicial – Whether evidence related to the specific issue in dispute – Whether any direction to the jury as to how to use the evidence should have been given – Whether evidence amounted to separate criminal allegations that should have been brought as separate charges – Cross-examination – Whether Crown breached s 94 by cross-examining its own witness – Whether Court of Appeal should have applied Rongonui v R [2010] NZSC 92, [2011] 1 NZLR 23.CA 639/2011 [2012] NZCA 133
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is whether the way in which Kirsty Hannigan was re-examined led to a substantial miscarriage of justice.
30 May 2012
______________________
Appeal dismissed.
26 April 2013
Transcript
Hearing date : 22 October 2012
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.
Page 11 of 32