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.

4 September 2026

Case information summary (as at 4 September 2026) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 116 KB)
Case information summary (as at 4 September 2026)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 132 KB) 

All years

Case name
RAS  v The Queen
Case number
SC 41/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Prostitution Reform Act 2003, s 22(1) – Whether Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s 22(1) as a strict liability offence – Whether Court of Appeal correctly held that search warrants were properly obtained under s 198 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 rather than s 30 of the Prostitution Reform Act – Whether Court of Appeal’ s interpretation of the jurisdictional scope of s 198 of the Summary Proceedings Act was correct.[2012]NZCA 189   CA 761/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
27 July 2012.
Case name
Ann Mary Seaton v Minister for Land Information
Case number
SC 44/2012
Summary
Civil – s 23 Public Works Act 1981– compulsory acquisition – whether s 23 empowers the Minister to acquire land indirectly required for a Government work – whether the Minister’s intention to transfer the easement interests to Transpower and Orion following acquisition meant that he had not acted for a proper purpose as required by s 23.[2012]NZCA 234  CA   360/2011
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the Public Works Act 1981 in the circumstances of this case?
25 July 2012
___________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside.
C The orders made in the High Court are restored.
D The respondent is to pay the appellant, with respect to costs in this Court, the sum of $25,000 together with disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.
E  If the parties cannot agree on costs in the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal must fix them.
29 April 2013
Media Releases
Transcript

Hearing date : 13 November 2012

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.
Case name
Vector Limited v Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 46/2012
Summary
[2012]NZCA 220  CA   702/2011
Result

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved grounds are whether under the Commerce Act 1986 the s 54K(3) power:

(i) is able to be exercised in the manner provided for in s 53P(3)(b) in the absence of a published input methodology (or methodologies) specific to starting price adjustment under s 53P(3)(b); and, if so:

(ii) permits change only to the extent necessitated by the newly published input methodology relied on by the Commission.

14 August 2012

__________________________

The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay the respondent costs of $40,000 together with disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar. 

15 November 2012
Transcript

Hearing dates : 9 and 10 October 2012

McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Blanchard, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Tiroa E and Te Hapa B Trusts v Chief Executive of Land Information and others.
Case number
SC 58/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Overseas Investment Act 2005 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first, second and third respondents had applied the correct test under s 16(1)(a) of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first, second and third respondents had not taken into account irrelevant considerations – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first, second and third respondents had obtained reasonably adequate information to reach decision that s 16(1)(a) of the Act had been satisfied.  [2012]NZCA 355  CA  88/2012, CA 284/2012
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
 
The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to both Milk New Zealand Holdings Ltd and the Crown respondents.
17 October 2012.
Case name
Neil Stuart Johnston v Christopher Frederick Schurr and Deam & Shearer
Case number
SC 61/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 – Whether a manager appointed under the Act can be liable in damages for acting without reasonable care – Whether the incapacity of a client brings the retainer of a solicitor to an end, even if the solicitor continues to act in relation to the client’s affairs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to findings of fact made by the trial Judge.  [2012]NZCA 363  CA  616/2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted in relation to both respondents. The approved ground is whether the claims against the first and second respondents were properly dismissed. 27 November 2012 _____________________ A The appeal is allowed in part.  The judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the insurance issue are set aside.  The question whether Mr Schurr is liable to the appellant in respect of the surrender of the insurance policies is to be determined in the High Court. B  In all other respects the appeal is dismissed. C  In respect of the appeal to this Court, the appellant is to pay costs to Mr Schurr and Deem & Shearer in the sums of $15,000 and $25,000 respectively together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar. D  The orders for costs made in the High Court and Court of Appeal are affirmed. 12 June 2015
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
NEIL STUART JOHNSTON v CHRISTOPHER FREDERICK SCHURR [2015] NZSC 82 [12 June 2015] (PDF, 359 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 17 February 2015

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan JJ.
Case name
Alyxe John Wood-Luxford v Mark John Wood
Case number
SC 62/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Family Protection Act, ss 2(1) and 3 – Definition of “stepchild” – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant was not eligible to bring a claim under the Act – Whether word “living”, as used in the Act, can include a child in utero at the date of the qualifying event.[2012]NZCA 377  CA  739/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.The question to be addressed on the appeal is whether the applicant is a person entitled to claim under the Family Protection Act 1955 against the estate of John Luxford, either as a child of the deceased or a step-child of the deceased within the meaning of the Family Protection Act 1955.
5 December 2012
________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The reasonable solicitor and client costs for all parties are to be met by the estate of the late John Williamson Luxford.
19 December 2013
Transcripts
Media Releases
Court of Appeal decision
WOOD-LUXFORD v MARK JOHN WOOD COA CA739/2011 [21 August 2012]
Leave judgment - leave granted
WOOD-LUXFORD v WOOD SC 62/2012 [5 December 2012] (PDF, 8 KB)
Additional document
Transcript hearing date 7 March 2013 (PDF, 219 KB)
Substantive judgment
ALYXE JOHN WOOD-LUXFORD v MARK JOHN WOOD [2013] NZSC 153 [19 December 2013] (PDF, 236 KB)
Case name
Godfrey Waterhouse and Robert John Waterhouse v Contractors Bonding Limited
Case number
SC 66/2012
Summary
Civil appeal – Litigation funding agreement – Law of Maintenance and Champerty ¬– Extent of Court oversight over litigation involving such agreements –Whether Court of Appeal was correct to order disclosure to the defendant of particular details of the plaintiff’s agreement to prevent potential abuse of process ¬– Whether degree of disclosure was appropriate.  [2012]NZCA 399  CA  200/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved questions are:
(i) whether the appellants should be ordered to disclose the litigation agreement to the respondent; and
(ii) if so, on what terms.
14 November 2012
_____________________
tc
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
WATERHOUSE v CONTRACTORS BONDING LTD [2013] NZSC 89 [20 September 2013] (PDF, 255 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 19 March 2013
Case name
Ashley Dwayne Guy v The Queen
Case number
SC 67/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – evidence – Evidence Act 2006 – whether the transcript of an interview of the complainant (“the complainant transcript” ) was inadmissible as potentially prejudicial material – whether the complainant transcript was inadmissible as a prior inconsistent statement – whether the transcript of an interview with the accused (“the accused interview transcript”) was inadmissible – whether the trial Judge’s direction to the jury on evidence relating to the complainant was appropriate – whether the Court of Appeal erred in admitting the complainant and accused interview transcripts given the fact neither counsel nor the trial Judge had had the opportunity to address the jury on these materials.[2012]NZCA 416  CA  69/2012.
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred, notwithstanding the error in the jury being given and reading the two interview transcripts which had not been put into evidence.
20 December 2012.

10 April 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.Decision reserved.
Rehearing directed.
14 November 2013.

7 October 2014.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan  JJ.
Decision reserved.

Appeal allowed, conviction quashed,
New trial ordered.
19 November 2014
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
ASHLEY DWAYNE GUY v R [2014] NZSC 165 [19 November 2014] (PDF, 254 KB)
Case name
Roger Lindsay Blick v The Queen
Case number
SC 70/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Application for recall – Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal declining to recall a judgment allegedly obtained by fraud – Whether the proposed appeal can be distinguished from de Mey v R [2005] NZSC 7.  [2012] NZCA 373  CA 26/2001
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 November 2012.
Case name
Sonja Marie Lawson v The Queen
Case number
SC 71/2012
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Crimes Act 1961, s 228(b) – Using a document with intent to obtain a pecuniary advantage, dishonestly and without claim of right – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss appeal against conviction ¬– Trial counsel errors – Prosecution Misconduct – Failure to consider appellant’s brief – Unfair hearing – Errors of law.[2012] NZCA 426  CA 593/2001
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
13 March 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
LAWSON v R SC 71/2012 [13 March 2013] (PDF, 44 KB)
Page 13 of 33