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
Maythem Kamil Radhi v District Court at Manukau and The Commonwealth of Australia
Case number
SC 57/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Extradition Act 1999, s 48 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that it would not be unjust or oppressive to extradite the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application to adduce further evidence.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Radhi v District Court at Manukau [2017] NZCA 157).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that circumstances of the applicant did not warrant a reference to the Minister of Justice under s 48(4)(a)(ii) of the Extradition Act 1999.
18 August 2017
________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The appellant’s case is referred to the Minister of Justice pursuant to s 48(4)(a)(ii) of the Extradition Act 1999.
C Costs are reserved.
21 December 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that circumstances of the applicant did not warrant a reference to the Minister of Justice under s 48(4)(a)(ii) of the Extradition Act 1999.
18 August 2017
________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The appellant’s case is referred to the Minister of Justice pursuant to s 48(4)(a)(ii) of the Extradition Act 1999.
C Costs are reserved.
21 December 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 17 August 2017 (PDF, 207 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 198 (PDF, 331 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Transcription hearing date 11 October 2017 (PDF, 269 KB)
Additional document
Transcription hearing date 22 November 2017 (PDF, 162 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
ESR Group (NZ) Limited v Ian James Burden, Plantation Grown Timbers (International) Limited and Plantation Grown Timbers (Vietnam) Limited
Case number
SC 83/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Copyright Act 1994, ss 35, 120 and 232 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the second and third respondents were entitled to enforce copyright in New Zealand – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicant infringed copyright by importation.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $4,500 and reasonable disbursements to the respondents. 20 November 2017
B The applicant is to pay costs of $4,500 and reasonable disbursements to the respondents. 20 November 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Transcript civil leave application hearing
Case name
Karl Leslie Raymond Marwood v The Commissioner of Police and others
Case number
SC 11/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the High Court has no power to exclude improperly obtained evidence in a proceeding under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court Judge was wrong to exclude evidence. [2015] NZCA 608 CA 487/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Commissioner of Police v Marwood [2015] NZCA 608).
B The approved question is:Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that the High Court had no jurisdiction (or power) to exclude the challenged evidence obtained by search of the applicant’ s premises and, if so, should the challenged evidence be excluded in this proceeding?11 April 2016
_____________
A The disputed evidence is admissible in these proceedings.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.26 October 2016
B The approved question is:Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that the High Court had no jurisdiction (or power) to exclude the challenged evidence obtained by search of the applicant’ s premises and, if so, should the challenged evidence be excluded in this proceeding?11 April 2016
_____________
A The disputed evidence is admissible in these proceedings.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.26 October 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 17 June 2016 (PDF, 401 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 139 (PDF, 250 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
The Queen v GJA and Privacy Commissioner (intervener)
Case number
SC 12/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in excluding evidence on the basis that it was improperly obtained.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (R v Alsford [2015] NZCA 628).
B The issues are:
(i) whether the electricity consumption records were improperly obtained from the service provider;
(ii) whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that evidence that had earlier been excluded as improperly obtained could not be relied on; and
(iii) whether, even if improperly obtained, the evidence should be admitted under s 30(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 2006.
15 March 2016
_____________
A The appeal is allowed. The evidence obtained from the searches conducted on 19 December 2012 is admissible at trial.
B Order prohibiting publication of the judgment or any part of the proceedings (including the result) in the news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the trial. Publication in a law report or law digest permitted.
29 March 2017
B The issues are:
(i) whether the electricity consumption records were improperly obtained from the service provider;
(ii) whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that evidence that had earlier been excluded as improperly obtained could not be relied on; and
(iii) whether, even if improperly obtained, the evidence should be admitted under s 30(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 2006.
15 March 2016
_____________
A The appeal is allowed. The evidence obtained from the searches conducted on 19 December 2012 is admissible at trial.
B Order prohibiting publication of the judgment or any part of the proceedings (including the result) in the news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the trial. Publication in a law report or law digest permitted.
29 March 2017
Date of hearing
16 June 2016
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
R v GREGORY JOHN ALSFORD [2017] NZSC 42 [29 March 2017] (PDF, 505 KB)
Case name
T v The Queen
Case number
SC 52/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusion that exclusion of improperly obtained evidence would be disproportionate to the impropriety. [2016] NZCA 148 CA438/2015
Result
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed. 21 June 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
T (SC 52/2016) v R [2016] NZSC 76 21 June 2016 (PDF, 71 KB)
Judgment appealed from
[2016] NZCA 148 CA438/2015 not available
Case name
N v The Queen
Case number
SC 53/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusion that exclusion of improperly obtained evidence would be disproportionate to the impropriety. [2016] NZCA 148 CA440/2015
Result
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed. 21 June 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
T (SC 52/2016) v R [2016] NZSC 76 21 June 2016 (PDF, 71 KB)
Judgment appealed from
[2016] NZCA 148 CA440/2015 not available
Case name
ASG v Harlene Hayne
Case number
SC 61/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Criminal procedure Act, s 200 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of "publication" under s 200 – Was information relied on by the employer obtained contrary to an order made under s 200 and if so, does it matter. [2016] NZCA 203 CA703/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (ASG v Hayne [2016] NZCA 203)
B The approved questions are:
(i) Did the disclosure to the respondent of information relating to the applicant’s appearance in the District Court breach s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011? And, if so
(ii) Was it nonetheless open to the respondent to rely on and use that information in relation to the applicant?
18 August 2016
___________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay to the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary).
3 May 2017
B The approved questions are:
(i) Did the disclosure to the respondent of information relating to the applicant’s appearance in the District Court breach s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011? And, if so
(ii) Was it nonetheless open to the respondent to rely on and use that information in relation to the applicant?
18 August 2016
___________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay to the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary).
3 May 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 February 2017 (PDF, 301 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 59 (PDF, 266 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
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
J v Accident Compensation Corporation
Case number
SC 93/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Accident Compensation Act 2001, s 103(2) – Whether High Court erred in holding the District Court was wrong to find that the applicant was unable because of personal injury to return to pre-injury employment.[2016] NZHC 1683 CIV-2015-412-000125
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
9 February 2017
9 February 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Leave hearing date : 25 November 2016
William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ
Case name
Janet Elsie Lowe v Director General of Health, Ministry of Health and Chief Executive, Capital and Coast District Health Board
Case number
SC 97/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000, s 5 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the term “engaged” in the definition of “homeworker” in s 5 – Whether the Court of Appeal acted outside its jurisdiction. [2016] NZCA 369 CA169/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved question is whether the applicant was a “homeworker” within the meaning of s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and deemed to be an employee of the first and second respondents when she undertook support care pursuant to the Carer Support scheme.
2 November 2016
_____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no award of costs.
7 August 2017
________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 7 August 2017 (Lowe v Director-General of Health [2017] NZSC 115) is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
18 December 2017
B The approved question is whether the applicant was a “homeworker” within the meaning of s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and deemed to be an employee of the first and second respondents when she undertook support care pursuant to the Carer Support scheme.
2 November 2016
_____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no award of costs.
7 August 2017
________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 7 August 2017 (Lowe v Director-General of Health [2017] NZSC 115) is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
18 December 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 February 2017 (PDF, 510 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 115 (PDF, 263 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Transcription hearing date 23 November 2017 (PDF, 183 KB)
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Page 7 of 32