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.

22 September 2026

Case information summary (as at 18 September 2026) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 112 KB)
Case information summary (as at 18 September 2026)  – Currently unavailable

All years

Case name
Worldwide NZ LCC v New Zealand Venue and Event Management Limited
Case number
SC 50/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908, s 87 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that under s 87 a court may award interest on a debt only from the date on which the debt is ascertained or becomes immediately ascertainable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the price payable for the “B” units and shares, being their fair market value, was not an ascertainable debt under s 87 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that a cause of action for recovery of the unascertained debt did not arise until after determination of the value of the units and shares – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting “debt or damages”  – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by concluding, in effect, that the equitable principle requiring a purchaser in possession to pay interest to an unpaid vendor did not come within s 87 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by concluding, in effect, that the applicant’s pleaded claim asserting rights pursuant to a vendor’ s lien was disentitling conduct preventing it from receiving interest for the period during which the respondent enjoyed the benefits of owning the units and shares.[2013] NZCA 130  CA 834/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.  The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was in error in not awarding interest on the value fixed in respect of the “B” units and shares
11 October 2013
__________________
A The appeal is allowed.  The order of the High Court relating to interest is re-instated.
B The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellant, plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
B The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is set aside.  If costs cannot be agreed in the Court of Appeal they should be set by that Court in light of this judgment.
11 August 2014
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
WORLDWIDE NZ LLC v NZ VENUE AND EVENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED [2014] NZSC 108 [11 August 2014] (PDF, 216 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 20 March 2014

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Douglas Arthur Montrose Graham v The QueenMichael Howard Reeves v The QueenWilliam Patrick Jeffries v The QueenLawrence Roland Valpy Bryant v The Queen
Case number
SC 59/2013 ; SC 60/2013; SC 61/2013; SC 62/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Conviction and Sentence – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to uphold trial Judge’s conclusion that statements in amended prospectus were untrue – Materiality of omissions – Notional investor test – Securities Act 1978, ss 55 and 58(1) – Whether Court of Appeal correct uphold trial Judge’s conclusion that directors did not have reasonable grounds for their honest belief that the statements in the amended prospectus were true – Securities Act 1978, s 58(2)(4) – Whether directors were permitted to place reliance on external expert advice – Companies Act 1993, s 138 – Whether Court of Appeal correct to rule that sentences imposed by trial Judge were manifestly inadequate – Sentencing Act 2002.
Result
A The appeals are allowed.
B The sentences imposed by the Court of Appeal are set aside and the sentences imposed by Dobson J are restored.
7 May 2014
____________
Application for recall dismissed.
Costs are reserved.
22 July 2015
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
DOUGLAS ARTHUR MONTROSE GRAHAM, MICHAEL HOWARD REEVES, WILLIAM PATRICK JEFFRIES AND LAWRENCE ROLAND VALPY BRYANT v R [2014] NZSC 55 [7 May 2014] (PDF, 156 KB)
Recall judgment
DOUGLAS ARTHUR MONTROSE GRAHAM, MICHAEL HOWARD REEVES, WILLIAM PATRICK JEFFRIES AND LAWRENCE ROLAND VALPY BRYANT v R [2015] NZSC 109 [22 July 2015] (PDF, 369 KB)
Supreme court decision
Cost :DOUGLAS ARTHUR MONTROSE GRAHAM, MICHAEL HOWARD REEVES, WILLIAM PATRICK JEFFRIES AND LAWRENCE ROLAND VALPY BRYANT v R [2015] NZSC 138 [24 September 2015] (PDF, 119 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 11 February 2014

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, Blanchard JJ. Decision reserved.
Case name
C  v The Queen
Case number
SC 74/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Pre-trial application – Blackmail, assault, assault with intent to injure – Whether trial Judge correctly concluded that text messages were not unlawfully interception – Crimes Act 1961, s 216B – Whether text messages could be lawfully obtained through a production order – Search and Surveillance Act 2012, ss 71¬–72 – Admissibility of text messages at trial – Evidence Act 2006, s 30.[2013] NZHC 1900     CRI 2012 009 11872
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CHAPMAN v R [2013] NZSC 83 [23 August 2013] (PDF, 49 KB)
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

23 August 2013
Case name
Ridgecrest New Zealand Limited v IAG New Zealand
Case number
SC 76/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Insurance – Whether, when more than one insured event occurs during the term of a policy of insurance in materially the same form as the policy issued by the Respondent to the Appellant, the insured may on each occasion recover the cost, up to the amount of the sum insured, of restoring the property to the condition in which it was prior to the event – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by answering a different question than the preliminary question put to it – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by disregarding the agreed facts and substituting other facts.[2012] NZCA 291   CA 811/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal correct to conclude that Ridgecrest is not entitled to be paid for the damage resulting from each of the earthquakes up to the limit of the sum insured.
11 November 2013
______________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The preliminary question is answered “yes” but subject to the caveats identified in [62].
C The appellant is awarded costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar in relation to the appeal.
D The orders for costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside and the respondent is to pay the appellant costs in those courts to be fixed by those courts.
27 August 2014
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
RIDGECREST NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2013] NZSC 108 [8 November 2013] (PDF, 10 KB)
Supreme court decision
RIDGECREST NZ LIMITED v IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2014] NZSC 129 [27 August 2014] (PDF, 267 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 10 March 2014

McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Blanchard, Tipping JJ.
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
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
NAERA and OTHERS v FENWICK and OTHERS [2014] NZSC 58 [19 May 2014 (PDF, 80 KB)
Substantive judgment
PIRIHIRA FENWICK, WIREMU KINGI AND HIWINUI HEKE v JILLIAN NAERA, KEREAMA PENE, ANAHA MOREHU, WARWICK MOREHU AND ERIC HODGE [2015] NZSC 68 [20 May 2015] (PDF, 559 KB)
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
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
LSG SKY CHEFS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v PACIFIC FLIGHT CATERING LIMITED [2014] NZSC 158 [5 November 2014] (PDF, 117 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 19 August 2014

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
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
Tauranga Law v John Appleton and Natalie Marie Ryan as Trustees of the Appleton Family Trust [2015] NZSC 3 (PDF, 2.2 MB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 1  July 2014

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
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
JENNINGS ROADFREIGHT LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2014] NZSC 2 [14 February 2014] (PDF, 34 KB)
Substantive judgment
JENNINGS ROADFREIGHT LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2014] NZSC 160 [7 November 2014 (PDF, 209 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 10 June 2014

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
Leave judgment - leave granted
UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY v THE INSURANCE COUNCIL OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED [2014] NZSC 13 [26 February 2014] (PDF, 7 KB)
Supreme court decision
UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY v THE INSURANCE COUNCIL OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED [2014] NZSC 193 [22 December 2014] (PDF, 175 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 11 November 2014

McGrath, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan,  Blanchard  JJ.
Page 11 of 33