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.
19 June 2026
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 89 KB)
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 126 KB)
All years
Case name
Stevenson Brown Limited v Montecillo Trust
Case number
SC 34/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a short form agreement limiting the liability of the applicant was not incorporated into the contract of engagement between the applicant and respondent.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
22 June 2017
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
22 June 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Charitable Trust v Invercargill City Council
Case number
SC 37/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no duty of care was owed by the Invercargill City Council to the Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Charitable Trust – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of limitation and contributory negligence principles
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Invercargill City Council v Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Charitable Trust
[2017] NZCA 68).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to reverse the judgment of Dunningham J.
30 May 2017
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B The finding made in the High Court upholding the appellant’s claim against the respondent is restored. The finding of the Court of Appeal that the appellant was contributorily negligent and that an award of damages should be reduced by 50 per cent is upheld. Judgment is entered accordingly. Leave is reserved to the parties to apply if any issues arise about the calculation of the judgment sum (including interest).
C The respondent must pay the appellant costs of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements to be determined by the Registrar if necessary. We allow for second counsel.
D The costs awards made in the Court of Appeal and in the High Court are set aside. If costs in those Courts cannot be agreed they should be set by the Court of Appeal and the High Court respectively in light of this judgment.
14 December 2017
[2017] NZCA 68).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to reverse the judgment of Dunningham J.
30 May 2017
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B The finding made in the High Court upholding the appellant’s claim against the respondent is restored. The finding of the Court of Appeal that the appellant was contributorily negligent and that an award of damages should be reduced by 50 per cent is upheld. Judgment is entered accordingly. Leave is reserved to the parties to apply if any issues arise about the calculation of the judgment sum (including interest).
C The respondent must pay the appellant costs of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements to be determined by the Registrar if necessary. We allow for second counsel.
D The costs awards made in the Court of Appeal and in the High Court are set aside. If costs in those Courts cannot be agreed they should be set by the Court of Appeal and the High Court respectively in light of this judgment.
14 December 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 - 11 August 2017 (PDF, 853 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 190 (PDF, 280 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
John Archibald Banks v The Queen
Case number
SC 41/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967, s 5 – Whether the Court of Appeal and High Court erred in declining to award costs to the applicant following his acquittal.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs to the respondent of $2,500.
28 June 2017
B The applicant must pay costs to the respondent of $2,500.
28 June 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS v R [2017] NZSC 98 28 June 2017 (PDF, 84 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
ActiveDocs Limited v Cadre Investments Limited, Michael William Scott and Stanbridge and Treasury Mrechant Finance Limited
Case number
SC 49/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the contract regarding preference shares – Whether High Court erred by invoking a presumption that dividends from preference shares are calculated cumulative.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs to the respondents of $2,500.
20 June 2017
B The applicant must pay costs to the respondents of $2,500.
20 June 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Z v Z
Case number
SC 51/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in making suppression orders.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent. 3 July 2017
The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent. 3 July 2017
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Z (SC 51/2017) v Z [2017] NZSC 102 3 July 2017 (PDF, 77 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Chatfield & Co Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 55/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Tax Administration Act 1994, s 17 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Commissioner of Inland Revenue has not created a legitimate expectation by publishing operational statements.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
11 August 2017
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
11 August 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Torchlight Fund No 1 LP (in receivership) and NZ Credit Fund (GP) 1 Limited v Wilaci Pty Limited
Case number
SC 56/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a late payment fee was not an unlawful penalty.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
14 July 2017
B The applicants must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
14 July 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
David Charles Browne and David Browne Contractors Limited and David Browne Mechanical Limited v David Ross Petterson as liquidator of Polyethylene Pipe Systems Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 57/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to, and appreciation of, the evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of ss 295(a), 299(1) and 299(3) of the Companies Act 1993. [2016] NZCA 189 CA291/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal by Mr Browne is dismissed.
B Leave to appeal is granted to David Browne Contractors Ltd and David Browne Mechanical Ltd.
The approved question is whether the orders for repayment ought to have been made against them.
C Costs are reserved.
16 August 2016
____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $30,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be
determined by the Registrar in the absence of agreement). We certify for two counsel.
7 August 2017
B Leave to appeal is granted to David Browne Contractors Ltd and David Browne Mechanical Ltd.
The approved question is whether the orders for repayment ought to have been made against them.
C Costs are reserved.
16 August 2016
____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $30,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be
determined by the Registrar in the absence of agreement). We certify for two counsel.
7 August 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 November 2016 (PDF, 512 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 116 (PDF, 267 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
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
Rudi Hartono and Others v Ministry for Primary Industries and Sajo Oyang Corporation
Case number
SC 61/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Fisheries Act 1996, s 256 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the Fisheries Act to the claim for unpaid wages against a forfeited vessel.
Result
Leave to appeal is granted (Sajo Oyang Corp v Ministry for Primary Industries [2017] NZCA 182).
The approved question is whether the applicants have an interest in the Oyang 75 for the purposes of s 256 of the Fisheries Act 1996.
9 August 2017
________________________________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside (save as to the direction that the proceedings be transferred to the High Court) and the judgment of the High Court is reinstated.
B The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the appellants costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We allow for second counsel.
C The appellants are entitled to costs in the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court.
D All issues as to costs in respect of the District Court and High Court are to be determined in the High Court.
2 March 2018
The approved question is whether the applicants have an interest in the Oyang 75 for the purposes of s 256 of the Fisheries Act 1996.
9 August 2017
________________________________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside (save as to the direction that the proceedings be transferred to the High Court) and the judgment of the High Court is reinstated.
B The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the appellants costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We allow for second counsel.
C The appellants are entitled to costs in the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court.
D All issues as to costs in respect of the District Court and High Court are to be determined in the High Court.
2 March 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 14 November 2017 (PDF, 505 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 17 (PDF, 291 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 56 of 110