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
Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand v Heli-logging Limited (in rec and liq). And Mark Wayne Ford in his capacity as Trustee of the Wessex Trust, and Mark Wayne Ford
Case number
SC 62/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Limitation Act 1950, s 28 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was an arguable case for a postponement of the limitation period under s 28 of the Limitation Act 1950.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
31 August 2017
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
31 August 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Case name
The Attorney-General v Arthur William Taylor and Hinemanu Ngaronoa, Sandra Wilde, Kirsty Olivia Fensom and Claire Thrupp
Case number
SC 65/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Senior Courts have jurisdiction to make declarations that Acts of Parliament are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the High Court’s declaration that s 80(1)(d) of the Electoral Act 1993 is inconsistent with the right to vote affirmed and guaranteed in s 12(a) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and cannot be justified under s 5 of that Act – (cross-appeal) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Taylor did not have standing to seek a declaration of inconsistency.
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal by the Attorney General and Mr Taylor are granted.
B The approved questions are whether:
(i) The Court of Appeal was correct to make a declaration of inconsistency; and
(ii) Mr Taylor has standing.
30 August 2017
_____________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed. Mr Taylor accordingly has standing.
C Costs are reserved.
9 November 2018
____________________________
A The appellant must pay to the first respondent usual disbursements.
B The appellant must pay the second to fifth respondents costs of $15,000 or such lesser figure as evidenced by invoices produced to the Registrar.
C Any issues arising as to costs in the Court of Appeal in respect of Mr Taylor are to be dealt with in that Court.
27 February 2019
B The approved questions are whether:
(i) The Court of Appeal was correct to make a declaration of inconsistency; and
(ii) Mr Taylor has standing.
30 August 2017
_____________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed. Mr Taylor accordingly has standing.
C Costs are reserved.
9 November 2018
____________________________
A The appellant must pay to the first respondent usual disbursements.
B The appellant must pay the second to fifth respondents costs of $15,000 or such lesser figure as evidenced by invoices produced to the Registrar.
C Any issues arising as to costs in the Court of Appeal in respect of Mr Taylor are to be dealt with in that Court.
27 February 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 6 - 7 March 2018 (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] 104 (PDF, 290 KB)
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Case name
Tania Joy Lamb v The Attorney General
Case number
SC 67/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reversing the High Court decision giving the applicant an extension of time to apply for a review of an Associate Judge’s decision striking out the applicant’ s claim on the basis of limitation periods.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent. 29 August 2017
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent. 29 August 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Stanley Allen Gilmour v Chief Exectuive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 69/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Parole Act 2002, s 43(1)(c) – Parole Assessment Reports – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 43(1)(c).
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Jawahar Bhaskar Musuku v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 73/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 35 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Deputy Registrar’ s decision declining to dispense with security for costs.
Result
An extension of time is granted but the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
14 September 2017
14 September 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Sonsram Trustee Limited and Arjun Sami v Harrison Grierson Consultants Limited
Case number
SC 76/2017
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants are to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent. 12 September 2017
B The applicants are to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent. 12 September 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Y & P New Zealand Limited v Yang Wang and Chen Zhang
Case number
SC 81/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the respondents had a caveatable interest in the appellant’s properties.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
22 August 2017
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
22 August 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Peter Brent Home Hubbard and Harley Haynes, and Oceanic Palms Limited v Kiwirail Limited
Case number
SC 82/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding a decision of the High Court declining the applicants’ application for relief against forfeiture of a lease.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The application for a stay is dismissed.
C Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
6 October 2017
B The application for a stay is dismissed.
C Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
6 October 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
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
Joanne Mihinui,Matatahi Mihinui and Tania Mihinui v Attorney General for the Ministry of Education and Westerman Property Solutions Limited
Case number
SC 84/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Residential Tenancies Act 1986 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining leave to appeal in respect of a possession order made by the Tenancy Tribunal – Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear appeal.
Result
A The application for an extension of time is granted.
B The applications for leave to appeal and for a stay are dismissed.
C The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondent. 10 October 2017
B The applications for leave to appeal and for a stay are dismissed.
C The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondent. 10 October 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 57 of 110