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
DB Breweries Limited v Chief Executive of the New Zealand Customs Service
Case number
SC 88/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 20 of the Customs and Excise Act 1996.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
11 October 2017
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
11 October 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Angela Claire Shaw and Ian Alexander Shaw v Colin David Owens and David Stuart Vance as liquidators of Aluminium Plus Wellington Limited
Case number
SC 90/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the directors’ conduct amounted to breach of the duties imposed by ss 135 (reckless trading) and 137 (duty of care).
Result
A The application for an extension of time to appeal is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
20 October 2017
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
20 October 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Chesterfields Preschools Limited (In Liq) and Therese Anne Sisson v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 91/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the High Court’s decision putting Chesterfields Preschools Ltd into liquidation.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted on one ground only (Sisson v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2017] NZCA 326).
B The approved question is whether the conditional order of the Court of Appeal setting aside the order of the High Court putting the first applicant into liquidation and remitting the proceeding to the High Court for rehearing should be quashed and replaced with an unconditional order.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
D We make no award of costs.
_____________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The order made by the Court of Appeal setting aside the order of the High Court putting the first appellant into liquidation and remitting the proceeding to the High Court for rehearing, subject to the condition that within 15 working days of the Court of Appeal judgment, the second appellant pay into the High Court at Christchurch the amount of $109,675.22, is quashed.
C In its place we make an order setting aside the order putting the first appellant into liquidation and remitting the proceeding to the High Court for rehearing.
D There is no order as to costs.
23 November 2017
B The approved question is whether the conditional order of the Court of Appeal setting aside the order of the High Court putting the first applicant into liquidation and remitting the proceeding to the High Court for rehearing should be quashed and replaced with an unconditional order.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
D We make no award of costs.
_____________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The order made by the Court of Appeal setting aside the order of the High Court putting the first appellant into liquidation and remitting the proceeding to the High Court for rehearing, subject to the condition that within 15 working days of the Court of Appeal judgment, the second appellant pay into the High Court at Christchurch the amount of $109,675.22, is quashed.
C In its place we make an order setting aside the order putting the first appellant into liquidation and remitting the proceeding to the High Court for rehearing.
D There is no order as to costs.
23 November 2017
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Attorney-General
Case number
SC 92/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining the application for an extension of time to apply for an allocation of hearing date and filing the case on appeal.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
5 October 2017
____________________
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
6 November 2017
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
5 October 2017
____________________
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
6 November 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Justices William Young, Arnold, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France
Case number
SC 93/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed as an abuse of process.
28 September 2017
______________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
1 November 2017
28 September 2017
______________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
1 November 2017
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Christopher Duncan Baker and Kathryn Ann Baker v Wallace Douglas Hodder, Ann Adele Hodder and Kadd Farm Limited
Case number
SC 94/2017
Summary
Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the appeal was moot and that separate leave to appeal the High Court cost awards was required.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Baker v Hodder [2017] NZCA 355).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have heard and determined the applicants’ appeal to that Court. 17 November 2017
_____________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The order made under s 174 of the Companies Act 1993 against the appellants is quashed.
C The respondents must pay the appellants costs of $15,000 plus usual disbursements.
D We quash the costs orders made in the High Court and Court of Appeal. Costs should be re determined in those Courts in light of this judgment.
22 August 2018
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have heard and determined the applicants’ appeal to that Court. 17 November 2017
_____________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The order made under s 174 of the Companies Act 1993 against the appellants is quashed.
C The respondents must pay the appellants costs of $15,000 plus usual disbursements.
D We quash the costs orders made in the High Court and Court of Appeal. Costs should be re determined in those Courts in light of this judgment.
22 August 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 March 2018 (PDF, 416 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 78 (PDF, 82 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
BAKER v HODDER [2017] NZSC 171 [17 November 2017] (PDF, 183 KB)
Substantive judgment
BAKER v HODDER [2018] NZSC 78 [22 August 2018] (PDF, 128 KB)
Case name
Complainant A v New Zealand Law Society and Z, A Lawyer
Case number
SC 95/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to review the Registrar of that Court’s decision to not dispense with security for costs.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
12 October 2017
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
12 October 2017
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Court of Appeal decision
Case name
Stuart Walton Herron v Wayne Andrew Wallace and Belmont Lifestyle Village Limited
Case number
SC 98/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondent was entitled to a reduction in debt in respect of the sale and purchase
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Lawrence Reginald Jury v The Chief Executive of the New Zealand Customs Service
Case number
SC 100/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that in an appeal under s 267 of the Customs and Excise Tax Act 1996 the burden of proof is on the appellant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court Judge had made a relevant or material error as to the test of intention under s 225(1)(o) of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal exceeded its jurisdiction under s 273 of the Act.
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
Case name
Hinemanu Ngaronoa, Sandra Wilde and Arthury William Taylor v The Attorney-General of New Zealand, The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections and The Electoral Commission
Case number
SC 102/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Electoral Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 268(1)(e) entrenches only that part of s 74 which relates to the age for registration as an elector – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 80(1)(d) is not directly or indirectly discriminatory and does not involve a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted on the question of whether the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010 purported to amend an entrenched provision of the Electoral Act 1993 and thus required a 75 per cent majority to be passed.
B The application is otherwise dismissed.
C There is no costs award.
6 December 2017
________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
14 December 2018
B The application is otherwise dismissed.
C There is no costs award.
6 December 2017
________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
14 December 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 March 2018 (PDF, 493 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 123 (PDF, 299 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 58 of 110