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
Affco New Zealand Limited v New Zealand Meat Workers and related Trades Union Incorporated and Ors
Case number
SC 131/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding concession by counsel – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding applicant’s conduct defeated existing rights of employees – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 82 of the Employment Relations Act. [2016] NZCA 482 CA700/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (AFFCO New Zealand Ltd v New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union Inc and Ors [2016] NZCA 482).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that a breach of s 82 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 had occurred when the applicant required seasonal workers to enter into new individual employment agreements before commencing work for the 2015/2016 season.
9 March 2017
____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $35,000 plus reasonable disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
7 September 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that a breach of s 82 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 had occurred when the applicant required seasonal workers to enter into new individual employment agreements before commencing work for the 2015/2016 season.
9 March 2017
____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $35,000 plus reasonable disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
7 September 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 and 21 June 2017 (PDF, 857 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 135 (PDF, 251 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Employment Court decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Eric Meserve Houghton v Timothy Ernest Corbett Saunders, Samuel John Magill, John Michael Feeney, Craig Edgeworth Horrocks, Peter David Hunter, Peter Thomas and Joan Withers, and Credit Suisse Private Equity Inc, and Credit Suisse First Boston Asian Me
Case number
SC 135/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Securities Act 1978 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the Securities Act 1978, ss 2, 55 and 56 – Whether the Court of Appeal findings preclude Fair Trading Act 1986 claims. [2016] NZCA 493 CA578/2014
Result
A The appeal in relation to the fourth and fifth respondents is dismissed.
B The appeal in relation to the first, second and third respondents is allowed to the limited extent described below.
C The Court of Appeal’s finding that the forecast of revenue for the financial year ended 30 June 2004 (the untrue statement) was, at the time of allotment of the shares offered for subscription in the Feltex prospectus, an untrue statement for the purposes of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978, is upheld.
D The Court of Appeal’s findings that the untrue statement did not give rise to liability under s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and was not in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 are set aside.
E We find that the untrue statement was in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986.
F The questions of whether plaintiffs represented by the appellant: (i) invested on the faith of the prospectus in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so; (ii) suffered any loss by reason of the untrue statement in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so, the quantum of such loss; and (iii) are entitled to any remedy under the Fair Trading Act 1986 are left for resolution by the High Court at the stage 2 hearing.
G In all other respects, the appeal in relation to the first to third respondents is dismissed.
H Costs in this Court and the Courts below are reserved. Submissions on costs should be filed and served according to the following timetable: (i) Appellant: 20 working days after the date of this judgment. (ii) First to third respondents: 10 working days after the appellant’s submissions are filed. (iii) Fourth and fifth respondents: 10 working days after the first to third respondents’ submissions are filed. (iv) Appellant in reply: 10 working days after the fourth and fifth respondents’ submissions are filed.
15 August 2018
_________________________________
A The first to third respondents must pay the appellant costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements.
B Costs in the High Court should be reconsidered by that Court in light of this Court’s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal should be determined in light of this Court’ s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment if the agreement between the parties as to costs in that Court expressly or impliedly allows for such a determination to occur.
22 November 2018
B The appeal in relation to the first, second and third respondents is allowed to the limited extent described below.
C The Court of Appeal’s finding that the forecast of revenue for the financial year ended 30 June 2004 (the untrue statement) was, at the time of allotment of the shares offered for subscription in the Feltex prospectus, an untrue statement for the purposes of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978, is upheld.
D The Court of Appeal’s findings that the untrue statement did not give rise to liability under s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and was not in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 are set aside.
E We find that the untrue statement was in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986.
F The questions of whether plaintiffs represented by the appellant: (i) invested on the faith of the prospectus in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so; (ii) suffered any loss by reason of the untrue statement in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so, the quantum of such loss; and (iii) are entitled to any remedy under the Fair Trading Act 1986 are left for resolution by the High Court at the stage 2 hearing.
G In all other respects, the appeal in relation to the first to third respondents is dismissed.
H Costs in this Court and the Courts below are reserved. Submissions on costs should be filed and served according to the following timetable: (i) Appellant: 20 working days after the date of this judgment. (ii) First to third respondents: 10 working days after the appellant’s submissions are filed. (iii) Fourth and fifth respondents: 10 working days after the first to third respondents’ submissions are filed. (iv) Appellant in reply: 10 working days after the fourth and fifth respondents’ submissions are filed.
15 August 2018
_________________________________
A The first to third respondents must pay the appellant costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements.
B Costs in the High Court should be reconsidered by that Court in light of this Court’s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal should be determined in light of this Court’ s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment if the agreement between the parties as to costs in that Court expressly or impliedly allows for such a determination to occur.
22 November 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 April 2017 (PDF, 284 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 74 (PDF, 68 KB)
Additional document
Transcript hearing date 5 September 2017 (PDF, 1.4 MB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
HOUGHTON v SAUNDERS & ORS [2017] NZSC 55 (PDF, 113 KB)
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Mark Albert Horsfall v Diana Jane Potter and 168 Group Limited
Case number
SC 138/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – s 44 Property (Relationships) Act 1976 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 44.[2016] NZCA 514 CA720/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Potter v Horsfall [2016] NZCA 514).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the disposition of the proceeds of the College Street property was made by the applicant to defeat the claim or rights of the first respondent for the purposes of s 44 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.
2 March 2017
_________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay the first respondent costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
21 December 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the disposition of the proceeds of the College Street property was made by the applicant to defeat the claim or rights of the first respondent for the purposes of s 44 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.
2 March 2017
_________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay the first respondent costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
21 December 2017
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 196 (PDF, 285 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Hearing date : 15 June 2017
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and McGrath JJ.
Case name
New Health New Zealand Inc v South Taranaki District Council and Attorney-General (for and on behalf of the Minister of Health)
Case number
SC 141/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (New Health New Zealand Inc v South Taranaki District Council [2016] NZCA 462, [2017] 2 NZLR 13).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals of the appellant in CA159/2014, CA615/2014 and CA529/2015.
20 February 2017
___________________________________________________
The application for leave to admit the TDB report annexed to the affidavit of Philip Barry is dismissed.
30 October 2017
_________________________________________________
A The appeals from the decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to CA529/2015 and CA615/2014, referred to respectively as the Regulations and Medicines Act appeals, are dismissed.
B Costs are reserved. Any memoranda on costs may be filed by 31 July 2018. 27 June 2018 A The appeal is dismissed. B The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements.
C We make no award of costs in favour of the second respondent.
27 June 2018
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals of the appellant in CA159/2014, CA615/2014 and CA529/2015.
20 February 2017
___________________________________________________
The application for leave to admit the TDB report annexed to the affidavit of Philip Barry is dismissed.
30 October 2017
_________________________________________________
A The appeals from the decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to CA529/2015 and CA615/2014, referred to respectively as the Regulations and Medicines Act appeals, are dismissed.
B Costs are reserved. Any memoranda on costs may be filed by 31 July 2018. 27 June 2018 A The appeal is dismissed. B The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements.
C We make no award of costs in favour of the second respondent.
27 June 2018
Date of hearing
16 November 2017
- 17 November 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 and 17 November 2017 (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 59 and MR [2018] NZSC 60 (PDF, 259 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Case name
Jacqueline Ann Cameron v The Queen
Case number
SC 142/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Appeal against sentence – Social Security Act 1964, s 127 – Crimes Act 1961, s 228(b) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its calculation of the debt owed by the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusion regarding the applicant’s counsel – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding there was no miscarriage of justice. [2016] NZCA 536 CA505/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
21 August 2017
21 August 2017
Date of Judgment
01 January 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Court of Appeal decision
Case name
David Brown and Glen Sycamore v New Zealand Basing Limited
Case number
SC 145/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that by selecting a different legal jurisdiction to govern their relationship, the parties could contract out of the right in the Employment Relations Act to be free from dismissal and discrimination based on age.[2016] NZCA 525 CA12/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (New Zealand Basing Ltd v Brown [2016] NZCA 525, [2017] 2 NZLR 93).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that age discrimination provisions of the Employment Relations Act 2000 do not apply to the employment agreements between the applicants and the respondent.
17 February 2017
_________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Employment Court is restored.
B The order for costs made in the Court of Appeal is set aside.
C The respondent is to pay the appellants costs in respect of the Court of Appeal hearing, to be fixed by that Court, and in respect of this appeal costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 September 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that age discrimination provisions of the Employment Relations Act 2000 do not apply to the employment agreements between the applicants and the respondent.
17 February 2017
_________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Employment Court is restored.
B The order for costs made in the Court of Appeal is set aside.
C The respondent is to pay the appellants costs in respect of the Court of Appeal hearing, to be fixed by that Court, and in respect of this appeal costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 September 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 13 June 2017 (PDF, 611 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 139 (PDF, 260 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Attorney-General
Case number
SC 147/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial Review – Whether the High Court Judge erred in striking out the judicial review claim.[2016] NZHC 2876 CIV 2016-485-000149
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
3 March 2017
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
3 March 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited v McIntyre and Williamson Partnership & Ors
Case number
SC 150/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – s 106 Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondents were “new entrants” for the purpose of s 106 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the appellant breached s 106 in offering the respondents the terms of supply set out in the milk supply agreements signed by the respondents.CA 736/2015 [2016] NZCA 538
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Fonterra Co Operative Group Ltd v McIntyre and Williamson Partnership [2016] NZCA 538).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to answer the following two questions in the affirmative:
(a) Were the respondents “new entrants” for the purposes of s 106 of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001?
(b) If so, did the appellant breach s 106 in offering the respondents the terms of supply set out in the milk supply agreements signed by the respondents?
10 April 2017
__________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay the respondents costs of $30,000 and reasonable disbursements to be determined by the Registrar if necessary. We allow for second counsel.
21 December 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to answer the following two questions in the affirmative:
(a) Were the respondents “new entrants” for the purposes of s 106 of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001?
(b) If so, did the appellant breach s 106 in offering the respondents the terms of supply set out in the milk supply agreements signed by the respondents?
10 April 2017
__________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay the respondents costs of $30,000 and reasonable disbursements to be determined by the Registrar if necessary. We allow for second counsel.
21 December 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 - 28 July 2017 (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 197 (PDF, 289 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Oraka Technologies Limited, Oraka Graders Limited and Michael William Schwarz v Napier Tool & Die Limited, Geostel Vision Limited and Paul Daynes and Gordon Robertson
Case number
SC 154/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that compensatory damages for breach of copyright could not be awarded to the applicant. CA 304/2016 [2016] NZCA 554
Result
A notice of abandonment having been lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
20 February 2017
_______________________________
The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $750 to the first respondent and $750 to the second and third respondents, that is, $1,500 in total.
26 May 2017
20 February 2017
_______________________________
The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $750 to the first respondent and $750 to the second and third respondents, that is, $1,500 in total.
26 May 2017
Judgment appealed from
Judgment (as to costs)
Case name
W v The Family Court at North Shore and The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
Case number
SC 156/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the applicant’ s application for judicial review of a Family Court Minute discharging a restraining order.CIV 2014-404-001670 [2014] NZHC 2483
Result
A The application for an extension of time to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the second respondent. 17 March 2017
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the second respondent. 17 March 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 66 of 110