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
Vincent Ross Siemer v Official Assignee
Case number
SC 21/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908, s 61A – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was no jurisdiction under s 61A(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred is understanding the respective role of the Judge and Registrar in regards to r 35(6) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005[2014] NZCA 9 CA 863/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal are dismissed. The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.
30 April 2014
___________
Application for recall dismissed.
26 May 2014
_______________
Second application for recall dismissed.
5 June 2014
30 April 2014
___________
Application for recall dismissed.
26 May 2014
_______________
Second application for recall dismissed.
5 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassny and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 23/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908, s 61A – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was no jurisdiction under s 61A(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred is understanding the respective role of the Judge and Registrar in regards to r 35(6) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005[2014] NZCA 3 CA 104/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal are dismissed. The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.
30 April 2014
__________
Application for recall dismissed.
26 May 2014
______________
Second application for recall dismissed.
5 June 2014
30 April 2014
__________
Application for recall dismissed.
26 May 2014
______________
Second application for recall dismissed.
5 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Kim Dotcom, Finn Batato, Mathias Ortmann, Bram Van der Kolk v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 25/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992, ss 44 and 45 – Summary Proceedings Act1 1957, s 204 – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of s 45 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the information in the search warrants could be clarified by information in the arrest warrants – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that it was not necessary for the District Court judge to include special conditions in the search warrants – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in stating that the police could be expected to and did in fact know and apply the requisite limits of the warrant and that the District Court judge issuing the warrants was entitled to rely on this – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the defects in warrants were defects in form not substance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 204 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 was applicable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in affirming that the applicant bore the burden of proof in relation to miscarriage of justice in s 204 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the defects in the search warrants did not cause substantial prejudice to the appellants so that there was no miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to interpret the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 and s 204 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 in a manner least intrusive upon the rights guaranteed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2014] NZCA 19 CA 420/2013
_________________________________________
Appeal dismissed
23 December 2014
_________________________________________
Appeal dismissed
23 December 2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal from the High Court on the basis that the search warrants issued by the District Court under s 44 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 were valid.
C The appeal is set down for hearing on 11 and 12 June 2014. The appellant’s submissions are to be filed and served by 4 pm on 19 May 2014. The respondent’s submissions are to be filed and served by 4 pm on 3 June 2014.
5 May 2014
____________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $35,000 to the respondent.
23 December 2014
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal from the High Court on the basis that the search warrants issued by the District Court under s 44 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 were valid.
C The appeal is set down for hearing on 11 and 12 June 2014. The appellant’s submissions are to be filed and served by 4 pm on 19 May 2014. The respondent’s submissions are to be filed and served by 4 pm on 3 June 2014.
5 May 2014
____________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $35,000 to the respondent.
23 December 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 25 - 26 August 2014 (PDF, 898 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 199 (PDF, 134 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Johan Aarts v Barnardos New Zealand, Commissioner of Police and others
Case number
SC 26/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000, s 135(5) and sch 3, s 2 – Whether the Court of Appeal decision was deficient because it failed to properly state its reasons in breach of rule 27(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules – Whether the Court of Appeal went beyond its jurisdiction by treating the hearing as a de novo hearing when the appellant had elected for a non de novo hearing – Whether “suspicion” falls below the threshold of “knowing” or reasonably knowing” in terms of s 135(5) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to extend the right to lay representation in the Employment Court, as provided under s 2 of sch 3, to the Court of Appeal. [2014] NZCA 16 CA 400/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar to the second and third respondents (collectively) and to the sixth respondent.
28 May 2014
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar to the second and third respondents (collectively) and to the sixth respondent.
28 May 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Alavine Feliuia Liu v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Case number
SC 31/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child arts 9, 9.1 and 3 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that art 9, and in particular art 9.1, were not relevant to deportation cases – Whether the respondent erred in not having specific regard to art 9 notwithstanding its consideration of other specific articles in the convention – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that with the exception of Ewebiyi v Parr no other authorities referred to it held that art 9.1 applied to deportation cases – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the relevant case law and its assessment as to the reconciliation of arts 3 and 9.1.CA 4/2014[2014] NZCA 37 CA 754/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
20 June 2014
B The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
20 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Sajo Oyang Corporation and Southern Storm Fishing (2007) Limited v The Ministry for Primary Industries and The Director - General of the Ministry for Primary Industries
Case number
SC 35/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that non-defendant third parties do not have standing to participate in an application relating to the special circumstances exception to automatic forfeiture of property following conviction for specified fisheries offences under s 255C of the Fisheries Act 1996[2014] NZCA 46 CA 167/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $2,500 to the first and second respondents.
17 June 2014
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $2,500 to the first and second respondents.
17 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Peter Charles York and Alpine Glacier Motel Limited v Westland District Council
Case number
SC 37/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Limitation Act 1950 – The Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the action was time-barred under the Limitation Act.[2014] NZCA 59 CA 774/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
16 June 2014
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
16 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
B v Waitemata District Health Board
Case number
SC 39/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to waive the requirement to pay security for costs.[2014] NZCA 65 CA 524/2013
Result
Notice of abandonment of appeal having been lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
7 November 2014
7 November 2014
Case Number
SC 39/2014
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Hamish McIntosh v John Howard Ross Fisk and David John Bridgman
Case number
SC 39/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the “gave value” defence pursuant to Allied Concrete v Meltzer [2015] NZSC 7 and s 296(3)(c) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the “alteration of position” defence in s 296(3)(c). [2016] NZCA 74 CA384/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal and to cross-appeal is granted (McIntosh v Fisk [2016] NZCA 74).
B The approved questions are:
(i) Whether an order should have been made setting aside all or part of the payment made by Ross Asset Management Limited (RAM) to the applicant and requiring the applicant to pay the relevant amount to the respondents.
(ii) If so, whether the order should have been to set aside the payment of all of the $954,047 paid to the applicant or $454,047, being the difference between the amount paid to the applicant and the $500,000 he invested with RAM.
26 May 2016
___________
A The appeal and cross appeal are dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay costs of $15,000 to the respondents together with reasonable disbursements.
26 May 2017
_________________
A The appellant is to pay interest at the rate of five per cent per annum on the sum of $454,047.62 from the date of the liquidators’ appointment (17 December 2012).
B There is no order as to costs.
31 August 2017
B The approved questions are:
(i) Whether an order should have been made setting aside all or part of the payment made by Ross Asset Management Limited (RAM) to the applicant and requiring the applicant to pay the relevant amount to the respondents.
(ii) If so, whether the order should have been to set aside the payment of all of the $954,047 paid to the applicant or $454,047, being the difference between the amount paid to the applicant and the $500,000 he invested with RAM.
26 May 2016
___________
A The appeal and cross appeal are dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay costs of $15,000 to the respondents together with reasonable disbursements.
26 May 2017
_________________
A The appellant is to pay interest at the rate of five per cent per annum on the sum of $454,047.62 from the date of the liquidators’ appointment (17 December 2012).
B There is no order as to costs.
31 August 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 July 2016 (PDF, 416 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 129 (PDF, 247 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Media release substantive judgment 26 May 2017 (PDF, 265 KB)
Supreme court decision
Case name
Razdan Rafiq v The Privacy Commissioner
Case number
SC 40/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs.[2014] NZCA 137 CA 116/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
16 June 2014
____________________________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
10 October 2014
16 June 2014
____________________________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
10 October 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case Number
SC 40/2014
Page 75 of 110