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
Nicholas Paul Alfred Reekie v The Attorney-General and others
Case number
SC 47/2013
Summary
Security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application to review the Registrar’s decision refusing to dispense with security for costs.[2013] NZCA 131  CA 532/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is:
Whether a waiver of security for costs should have been granted? 25 July 2013
_________
Appeal dismissed.
29 May 2014
___________
Application for recall dismissed.
30 July 2014
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
REEKIE v ATTORNEY-GENERAL & ORS [2013] NZSC 74 [25 July 2013] (PDF, 38 KB)
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
NICHOLAS PAUL ALFRED REEKIE v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2014] NZSC 63 [29 May 2014 (PDF, 240 KB)
Recall judgment
NICHOLAS PAUL ALFRED REEKIE v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2014] NZSC 98 [30 July 2014] (PDF, 9 KB)
Case name
Worldwide NZ LCC v New Zealand Venue and Event Management Limited
Case number
SC 50/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908, s 87 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that under s 87 a court may award interest on a debt only from the date on which the debt is ascertained or becomes immediately ascertainable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the price payable for the “B” units and shares, being their fair market value, was not an ascertainable debt under s 87 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that a cause of action for recovery of the unascertained debt did not arise until after determination of the value of the units and shares – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting “debt or damages”  – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by concluding, in effect, that the equitable principle requiring a purchaser in possession to pay interest to an unpaid vendor did not come within s 87 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by concluding, in effect, that the applicant’s pleaded claim asserting rights pursuant to a vendor’ s lien was disentitling conduct preventing it from receiving interest for the period during which the respondent enjoyed the benefits of owning the units and shares.[2013] NZCA 130  CA 834/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.  The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was in error in not awarding interest on the value fixed in respect of the “B” units and shares
11 October 2013
__________________
A The appeal is allowed.  The order of the High Court relating to interest is re-instated.
B The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellant, plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
B The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is set aside.  If costs cannot be agreed in the Court of Appeal they should be set by that Court in light of this judgment.
11 August 2014
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
WORLDWIDE NZ LLC v NZ VENUE AND EVENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED [2014] NZSC 108 [11 August 2014] (PDF, 216 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 20 March 2014

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Allied Concrete Limited v Jeffrey Philip Meltzer and Lloyd James Hayward as liquidators of Window Holdings Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 51/2013
Summary
Companies Act 1993, s 296 – Whether the High Court erred in finding that the giving of value in terms of s 296(3)(c) of the Companies Act 1993 does not include value given at the time the antecedent debt is created – Whether the giving of time to pay was “giving value” for the purposes of the Act – Whether release or discharge of a liability for prior indebtedness is “value” for the purpose of s 296(3)(c). [2013] NZHC 977   Civ 2012 404 3170
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved question is whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal (as the case may be) was correct to conclude that the payments made to Allied Concrete Ltd, Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Ltd and Fences and Kerbs Ltd should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them accordingly.
24 October 2013
____________________
A     The appeals are allowed.  
B    The applications of the liquidators for the transactions to be voided are dismissed.
C    The respondents in each appeal must pay costs of $10,000 to the appellant in the relevant appeal, plus the appellant’s reasonable disbursements.  
D     Absent agreement between the parties, costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be fixed by those Courts in light of this judgment.
18 February 2015
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
ALLIED CONCRETE LIMITED v JEFFREY PHILIP MELTZER AND LLOYD JAMES HAYWARD AS LIQUIDATORS OF WINDOW HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2013] NZSC 102 [24 October 2013] (PDF, 13 KB)
Substantive judgment
ALLIED CONCRETE LIMITED v JEFFREY PHILIP MELTZER AND LLOYD JAMES HAYWARD AS LIQUIDATORS OF WINDOW HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2015] NZSC 7 [18 February 2015] (PDF, 684 KB)
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Richard Heron and others
Case number
SC 54/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Security for costs – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss application to review decision of the – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss an application to review that decision.[2013] NZCA 204
Dates

A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.

B Any further applications to this Court that relate to the underlying High Court appeal at issue in these applications should not be accepted for filing.

C Costs of $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary) are to be paid to the first and second respondents.

14 October 2013.
Case name
Douglas Arthur Montrose Graham v The QueenMichael Howard Reeves v The QueenWilliam Patrick Jeffries v The QueenLawrence Roland Valpy Bryant v The Queen
Case number
SC 59/2013 ; SC 60/2013; SC 61/2013; SC 62/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Conviction and Sentence – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to uphold trial Judge’s conclusion that statements in amended prospectus were untrue – Materiality of omissions – Notional investor test – Securities Act 1978, ss 55 and 58(1) – Whether Court of Appeal correct uphold trial Judge’s conclusion that directors did not have reasonable grounds for their honest belief that the statements in the amended prospectus were true – Securities Act 1978, s 58(2)(4) – Whether directors were permitted to place reliance on external expert advice – Companies Act 1993, s 138 – Whether Court of Appeal correct to rule that sentences imposed by trial Judge were manifestly inadequate – Sentencing Act 2002.
Result
A The appeals are allowed.
B The sentences imposed by the Court of Appeal are set aside and the sentences imposed by Dobson J are restored.
7 May 2014
____________
Application for recall dismissed.
Costs are reserved.
22 July 2015
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
DOUGLAS ARTHUR MONTROSE GRAHAM, MICHAEL HOWARD REEVES, WILLIAM PATRICK JEFFRIES AND LAWRENCE ROLAND VALPY BRYANT v R [2014] NZSC 55 [7 May 2014] (PDF, 156 KB)
Recall judgment
DOUGLAS ARTHUR MONTROSE GRAHAM, MICHAEL HOWARD REEVES, WILLIAM PATRICK JEFFRIES AND LAWRENCE ROLAND VALPY BRYANT v R [2015] NZSC 109 [22 July 2015] (PDF, 369 KB)
Supreme court decision
Cost :DOUGLAS ARTHUR MONTROSE GRAHAM, MICHAEL HOWARD REEVES, WILLIAM PATRICK JEFFRIES AND LAWRENCE ROLAND VALPY BRYANT v R [2015] NZSC 138 [24 September 2015] (PDF, 119 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 11 February 2014

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, Blanchard JJ. Decision reserved.
Case name
GPM v JHM
Case number
SC 67/2013
Summary
Civil – Relationship Property – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the lower court’s relationship property division – whether the Court of Appeal failed to appropriately accommodate the applicant’ s disability – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to identify breaches of natural justice in the courts below – whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing the applicant’s application for recall. [2013] NZCA 166  CA 553/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 payable to the respondent.
27 August 2013.
______________________________
Application for recall of the court’s judgment is dismissed.
12 September 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GPM v JHM [2013] NZSC 84 [27 August 2013] (PDF, 51 KB)
Recall judgment
GPM v JHM [2013] NZSC 85 [12 September 2013] (PDF, 71 KB)
Case name
Evgeny Orlov v New Zealand Law Society, Auckland Lawyers Standards Committee, Auckland Lawyers Standards Committee No 1, National Standards Committee.
Case number
SC 68/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a lawyer could be proceeded against before the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal or struck off for making a complaint against a Judge pursuant to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there is no legal or evidential threshold for referring matters to a Disciplinary Tribunal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that reasons need not be given for a decision by a Standards Committee to refer a matter to a Disciplinary Tribunal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the appellant was responsible for delay in the disciplinary process –Whether the Court of Appeal denied the appellant a fair and impartial hearing.[2013] NZCA 230  CA 554/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondents. 
8 October 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
EVGENY ORLOV v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2013] NZSC 94 [8 October 2013 (PDF, 55 KB)
Case name
Michael Victor Bourneville and Mark Graham Blewden v Christine Jill Marshall
Case number
SC 71/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in identifying the proceeding as an application to the High Court to remove a caveat – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not making reference to the rules of law concerning the ability of the Court to interfere with the exercise of discretion on appeal – Whether the initiation of proceedings to establish a constructive trust constituted an abuse of process – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Respondent had a reasonably based expectation of an interest in the property – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relying solely on a submission by counsel for the Respondent, rather than properly introduced evidence in the High Court or Court of Appeal, in finding that the first Applicant and the Respondent had accumulated substantial assets by their joint endeavours – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first Applicant “obviously would have had knowledge of the circumstances giving rise to the expectation”.[2013] NZCA 271  CA 676/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B  The applicants are to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements.   14 November 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MICHAEL VICTOR BOURNEVILLE AND MARK GRAHAM BLEWDEN v CHRISTINE JILL MARSHALL [2013] NZSC 107 [8 November 2013] (PDF, 46 KB)
Case name
Samuela Faletalavai Helu v Immigration and Protection Tribunal and the  Minister of Immigration
Case number
SC 72/2013
Summary
Civil – Immigration – Immigration Act 1987, s 105 – International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, arts 12(4), 17(1), and 23 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the protection offered by art 12(4) of the ICCPR is limited to New Zealand citizens – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Tribunal’s approach to s 105 of the Immigration Act and arts 17(1) and 23 of the ICCPR was correct – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its evaluation of the correct approach to be taken in assessing the risk of reoffending under s 105(1) – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no evidence that the applicant’ s youth would reduce his risk of re-offending.[2013] NZCA 276  CA 395/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.The approved questions are:(a) Did the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, in assessing whether it would not be contrary to the public interest to allow Mr Helu to remain in New Zealand:
(i) fail to take into account all relevant considerations;
or (ii) apply the incorrect test.
(b) Even if either or both of those questions are answered in the affirmative would the Tribunal nevertheless necessarily have come to the same decision, given its findings of fact?
3 October 2013
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The Tribunal’s confirmation of the deportation order is quashed.
C The appeal to the Tribunal is remitted to it for reconsideration in the course of which the Tribunal is to apply the test under s 105 of the Immigration Act 1987 that is set out in paras [167] to [176] of the reasons.
D Costs are reserved.  Application may be made in writing if necessary.
26 March 2015
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
HELU v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2013] NZSC 91 [3 October 2013] (PDF, 13 KB)
Substantive judgment
SAMUELA FALETALAVAI HELU v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2015] NZSC 28 [26 March 2015] (PDF, 596 KB)
Case name
Ridgecrest New Zealand Limited v IAG New Zealand
Case number
SC 76/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Insurance – Whether, when more than one insured event occurs during the term of a policy of insurance in materially the same form as the policy issued by the Respondent to the Appellant, the insured may on each occasion recover the cost, up to the amount of the sum insured, of restoring the property to the condition in which it was prior to the event – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by answering a different question than the preliminary question put to it – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by disregarding the agreed facts and substituting other facts.[2012] NZCA 291   CA 811/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal correct to conclude that Ridgecrest is not entitled to be paid for the damage resulting from each of the earthquakes up to the limit of the sum insured.
11 November 2013
______________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The preliminary question is answered “yes” but subject to the caveats identified in [62].
C The appellant is awarded costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar in relation to the appeal.
D The orders for costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside and the respondent is to pay the appellant costs in those courts to be fixed by those courts.
27 August 2014
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
RIDGECREST NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2013] NZSC 108 [8 November 2013] (PDF, 10 KB)
Supreme court decision
RIDGECREST NZ LIMITED v IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2014] NZSC 129 [27 August 2014] (PDF, 267 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 10 March 2014

McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Blanchard, Tipping JJ.
Page 84 of 110