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
Neil Stuart Johnston v Christopher Frederick Schurr and Deam & Shearer
Case number
SC 61/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 – Whether a manager appointed under the Act can be liable in damages for acting without reasonable care – Whether the incapacity of a client brings the retainer of a solicitor to an end, even if the solicitor continues to act in relation to the client’s affairs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to findings of fact made by the trial Judge.  [2012]NZCA 363  CA  616/2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted in relation to both respondents. The approved ground is whether the claims against the first and second respondents were properly dismissed. 27 November 2012 _____________________ A The appeal is allowed in part.  The judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the insurance issue are set aside.  The question whether Mr Schurr is liable to the appellant in respect of the surrender of the insurance policies is to be determined in the High Court. B  In all other respects the appeal is dismissed. C  In respect of the appeal to this Court, the appellant is to pay costs to Mr Schurr and Deem & Shearer in the sums of $15,000 and $25,000 respectively together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar. D  The orders for costs made in the High Court and Court of Appeal are affirmed. 12 June 2015
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
NEIL STUART JOHNSTON v CHRISTOPHER FREDERICK SCHURR [2015] NZSC 82 [12 June 2015] (PDF, 359 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 17 February 2015

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan JJ.
Case name
Alyxe John Wood-Luxford v Mark John Wood
Case number
SC 62/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Family Protection Act, ss 2(1) and 3 – Definition of “stepchild” – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant was not eligible to bring a claim under the Act – Whether word “living”, as used in the Act, can include a child in utero at the date of the qualifying event.[2012]NZCA 377  CA  739/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.The question to be addressed on the appeal is whether the applicant is a person entitled to claim under the Family Protection Act 1955 against the estate of John Luxford, either as a child of the deceased or a step-child of the deceased within the meaning of the Family Protection Act 1955.
5 December 2012
________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The reasonable solicitor and client costs for all parties are to be met by the estate of the late John Williamson Luxford.
19 December 2013
Transcripts
Media Releases
Court of Appeal decision
WOOD-LUXFORD v MARK JOHN WOOD COA CA739/2011 [21 August 2012]
Leave judgment - leave granted
WOOD-LUXFORD v WOOD SC 62/2012 [5 December 2012] (PDF, 8 KB)
Additional document
Transcript hearing date 7 March 2013 (PDF, 219 KB)
Substantive judgment
ALYXE JOHN WOOD-LUXFORD v MARK JOHN WOOD [2013] NZSC 153 [19 December 2013] (PDF, 236 KB)
Case name
Rajendra Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Limited and others
Case number
SC 69/2012
Summary
Civil appeal – Copyright Act 1994 – District Court Act 1947 - whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining the ownership of the copyright in dispute – whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining the correct court processes to be followed in relation to an order for costs and insolvency proceedings. [2012]NZHC  2582  CIV 2012 404 4172
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 plus disbursements to the respondents.
6 November 2012.
Case name
West Coast Ent Incorporated v Buller Coal Limited, Soli Energy New Zealand Limited, Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated.
Case number
SC 75/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Supreme Court Act 2003, s 14 – Declarations sought in the Environment Court as to whether the effect of the combustion of coal, extracted from particular mining proposals, on climate change is a relevant consideration under s 104(1)(a) of the Resource Management Act 1991 – Matter heard by Environment Court and High Court – All parties agree to an appeal straight to the Supreme Court – Whether there are exceptional circumstances justifying leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court from the High Court.[2012] NZHC  2156   CIV 2012 409 972
Result
Leave to appeal direct to this Court, against the High Court’s judgment, is granted.  The approved ground of appeal is whether, under s 104(1)(a) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the decision-makers in the consent proceedings were required or able to have regard to the effects on climate change of discharge of greenhouse gases arising from end use of coal that will be extracted if consent is upheld.
28 November 2012
________________
The appeal is dismissed.
Costs are reserved.
19 September 2013
Transcripts
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
WEST COAST ENT INCORPORATED v BULLER COAL LIMITED [2013] NZSC 87 [19 September 2013] (PDF, 410 KB)
Supreme court decision
costs: WEST COAST ENT INCORPORATED v BULLER COAL LIMITED [2013] NZSC 133 [2 December 2013] (PDF, 65 KB)
Case name
Kyung Yup Kim v The Prison Manager, Mt Eden Corrections Facility
Case number
SC 80/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Habeas corpus – Applicant remanded in custody until his eligibility for surrender under s 24 of the Extradition Act 1999 has been determined – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to take into consideration the right to life and the right not to be subjected to torture under ss 8 and 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to give authorities from New Zealand and the United Nations Human Rights Committee the intensive scrutiny they warranted – Whether the lawfulness of the application to extradite the applicant is a matter capable of summary determination in a habeas corpus application – Whether challenges to the applicant’s status as an “extraditable person” are a matter capable of summary determination in a habeas corpus application.   [2012] NZCA 471  CA 637/2012
Result

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved ground is whether the Courts below were correct to dismiss the proceeding because the alleged deficiencies in the request to surrender and the application for a provisional warrant were not suitable for determination on a habeas corpus application.

16 November 2012

_____________________________

The appeal is dismissed. No order for costs.

20 December 2012
Transcript
Hearing date : 10 December 2012
Case name
Malcom Rabson v Andrew Croad and Christine Margaret Dunphy
Case number
SC 85/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Jurisdiction – Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a Court of Appeal decision to dismiss recusal applications after the substantive proceedings have been determined.  CA 289/2011
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs to respondent $1,500 plus reasonable disbursements.
19 February 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
RABSON v CROAD SC 85/2012 [19 February 2013 (PDF, 61 KB)
Case name
M v Minister of Immigration
Case number
SC 89/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Immigration – Bill of Rights Act 1990 ss 9, 19 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in striking out the applicant’ s case for being out of time – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no stand alone right to family life entitling the applicant, as a person currently applying for refugee status or for recognition as a protected person under the immigration Act 2009 but not holding permanent residence, to visits from his family – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Immigration Service’s refusal to allow the applicant’ s wife and child (residing in Australia) to visit him in New Zealand was not cruel, degrading or disproportionately severe treatment under s 9 of the Bill of Rights – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Immigration Service’s decision not to extend its family reunification policy to family members of asylum seekers wanting entry into New Zealand was not in breach of the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of “ethnic or national origins” under s 19 of the Bill of Rights. [2012] NZCA 489    CA 587/2011
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 plus disbursements to the respondent.
4 March 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
M v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION SC 89/2012 [4 March 2013] (PDF, 56 KB)
Case name
New Zealand Post Limited v Postal Workers Union of Aotearoa Incorporated  and Linda Street
Case number
SC 91/2012
Summary
Employment – Holidays Act 2003, s 9(1)(b)(ii) and (3) – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “relevant daily pay” – Whether unrostered overtime for postal delivery workers is to be included in the calculation of relevant daily pay as payments that “would have otherwise been received” – In which circumstances is the application of the “averaging formula” triggered.  [2012] NZCA 481   CA 327/2011
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 plus reasonable disbursement s to the respondent.
13 March 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
NEW ZEALAND POST LIMITED v POSTAL WORKERS UNION OF AOTEAROA INCORPORATED SC 91/2012 [13 March 2013] (PDF, 59 KB)
Case name
Greenpeace of New Zealand Incorporated
Case number
SC 97/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a contentious or political purpose could not be a charitable purpose – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that purposes or activities carried on by the charity or its representatives or agents that are illegal or unlawful preclude charitable status even if only minor or ancillary.[2012] NZCA 533      CA 333/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted on the following ground:
Were the views expressed by the Court of Appeal in its judgment [2012] NZCA 533 at [55]-[68] and [96]-[97] of its reasons correct?
8 March 2013
____________________
A The appeal against the Court of Appeal’s determination that a political purpose cannot be a charitable purpose is allowed.
B The appeal against the Court of Appeal’ s determination that purposes or activities that are illegal or unlawful preclude charitable status is dismissed.               
C The matter of the charitable status of the objects of Greenpeace of New Zealand Inc is remitted to the chief executive of the Department of Internal Affairs and the Charities Board for reconsideration in light of this decision.
D No order for costs is made.
6 August 2014
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
RE GREENPEACE OF NEW ZEALAND INC SC 97/2012 [8 March 2013] (PDF, 7 KB)
Supreme court decision
RE GREENPEACE OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED [2014] NZSC 105 [6 August 2014] (PDF, 360 KB)
Case name
The New Zealand Māori Council and Waikato Rivers and Dams Claims Trust v Her Majesty’s Attorney-General, The Minister of Finance and The Minister of State Owned Enterprises
Case number
SC 98/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Application for direct appeal – Whether the High Court was right to dismiss the New Zealand  Māori Council’ s application for review. [2012] NZHC 3338 Civ 2012 485 2187
Result
Leave to appeal, and to appeal direct to this Court, is granted. The approved ground of appeal is whether the High Court was right to dismiss the application for review.
_____________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
27 February 2013
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
THE NEW ZEALAND MAORI COUNCIL v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL SC 98/2012 [27 February 2013] (PDF, 353 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 1 February 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.
Page 88 of 110