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.
3 July 2026
Case information summary (as at 3 July 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 88 KB)
Case information summary (as at 3 July 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 127 KB)
All years
Case name
ActiveDocs Limited v Cadre Investments Limited, Michael William Scott and Stanbridge and Treasury Mrechant Finance Limited
Case number
SC 49/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the contract regarding preference shares – Whether High Court erred by invoking a presumption that dividends from preference shares are calculated cumulative.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs to the respondents of $2,500.
20 June 2017
B The applicant must pay costs to the respondents of $2,500.
20 June 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
The Attorney-General v Arthur William Taylor and Hinemanu Ngaronoa, Sandra Wilde, Kirsty Olivia Fensom and Claire Thrupp
Case number
SC 65/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Senior Courts have jurisdiction to make declarations that Acts of Parliament are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the High Court’s declaration that s 80(1)(d) of the Electoral Act 1993 is inconsistent with the right to vote affirmed and guaranteed in s 12(a) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and cannot be justified under s 5 of that Act – (cross-appeal) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Taylor did not have standing to seek a declaration of inconsistency.
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal by the Attorney General and Mr Taylor are granted.
B The approved questions are whether:
(i) The Court of Appeal was correct to make a declaration of inconsistency; and
(ii) Mr Taylor has standing.
30 August 2017
_____________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed. Mr Taylor accordingly has standing.
C Costs are reserved.
9 November 2018
____________________________
A The appellant must pay to the first respondent usual disbursements.
B The appellant must pay the second to fifth respondents costs of $15,000 or such lesser figure as evidenced by invoices produced to the Registrar.
C Any issues arising as to costs in the Court of Appeal in respect of Mr Taylor are to be dealt with in that Court.
27 February 2019
B The approved questions are whether:
(i) The Court of Appeal was correct to make a declaration of inconsistency; and
(ii) Mr Taylor has standing.
30 August 2017
_____________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed. Mr Taylor accordingly has standing.
C Costs are reserved.
9 November 2018
____________________________
A The appellant must pay to the first respondent usual disbursements.
B The appellant must pay the second to fifth respondents costs of $15,000 or such lesser figure as evidenced by invoices produced to the Registrar.
C Any issues arising as to costs in the Court of Appeal in respect of Mr Taylor are to be dealt with in that Court.
27 February 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 6 - 7 March 2018 (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] 104 (PDF, 290 KB)
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Additional document
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
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
Case name
William Yan and Wei You v Commissioner of Police
Case number
SC 3/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, s 29 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 29 Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009. [2015] NZCA 576 CA 683/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
26 April 2016
26 April 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Garry Albert Muir and Peter Arnold Maude v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 6/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the applicants’ claims for tax deductions under sub-pt EH of the Income Tax Act 1994 are arguable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in awarding indemnity costs. [2015] NZCA 591 CA276/2016
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Muir v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2015] NZCA 591).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i) to find that the appellant could not arguably pursue claims for the 1999 and following tax years in reliance on sub-pt EH of the Income Tax Act 1994; and
(ii) to award costs on an indemnity basis against the appellant.
20 July 2016
______________
A The appellant’s application for leave to amend the grounds of appeal is dismissed.
B Leave to appeal is revoked.
C The appellant is to pay costs of $6,000 to the respondent, plus reasonable disbursements.
26 August 2016
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i) to find that the appellant could not arguably pursue claims for the 1999 and following tax years in reliance on sub-pt EH of the Income Tax Act 1994; and
(ii) to award costs on an indemnity basis against the appellant.
20 July 2016
______________
A The appellant’s application for leave to amend the grounds of appeal is dismissed.
B Leave to appeal is revoked.
C The appellant is to pay costs of $6,000 to the respondent, plus reasonable disbursements.
26 August 2016
Date of hearing
22 August 2016
Judges
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJ
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Case name
Graham D’Arcy-Smith v Natural Habitats Limited
Case number
SC 19/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Employment Court erred in determining that the applicant was not an employee – Whether the Employment Court erred in not addressing a matter argued by the applicant.[2015] NZEmpC 123 ARC 57/14
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay costs of $500 to the respondent.
28 April 2016
The applicant must pay costs of $500 to the respondent.
28 April 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Peter Anthony Williams v Trevor Nelson Cameron and Robin Whalley and Richards Woodhouse
Case number
SC 78/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining an application for extension of time to appeal, on the basis that the applicant alleges that the respondents’ lawyers have acted in breach of Rules of Conduct and Client Care. [2016] NZCA 317 CA136/2016
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed
B The applicant must pay the respondents costs of $2,500
5 September 2016
B The applicant must pay the respondents costs of $2,500
5 September 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Scott v Williams
Case number
SC 95/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether value of legal practice properly set by High Court ¬– Whether Court of Appeal erred in value of award made under s 15 PRA – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding decision of the High Court to order sale of property. [2016] NZCA 356 CA 58/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal and leave to cross appeal are granted (Scott v Williams [2016] NZCA 356).
B The approved questions are:
(i) Was the approach taken in the lower courts to the valuation of the respondent’s practice correct?
(ii) Was the amount awarded to the applicant under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 correct?
(iii) Should the order that the Remuera properties be sold, rather than vested in the applicant, have been made?
9 November 2016
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed to the extent set out below.
B The cross-appeal is dismissed.
C The vesting order made by the Family Court is restored.
D The valuation by the Family Court of the respondent’s law practice is restored. The appellant’s share is $225,000.
E An order in the appellant’s favour of $520,000 is made under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. If not able to be agreed, the parties may file submissions on interest on or before 1 February 2018.
F Costs of $25,000 are awarded to the appellant, plus usual disbursements to be set by the Registrar if not agreed. The Court allows for two counsel.
11 December 2017
B The approved questions are:
(i) Was the approach taken in the lower courts to the valuation of the respondent’s practice correct?
(ii) Was the amount awarded to the applicant under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 correct?
(iii) Should the order that the Remuera properties be sold, rather than vested in the applicant, have been made?
9 November 2016
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed to the extent set out below.
B The cross-appeal is dismissed.
C The vesting order made by the Family Court is restored.
D The valuation by the Family Court of the respondent’s law practice is restored. The appellant’s share is $225,000.
E An order in the appellant’s favour of $520,000 is made under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. If not able to be agreed, the parties may file submissions on interest on or before 1 February 2018.
F Costs of $25,000 are awarded to the appellant, plus usual disbursements to be set by the Registrar if not agreed. The Court allows for two counsel.
11 December 2017
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 185 (PDF, 275 KB)
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
SCOTT v WILLIAMS [2016] NZSC 149 [9 November 2016] (PDF, 114 KB)
Substantive judgment
SCOTT v WILLIAMS [2017] NZSC 185 [11 December 2017] (PDF, 1.3 MB)
Supreme court decision
Case name
C v The Queen
Case number
SC 124/2016
Summary
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
Result
Judgment released.
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of retrial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
21 December 2016
--
Judgment released.
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of retrial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
26 September 2017
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of retrial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
21 December 2016
--
Judgment released.
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of retrial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
26 September 2017
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Hearing date : 29 March 2017
Chief Justice, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ.
Page 16 of 20