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
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
Rapata Leef and others as the mandated representatives of the Hapū of Ngāti Taka v Colin Bidois and others as the mandated representatives of the Hapū of Pirirakau
Case number
SC 62/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Arbitration Act 1996 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding waiver of conflict – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding there was no process breach by the Arbitration Panel. [2015] NZCA 176 CA 441/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
24 August 2015
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
24 August 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
The Queen v SSC
Case number
SC 67/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Admissions in response to police questioning – Whether exclusion of evidence is proportionate to the police impropriety. [2015] NZCA 241
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted (C v R [2015] NZCA 241).The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to quash the High Court’s order that the latter part (commencing at 2.14 pm) of the interview between Mr C and the police on 28 March 2014 is admissible at his trial.
31 July 2015
__________________
Judgment released. Details, including result, are suppressed until final disposition of trial.
17 June 2016
31 July 2015
__________________
Judgment released. Details, including result, are suppressed until final disposition of trial.
17 June 2016
Date of hearing
10 December 2015
Judges
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.
Case name
Morton v The Queen
Case number
SC 86/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against pre-trial ruling – Evidence Act 2006, s 49 – Appellant charged as party to offending when principals convicted in previous trial – Whether exceptional circumstances exist to direct that convictions are not conclusive evidence of principal offending.[2015] NZCA 322 CA 266/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (M v R [2015] NZCA 322).B The approved question is:“Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of ss 44 and 49 of the Evidence Act 2006”.
27 August 2015
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B Permission under s 49(2)(a) of the Evidence Act 2006 is given to the appellant to adduce evidence from himself and the co-defendants in which they may give their accounts of their interactions with the complainant on the night of the offending and as to the prior sexual relationship of one of the co-defendants with the complainant.
C Permission is refused in respect of the recantation and inconsistent conduct evidence and the evidence referred to in [74] (other than that identified in [77]).
D There is no direction under s 49(2)(b).
5 May 2016
27 August 2015
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B Permission under s 49(2)(a) of the Evidence Act 2006 is given to the appellant to adduce evidence from himself and the co-defendants in which they may give their accounts of their interactions with the complainant on the night of the offending and as to the prior sexual relationship of one of the co-defendants with the complainant.
C Permission is refused in respect of the recantation and inconsistent conduct evidence and the evidence referred to in [74] (other than that identified in [77]).
D There is no direction under s 49(2)(b).
5 May 2016
Date of hearing
18 November 2015
Judges
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Substantive judgment
Case name
Charles William Williams, Jean Elizabeth Morley, Inez Beverly Flavell, Lesley Anne Hensleigh, The Royal Foundation of the Blind, Donald Alexander Mackintosh, Lynda Anne Ryan, Janice Aileen Robertson, Gilliam Madge Clarke, Rosalie Hilda Mailand, Donald
Case number
SC 124/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – Public Works Act 1981 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “successor” in s 40(5) of the Public Works Act 1981 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to exercise the residual discretion to grant declaratory relief.[2015] NZCA 479 CA 251/2014
Result
A. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B. The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
11 March 2016
_______________________________
A. The application to recall the judgment in Williams v Auckland Council [2016] NZSC 20 is dismissed.
B. The applicants must pay costs of $1,000 to the respondent.
30 September 2016
B. The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
11 March 2016
_______________________________
A. The application to recall the judgment in Williams v Auckland Council [2016] NZSC 20 is dismissed.
B. The applicants must pay costs of $1,000 to the respondent.
30 September 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
William Elliot Hamilton and W E H Trustee Limited v Jane Mare Murrell
Case number
SC 95/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Relationship Breakdown – Property – Constructive Trust – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that trust property could be impressed with a constructive trust as a result of the conduct of a trustee who had de facto responsibility for the day-to-day running of a trust, with the co-trustee’s agreement – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that allowing the respondents claim did not alienate trust property or deprive the beneficiaries of the trust of something to which they were entitled – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that in all the circumstances, the trustees should reasonably expect to yield an interest in the trust property to the respondent and, accordingly, that the fourth element of a constructive trust over asserted relationship property was established. [2014] NZCA 377 CA 31/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay the respondent costs of $2,500, plus reasonable disbursements. 12 November 2014
The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay the respondent costs of $2,500, plus reasonable disbursements. 12 November 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
George Charles Kain, George Michael Kain, George Thomas Kain, George Harry Kain & Georgina Kain v Wynn Williams & Co
Case number
SC 4/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether conditional fee agreement between a solicitor and client is champertous only where there is proof of unjustified interference in the client’s affairs by solicitor – Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, ss 6, 11(1)(d)(ii) and 13 – Meaning of consumer credit contract – Whether conditional fee agreement constituted a consumer credit contract. [2012] NZCA 563 CA 635/2011
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs to the respondent $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements.
8 April 2013
Costs to the respondent $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements.
8 April 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
KAIN v WYNN WILLIAMS & CO SC 4/2013 [8 April 2013] (PDF, 51 KB)
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
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
- MR [2014] NZSC 55 (PDF, 83 KB)
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Supreme court decision
Transcript
Hearing date : 11 February 2014
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, Blanchard JJ. Decision reserved.
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, Blanchard JJ. Decision reserved.
Case name
William Duffield McKee v The Queen
Case number
SC 86/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 8(2) – Appeal against conviction – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that s 8(2)(c) does not mean that persons who are legitimately able to be prescribed cannabis for medical purposes should be able to grow the plant for this purpose, given the absence of lawful retail suppliers – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that s 8(2)(c) does not allow a GreenCross card holder lawfully to supply another GreenCross card holder with cannabis grown for medicinal purposes – Constitutional challenge – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the courts cannot overrule, repeal, revoke, amend or not apply provisions of the law which are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 or which contravene cl 29 of the Magna Carta 1297 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial Judge did not misdirect the jury – Entrapment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the undercover officer did not go further than creating an “unexceptional opportunity” for the applicant to offend.[2013] NZHCA 387 CA 781/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is declined.
14 November 2013.
Case name
Peter William Mawhinney v Nags Head Horse Hotel Limited
Case number
SC 105/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that knowledge of a priority agreement between mortgagees was binding on all parties with that knowledge notwithstanding that the priorities had not been registered – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that knowledge by an attorney amounts to knowledge on the part of a principal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court decision that the proceedings could be determined summarily – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to have proper regard to Westpac New Zealand Ltd v Clark [2008] NZCA 346 – Whether the Court of Appeal judgment is based on incorrect facts.[2013] NZCA 401 CA 28/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay to the respondent costs of $2,500.
14 November 2013.
B The applicant is to pay to the respondent costs of $2,500.
14 November 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 17 of 20