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.

28 November 2025

Case information summary 2025 (as at 28 November 2025) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary 2025 (as at 28 November 2025)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 120 KB)

All years

Case name
Guo Wei Deng v The Queen
Case number
SC 64/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) – Criminal Practice and Procedure – Witness not called – Appeal against conviction – Whether allegedly inadequate interpretation assistance constituted a breach of the applicant’s right under s 24(g) of the NZBORA – Whether counsel’s failure to call two witnesses at the request of the applicant resulted in a miscarriage of justice.[2009] NZCA 445  CA 780/2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GUO WEI DENG v R [2013] NZSC 100 [15 October 2013] (PDF, 58 KB)
Dates

 Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

15 October 2013
Case name
Harmon Lynn Wilfred, Carolyn Dare Wilfred Wilfred, Angela Marie Smalley, La Famia No 1 Limited, La Famia No 4 Limited v  Kaiwan Gan and Yuzhen Yu
Case number
SC 65/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Stay of proceedings – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s decision to discharge a stay – Whether there has been a breach of the appellants’ right to due process to have its case heard on appeal – Whether the appellants have been deprived of their rights to natural justice and fairness.[2013] NZCA 295  CA 184/2013
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The application for a stay is dismissed.

The applicants are to pay to the respondents costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.

26 July 2013
Case name
Te Rünanga-ä-iwi-o Ngäti Kahu v Far North District Council, Carrington Farms Limited, Carrington Estate Limited, Carrington Resort Limited.
Case number
SC 66/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management – Resource Management Act 1991, ss 91, 94C, 104 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 94C – Whether the Court of Appeal misinterpreted the decision of the Supreme Court in Westfield (New Zealand) v North Shore City Council [2005] NZSC 17, [2005] 2 NZLR 597 – Whether the Court of Appeal incorrectly applied its decision in Queenstown Lakes District Council v Hawthorn Estates Ltd [2006] NZRMA 424 (CA) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the settlement agreement.   [2013] NZCA 221  CA 705/2011; CA 706/2011;  CA 54/2012; CA 56/2012.
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.The approved grounds of appeal are:
(a)        In relation to the land use consent application:
(i)         Whether or not “special circumstances” existed such that the Far North District Council had discretion in terms of s 94C(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991 to notify the application for the land use consent;
(ii)        Whether or not the authority made a reviewable error in exercising that discretion; and
(iii)       What degree of scrutiny is appropriate when reviewing non-notification decisions.

(b)       In relation to the subdivision consent application, whether or not the unimplemented land use consent should have been taken into account, when determining the application for the subdivision consent, as part of:
(i)        The “environment” under s 104(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991; or
(ii)       The permitted baseline under s 104(2).

(c)        Whether the Court of Appeal’ s interpretation of the settlement agreement was correct.

2 December 2013
_____________________________________________

Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
20 January 2015.
Leave judgment - leave granted
TE RŪNANGA-Ā-IWI O NGĀTI KAHU v FAR NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL [2013] NZSC 134 [2 December 2013] (PDF, 71 KB)
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
Christopher Jacob Junior Shadrock v The Queen
Case number
SC 69/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Murder – Crimes Act 1961, s 167(b) and (d) – Whether trial Judge misdirected jury by referring to degrees of murder – Whether Court of Appeal correct to conclude there was no miscarriage of justice. [2013] NZCA 282  CA 496/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SHADROCK v R [2013] NZSC 96 [9 October 2013] (PDF, 64 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

9 October 2013
Case name
Terence Mario Tere  The Queen
Case number
SC 70/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Murder / Accessory after the fact – Crimes Act 1961, s 167(b) and (d) – Whether trial Judge misdirected jury by referring to degrees of murder – Whether Court of Appeal correct to conclude there was no miscarriage of justice. [2013] NZCA 282  CA 462/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SHADROCK v R [2013] NZSC 96 [9 October 2013] (PDF, 64 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

9 October 2013
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
Raeleen Rameka v The Queen
Case number
SC 73/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 66(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by misstating the test in respect of withdrawal under s 66(1).[2011] NZCA 75   CA 131/2010
Result
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.
New trial ordered.

30 October 2014
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
RAELEEN MATEWAI NOYLE RAMEKA v R [2013] NZSC 121 [14 November 2013] (PDF, 66 KB)
Supreme court decision
JAMIE NGAHUIA AHSIN v R AND RAELEEN MATEWAI NOYLE RAMEKA v R [2014] NZSC 153 [30 October 2014] (PDF, 761 KB)
Hearing
11 March 2014

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Tipping JJ.
Page 175 of 270