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.
8 May 2026
Case information summary (as at 8 May 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 89 KB)
Case information summary (as at 8 May 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 127 KB)
All years
Case name
D v Immigration and Protection Tribunal New Zealand and Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Case number
SC 85/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Immigration Act 2009, s 249 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of s 249. [2016] NZCA 320 CA642/2015
Result
A notice of abandonment having been lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Shivneel Shahil Kumar v The Queen
Case number
SC 86/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the “one transaction” rule from Thabo Meli v R [1954] 1 WLR 228 (PC) – Whether the trial judge incorrectly directed the jury on the issue of withdrawal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicants’ appeals against sentence. [2016] NZCA 329 CA264/2015
Result
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
7 November 2016
7 November 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Bryne Permal v The Queen
Case number
SC 87/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the “one transaction” rule from Thabo Meli v R [1954] 1 WLR 228 (PC) – Whether the trial judge incorrectly directed the jury on the issue of withdrawal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicants’ appeals against sentence. [2016] NZCA 329 CA310/2015
Result
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed. 7 November 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Yao Wei He v Zhixiong Chen
Case number
SC 88/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to grant an application for leave to adduce further evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal of the decision of the High Court. [2016] NZCA 340 CA435/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal and the application to adduce further evidence are dismissed.
B Costs of $7,500 are payable to the respondent.
21 November 2016
B Costs of $7,500 are payable to the respondent.
21 November 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Judgment appealed from
Case name
PricewaterhouseCoopers v Robert Bruce Walker and Ors
Case number
SC 89/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding an assignment of debt and security impermissible – Whether Court of Appeal erred in not finding proceedings to be an abuse of process.[2016] NZCA 338 CA475/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (PricewaterhouseCoopers v Walker [2016] NZCA 338)
B The approved question is: Did the Court of Appeal err in upholding the High Court’s refusal to stay the proceeding?
13 December 2016
_____________________________
A Leave is granted to the respondents and the intervener to adduce new evidence.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C We make no award of costs.
6 October 2017
B The approved question is: Did the Court of Appeal err in upholding the High Court’s refusal to stay the proceeding?
13 December 2016
_____________________________
A Leave is granted to the respondents and the intervener to adduce new evidence.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C We make no award of costs.
6 October 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 March 2017 (PDF, 360 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 151 (PDF, 272 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Demissie Tefera Asgedom v The Queen
Case number
SC 90/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicants were not materially prejudiced by the form of the indictment – Whether the applicants were prejudiced by the addition of a new alleged party to the offence part way through the trial – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant’s were not prejudiced by non-disclosure of certain material – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the second applicant’s appeal against sentence. [2016] NZCA 334 CA451/2015
Result
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
25 October 2016
25 October 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Nebiyou Tefera Demissie v The Queen
Case number
SC 91/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicants were not materially prejudiced by the form of the indictment – Whether the applicants were prejudiced by the addition of a new alleged party to the offence part way through the trial – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant’s were not prejudiced by non-disclosure of certain material – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the second applicant’s appeal against sentence. [2016] NZCA 334 CA533/2015
Result
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
25 October 2016
25 October 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
G v The Queen
Case number
SC 92/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to hold that information obtained from a third party without a search warrant or production order is admissible as evidence in the applicant’ s trial. [2016] NZCA 390 CA161/2016
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 trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
4 May 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 trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
4 May 2017
Judgment appealed from
[2016] NZCA 390 CA161/2016
Case name
J v Accident Compensation Corporation
Case number
SC 93/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Accident Compensation Act 2001, s 103(2) – Whether High Court erred in holding the District Court was wrong to find that the applicant was unable because of personal injury to return to pre-injury employment.[2016] NZHC 1683 CIV-2015-412-000125
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
9 February 2017
9 February 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Leave hearing date : 25 November 2016
William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ
Case name
Alexander Pieter van Heeren v Michael David Kidd
Case number
SC 94/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the decision of the High Court finding that an issue estoppel can arise in New Zealand proceedings based on findings made by a foreign court –Whether the Court of Appeal then erred in upholding the direction of the High Court for a summary account. [2016] NZCA 401 CA 247/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
9 December 2016
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
9 December 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 139 of 275