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.
24 June 2024
Case information summary 2024 (as at 21 June 2024) – Cases where leave granted (121 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 21 June 2024) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 125 KB)
All years
Case name
Adam Raphael Greenbaum v Southern Cross Hospitals Limited
Case number
SC 108/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Evidence – Confidential information – Evidence Act 2006, s 69 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’ decision dismissing appellant’s application for non-party discovery against the respondent.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
13 December 2019
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
13 December 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Eric Meserve Houghton v Timothy Ernest Corbett Saunders, Samuel John Magill, John Michael Feeney, Craig Edgeworth Horrocks, Peter David Hunter, Peter Thomas and Joan Withers, and Credit Suisse Private Equity Inc, and Credit Suisse First Boston Asian Me
Case number
SC 117/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the expert evidence as to the quantum of loss is admissible – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against a refusal to strike out the respondent’ s defence under s 63 of the Securities Act 1978 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondents collectively and $2,500 to the second and third respondents collectively.
13 December 2019
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondents collectively and $2,500 to the second and third respondents collectively.
13 December 2019
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Case name
Leonard Gus Nattrass-Bergquist v The Queen
Case number
SC 3/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 124 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction – Whether the trial Judge was required to give a lies direction – Whether the trial Judge misdirected the jury.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
13 April 2018
13 April 2018
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Wayne Jones v The Queen
Case number
SC 13/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction – Whether the persons called by the Crown to give evidence met the definition of “witness” in s 4 of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the trial Judge erred in allowing the Crown to call knowingly hostile witnesses.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
10 May 2018
10 May 2018
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
WAYNE JONES v R [2018] NZSC 44 [10 May 2018] (PDF, 197 KB)
Case name
John William Ross v The Queen
Case number
SC 14/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 122 of the Evidence Act 2006.
Result
A The application for an extension of time is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
30 April 2018
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
30 April 2018
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JOHN WILLIAM ROSS v R [2018] NZSC 38 [30 April 2018] (PDF, 229 KB)
Case name
Gregory David Waters v The Queen
Case number
SC 26/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the trial Judge’s failure to sum up the evidence caused a miscarriage of justice – Whether the trial Judge’ s failure to direct the jury under s 32 of the Evidence Act caused prejudice –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed
5 June 2018
5 June 2018
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GREGORY DAVID WATERS v R [2018] NZSC 49 [5 June 2018] (PDF, 194 KB)
Case name
Wayne William Smith v The Queen
Case number
SC 48/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 76 – Juror misconduct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’ s application for an order to appoint a special counsel.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
21 August 2018
21 August 2018
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Kim Dotcom v The United States of America
Case number
SC 57/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the Copyright Act 1994 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its findings on the admissibility of evidence challenging the record of the case.
Result
The Court has jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeals.
20 December 2018
-
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
___________________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to intervene is declined.
B No order as to costs.
20 May 2019
___________________________________________________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
__________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the
judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020]
NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
20 December 2018
-
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
___________________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to intervene is declined.
B No order as to costs.
20 May 2019
___________________________________________________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
__________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the
judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020]
NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
Case Synopses
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Leave to intervene declined
Additional document
Transcript hearing 10 to 17 June 2019 NZSC Trans 25 (PDF, 4.2 MB)
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Additional document
Supreme Court judgment / Media Release
Transcript
Hearing date
10 - 14 June 2019
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Case name
Kim Dotcom v The United States of America and The District Court at North Shore
Case number
SC 58/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of the application for judicial review of the District Court’s determination under s 24 of the Extradition Act 1999 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application to adduce further evidence.
Result
The Court has jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeals.
20 December 2018
-
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
___________________________________________________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
____________________________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to
this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020] NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
20 December 2018
-
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
___________________________________________________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
____________________________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to
this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020] NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
Case Synopses
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Transcript hearing 10 to 17 June 2019 NZSC Trans 25 (PDF, 4.2 MB)
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Additional document
Hearing date
10 - 14 June 2019
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Supreme Court judgment / Media Release
Transcript
Case name
Shark Experience Limited v Pauamac5 Incorporated, Director-General of Conservation and Shark Dive New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 86/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Wildlife Act 1953.
Result
A The application for an extension of time is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is granted (PauaMAC5 Inc v Director-General of Conservation [2018] NZCA 348).
C The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that shark cage diving is an offence under s 63A of the Wildlife Act 1953.
11 December 2018
________________________________
A The application for leave to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The Court of Appeal’s declaration that “Shark cage diving is an offence under s 63A Wildlife Act 1953” is set aside.
D There is no order as to costs.
11 October 2019
B The application for leave to appeal is granted (PauaMAC5 Inc v Director-General of Conservation [2018] NZCA 348).
C The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that shark cage diving is an offence under s 63A of the Wildlife Act 1953.
11 December 2018
________________________________
A The application for leave to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The Court of Appeal’s declaration that “Shark cage diving is an offence under s 63A Wildlife Act 1953” is set aside.
D There is no order as to costs.
11 October 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 March 2019 (PDF, 687 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 111 (PDF, 98 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Page 2 of 23