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
C v The Queen
Case number
SC 75/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 44 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding a pre-trial ruling that evidence of sexual experience was not admissible.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Trends Publishing International Limited v Advicewise People Limited, Callaghan Innovation, Mediaworks Radio Limited, and Webstar a division of Blue Star Group (New Zealand) Limited
Case number
SC 103/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993, pt 14 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to determining “classes of creditors” – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicants had not disclosed adequate information to the creditors.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Trends Publishing International Ltd v Advicewise People Ltd [2017] NZCA 365).
B The approved question is whether the order setting aside the proposal to creditors put forward by the directors of the applicant under pt 14 of the Companies Act 1993 should have been set aside.
7 November 2017
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay the respondents costs of $25,000 and usual disbursements.
16 July 2018
B The approved question is whether the order setting aside the proposal to creditors put forward by the directors of the applicant under pt 14 of the Companies Act 1993 should have been set aside.
7 November 2017
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay the respondents costs of $25,000 and usual disbursements.
16 July 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 22 February 2018 (PDF, 671 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 62 (PDF, 287 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
T v The Queen
Case number
SC 129/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, ss 8 and 43 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning a pre-trial ruling that certain propensity evidence was not admissible.
Result
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.
8 February 2018
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Case name
Douglas John Williamson v The Queen
Case number
SC 7/2016
Summary
Criminal appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no miscarriage of justice occurred despite trial counsel acting inconsistently with his client’s instructions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the Animal Welfare Act 1999, s 28 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining an application to adduce further evidence. [2015] NZCA 621 CA 398/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
26 April 2016
26 April 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
John Blackwood Williamson v The Queen
Case number
SC 8/2016
Summary
Criminal appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no miscarriage of justice occurred despite trial counsel acting inconsistently with his client’s instructions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the Animal Welfare Act 1999, s 28 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining an application to adduce further evidence.[2015] NZCA 621 CA 399/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 26 April 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Karl Leslie Raymond Marwood v The Commissioner of Police and others
Case number
SC 11/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the High Court has no power to exclude improperly obtained evidence in a proceeding under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court Judge was wrong to exclude evidence. [2015] NZCA 608 CA 487/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Commissioner of Police v Marwood [2015] NZCA 608).
B The approved question is:Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that the High Court had no jurisdiction (or power) to exclude the challenged evidence obtained by search of the applicant’ s premises and, if so, should the challenged evidence be excluded in this proceeding?11 April 2016
_____________
A The disputed evidence is admissible in these proceedings.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.26 October 2016
B The approved question is:Did the Court of Appeal err in holding that the High Court had no jurisdiction (or power) to exclude the challenged evidence obtained by search of the applicant’ s premises and, if so, should the challenged evidence be excluded in this proceeding?11 April 2016
_____________
A The disputed evidence is admissible in these proceedings.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.26 October 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 17 June 2016 (PDF, 401 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 139 (PDF, 250 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
The Queen v GJA and Privacy Commissioner (intervener)
Case number
SC 12/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in excluding evidence on the basis that it was improperly obtained.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (R v Alsford [2015] NZCA 628).
B The issues are:
(i) whether the electricity consumption records were improperly obtained from the service provider;
(ii) whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that evidence that had earlier been excluded as improperly obtained could not be relied on; and
(iii) whether, even if improperly obtained, the evidence should be admitted under s 30(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 2006.
15 March 2016
_____________
A The appeal is allowed. The evidence obtained from the searches conducted on 19 December 2012 is admissible at trial.
B Order prohibiting publication of the judgment or any part of the proceedings (including the result) in the news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the trial. Publication in a law report or law digest permitted.
29 March 2017
B The issues are:
(i) whether the electricity consumption records were improperly obtained from the service provider;
(ii) whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that evidence that had earlier been excluded as improperly obtained could not be relied on; and
(iii) whether, even if improperly obtained, the evidence should be admitted under s 30(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 2006.
15 March 2016
_____________
A The appeal is allowed. The evidence obtained from the searches conducted on 19 December 2012 is admissible at trial.
B Order prohibiting publication of the judgment or any part of the proceedings (including the result) in the news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the trial. Publication in a law report or law digest permitted.
29 March 2017
Date of hearing
16 June 2016
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
R v GREGORY JOHN ALSFORD [2017] NZSC 42 [29 March 2017] (PDF, 505 KB)
Case name
Cecilia Victoria Uhrle v The Queen
Case number
SC 38/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 66(2) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction – Whether the trial Judge’s direction to the jury incorrectly conflated foresight and intention in terms of common purpose liability under s 66(2). [2015] NZCA 412 CA265/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
13 June 2016.
13 June 2016.
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
New Zealand Air Line Pilots' Association Incorporated v Air New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 48/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the respondent’s appeal from the Employment Court was not barred for want of jurisdiction by reason of s 214(1) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Employment Court had wrongly applied or failed to apply orthodox principles of contractual interpretation. [2016] NZCA 131 CA570/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Air New Zealand Limited v New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association Incorporated [2016] NZCA 131)
B The approved question is should the Court of Appeal have dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction?
13 July 2016
___________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Leave to admit the affidavit evidence adduced by Air New Zealand Limited in support of the application for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeal is declined.
C The appellant is to pay to the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary). We certify for two counsel.
14 July 2017
B The approved question is should the Court of Appeal have dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction?
13 July 2016
___________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Leave to admit the affidavit evidence adduced by Air New Zealand Limited in support of the application for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeal is declined.
C The appellant is to pay to the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary). We certify for two counsel.
14 July 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 17 October 2016 (PDF, 601 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 111 (PDF, 310 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
T v The Queen
Case number
SC 52/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusion that exclusion of improperly obtained evidence would be disproportionate to the impropriety. [2016] NZCA 148 CA438/2015
Result
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed. 21 June 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
T (SC 52/2016) v R [2016] NZSC 76 21 June 2016 (PDF, 71 KB)
Judgment appealed from
[2016] NZCA 148 CA438/2015 not available
Page 4 of 23