Subscribe to the RSS feed Print this page

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
S v The Queen
Case number
SC 46/2017
Summary
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 the appeal in the Court of Appeal.  Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
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 the appeal in the Court of Appeal.  Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
7 July 2017
Judgment appealed from
not publicly available
Case name
P v The Queen
Case number
SC 50/2017
Summary
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.[2017] NZCA 106   CA66/2017
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.                                                    
24 May 2017
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Judgment appealed from
(not available publicly)
SC judgment
(not available publicly)
Case name
T v The Queen
Case number
SC 52/2017
Summary
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.[2017] NZCA 166   CA71/2017
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.                                                     
19 May 2017
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Judgment appealed from
(not available publicly)
Case name
David Charles Browne and David Browne Contractors Limited and David Browne Mechanical Limited v David Ross Petterson as liquidator of Polyethylene Pipe Systems Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 57/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to, and appreciation of, the evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of ss 295(a), 299(1) and 299(3) of the Companies Act 1993. [2016] NZCA 189   CA291/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal by Mr Browne is dismissed.
B Leave to appeal is granted to David Browne Contractors Ltd and David Browne Mechanical Ltd.
The approved question is whether the orders for repayment ought to have been made against them.
C Costs are reserved.
16 August 2016
____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $30,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be
determined by the Registrar in the absence of agreement).  We certify for two counsel.
7 August 2017
Transcripts
Media Releases
High Court decision
DAVID ROSS PETTERSON AS LIQUIDATOR OF POLYETHYLENE PIPE SYSTEMS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v DAVID CHARLES BROWNE [2015] NZHC 866 [29 April 2015]
Court of Appeal decision
PETTERSON AS LIQUIDATOR OF POLYETHYLENE PIPE SYSTEMS LTD (IN LIQ) V BROWNE [2016] NZCA 189 [10 May 2016]
Leave judgment - leave granted
DAVID CHARLES BROWNE v DAVID ROSS PETTERSON AS LIQUIDATOR OF POLYETHYLENE PIPE SYSTEMS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2016] NZSC 107 [16 August 2016] (PDF, 90 KB)
Substantive judgment
DAVID BROWNE CONTRACTORS LIMITED AND DAVID BROWNE MECHANICAL LIMITED v DAVID ROSS PETTERSON AS LIQUIDATOR OF POLYETHYLENE PIPE SYSTEMS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2017] NZSC 116 [7 August 2017] (PDF, 547 KB)
Case name
Maythem Kamil Radhi v District Court at Manukau and The Commonwealth of Australia
Case number
SC 57/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Extradition Act 1999, s 48 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that it would not be unjust or oppressive to extradite the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application to adduce further evidence.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Radhi v District Court at Manukau [2017] NZCA 157).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that circumstances of the applicant did not warrant a reference to the Minister of Justice under s 48(4)(a)(ii) of the Extradition Act 1999.
18 August 2017
________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The appellant’s case is referred to the Minister of Justice pursuant to s 48(4)(a)(ii) of the Extradition Act 1999.
C Costs are reserved.                                                                                          
21 December 2017
Transcripts
Media Releases
High Court decision
RADHI v THE DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU & ANOR [2015] NZHC 3347 [21 December 2015]
Court of Appeal decision
RADHI v DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU [2017] NZCA 157 [3 May 2017]
Leave judgment - leave granted
MAYTHEM KAMIL RADHI v THE DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU [2017] NZSC 123 [18 August 2017] (PDF, 110 KB)
Additional document
Transcription hearing date 11 October 2017 (PDF, 269 KB)
Additional document
Transcription hearing date 22 November 2017 (PDF, 162 KB)
Substantive judgment
MAYTHEM KAMIL RADHI v THE DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU [2017] NZSC 198 [21 December 2017] (PDF, 391 KB)
Case name
B v The Queen
Case number
SC 58/2017
Summary
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. [2017] NZCA 211   CA563/2016
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.
3 July 2017
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Judgment appealed from
(not publicly available)
Case name
Rudi Hartono and Others v Ministry for Primary Industries and Sajo Oyang Corporation
Case number
SC 61/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Fisheries Act 1996, s 256 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the Fisheries Act to the claim for unpaid wages against a forfeited vessel.
Result
Leave to appeal is granted (Sajo Oyang Corp v Ministry for Primary Industries [2017] NZCA 182).
The approved question is whether the applicants have an interest in the Oyang 75 for the purposes of s 256 of the Fisheries Act 1996.
9 August 2017
________________________________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside (save as to the direction that the proceedings be transferred to the High Court) and the judgment of the High Court is reinstated.
B The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the appellants costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary.  We allow for second counsel.
C The appellants are entitled to costs in the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court.
D All issues as to costs in respect of the District Court and High Court are to be determined in the High Court.
2 March 2018
Transcripts
Media Releases
High Court decision
HARTONO v THE MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2015] NZHC 3307 [18 December 2015 reissued 22 February 2016]
Court of Appeal decision
SAJO OYANG CORP v MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2017] NZCA 182 [15 May 2017]
Leave judgment - leave granted
RUDI HARTONO AND OTHERS v MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2017] NZSC 117 [9 August 2017] (PDF, 71 KB)
Substantive judgment
RUDI HARTONO AND OTHERS v MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2018] NZSC 17 [2 March 2018] (PDF, 385 KB)
Case name
The Attorney-General v Arthur William Taylor and Hinemanu Ngaronoa, Sandra Wilde, Kirsty Olivia Fensom and Claire Thrupp
Case number
SC 65/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Senior Courts have jurisdiction to make declarations that Acts of Parliament are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the High Court’s declaration that s 80(1)(d) of the Electoral Act 1993 is inconsistent with the right to vote affirmed and guaranteed in s 12(a) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and cannot be justified under s 5 of that Act – (cross-appeal) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Taylor did not have standing to seek a declaration of inconsistency.
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal by the Attorney General and Mr Taylor are granted.
B The approved questions are whether:
(i) The Court of Appeal was correct to make a declaration of  inconsistency; and
(ii) Mr Taylor has standing.
30 August 2017 
_____________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed.  Mr Taylor accordingly has standing.
C Costs are reserved.
9 November 2018
____________________________
A The appellant must pay to the first respondent usual disbursements.
B The appellant must pay the second to fifth respondents costs of $15,000 or such lesser figure as evidenced by invoices produced to the Registrar.
C Any issues arising as to costs in the Court of Appeal in respect of Mr Taylor are to be dealt with in that Court.
27 February 2019
Transcripts
Media Releases
High Court decision
TAYLOR v ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2015] NZHC 1706 [24 July 2015]
Leave judgment - leave granted
ATTORNEY-GENERAL v ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR [2017] NZSC 131 [30 August 2017] (PDF, 71 KB)
Substantive judgment
ATTORNEY-GENERAL v ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR [2018] NZSC 104 [9 November 2018] (PDF, 579 KB)
Additional document
Cost judgment: ATTORNEY - GENERAL v ARTHUR WILLIAM TAYLOR [2019] NZSC 18 [27 February 201 (PDF, 221 KB)
Case name
L v The Queen 
Case number
SC 70/2017
Summary
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.               
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.
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Judgment appealed from
(not available publicly)
Case name
W v The Queen
Case number
SC 74/2017
Summary
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.
Result
not publicly available
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Judgment appealed from

W (CA378/2016) v R [2017] NZCA 235    6 June 2017
Page 27 of 68