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 November 2024

Case information summary 2024 (as at 8 November 2024) –  Cases where leave granted (126 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 8 November 2024)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 116 KB)

2015

Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Transparency International New Zealand Incorporated
Case number
SC 51/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Deputy Registrar making an assessment of the merits of the relevant appeal when deciding whether to dispense with security for costs was consistent with Reekie [2014] NZSC 63, [2014] 1 NZLR 737.[2015] NZCA 188  CA 156/2015
Result
A  The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B  The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
24 July 2015
_____________________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
4 August 2015
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court,  Ministry of Justice
Case number
SC 52/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal decision was in breach of s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.  [2015] NZCA 186  CA 118/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B  The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
24 July 2015
________________
The application for recall is dismissed.  
4 August 2015
Case name
Richard Lyall Genge v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 53/2015
Summary
Criminal appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the High Court’s decision to decline his application for habeas corpus.[2015] NZCA 157  CA 208/2015
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 22 June 2015
Case name
Rapata Te Haa  Rangitukunoa v John Pieter Koning and Hiria Rewti
Case number
SC 54/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal. [2015] NZCA 24  CA 212/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondent.  31 July 2015
Case name
John Frederick Ericson v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 55/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Habeas Corpus – Whether the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections holds a valid warrant of commitment for imprisonment in respect of the applicant. [2015] NZCA 199  CA 241/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
29 June 2015
Case name
Kenneth Angus Holmes  and others v Kiriwai Consultants Limited 
Case number
SC 56/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 2003, s 149 – Whether Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to make a finding on fact-based fiduciary duty ­ – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding existence of fact-based fiduciary duty – Whether Court of Appeal erred in determining the fair value of shares.[2015] NZCA 149  CA 201/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.  The liability of the applicants is joint and several.
4 August 2015
Case name
Tony Gordon Best v The Queen
Case number
SC 57/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 44 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in categorising the evidence excluded in the District Court as sexual experience evidence pursuant to s 44 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling that the evidence was inadmissible pursuant to that section – Whether even if properly excluded under s 44 the defence should have been permitted to elicit that the complainant had previously made a rape allegation. [2015] NZCA 159  CA 254/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is whether the applicant’s counsel should have been permitted to cross-examine the complainant as to her prior rape complaint and lead evidence to the effect that it was false.
3 November 2015
___________________
The appeal is dismissed. 
8 September 2016
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court,  Ministry of Justice
Case number
SC 58/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal decision was inconsistent with Reekie v Attorney General [2014] NZSC 63.  [2015] NZCA 129  CA 550/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
24 July 2015
___
The application for recall is dismissed.
4 August 2015
Case name
John Gilbert and QSM Trustee Ltd (in receivership and in liquidation) v Body Corporate 162791
Case number
SC 59/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Gilbert was personally liable to pay certain body corporate levies under s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Gilbert’s liability was not limited or excused under s 32(7) of the Act.[2015] NZCA 185  CA 213/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert [2015] NZCA 185).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i)  to hold that the first applicant was personally liable under s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 to pay body corporate levies to the respondent in relation to the second applicant’s units; and
(ii) to find that the first applicant had no arguable claim for relief from personal liability under s 32(7) of the Act.
4 September 2015
_______________
A The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.
B There is no order for costs.
2 June 2016
Case name
 D  v The Queen
Case number
SC 60/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to admit expert evidence on appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was no miscarriage of justice due to a failure to give a reliability warning under s 122(e) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial Judge’s propensity direction to the jury was adequate.[2015] NZCA 171  CA 345/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
31 July 2015