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.
23 December 2024
Case information summary 2024 (as at 23 December 2024) – Cases where leave granted (126 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 23 December 2024) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 116 KB)
2016
Case name
Jacqueline Ann Cameron v The Queen
Case number
SC 142/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Appeal against sentence – Social Security Act 1964, s 127 – Crimes Act 1961, s 228(b) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its calculation of the debt owed by the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusion regarding the applicant’s counsel – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding there was no miscarriage of justice. [2016] NZCA 536 CA505/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
21 August 2017
21 August 2017
Date of Judgment
01 January 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Court of Appeal decision
Case name
James Gerard Mercer v Commonwealth of Australia
Case number
SC 143/2016
Summary
[2016] NZCA 503 CA134/2016
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B We make an order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (except for the parties’ names and result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of proceedings either by the Minister of Justice or in the Queensland courts. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
16 March 2017
B We make an order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (except for the parties’ names and result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of proceedings either by the Minister of Justice or in the Queensland courts. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
16 March 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Not publicly available
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Leslie McGeachin v The Queen
Case number
SC 144/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the applicant’s conviction on the basis of a number of alleged trial errors – Whether the District Court erred in sentencing the applicant to 19 years’ imprisonment. [2015] NZCA 558 CA730/2013
Result
A The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed.
B The application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.
24 February 2017
______________________________________
The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 24 February 2017 (McGeachin v R [2017] NZSC 16) is dismissed.
12 October 2020
B The application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.
24 February 2017
______________________________________
The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 24 February 2017 (McGeachin v R [2017] NZSC 16) is dismissed.
12 October 2020
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
LESLIE MCGEACHIN v R [2017] NZSC 16 24 February 2017 (PDF, 91 KB)
Recall judgment
LESLIE McGEACHIN v R [2017] NZSC 193 [19 December 2017] (PDF, 183 KB)
Recall judgment
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
David Brown and Glen Sycamore v New Zealand Basing Limited
Case number
SC 145/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that by selecting a different legal jurisdiction to govern their relationship, the parties could contract out of the right in the Employment Relations Act to be free from dismissal and discrimination based on age.[2016] NZCA 525 CA12/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (New Zealand Basing Ltd v Brown [2016] NZCA 525, [2017] 2 NZLR 93).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that age discrimination provisions of the Employment Relations Act 2000 do not apply to the employment agreements between the applicants and the respondent.
17 February 2017
_________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Employment Court is restored.
B The order for costs made in the Court of Appeal is set aside.
C The respondent is to pay the appellants costs in respect of the Court of Appeal hearing, to be fixed by that Court, and in respect of this appeal costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 September 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that age discrimination provisions of the Employment Relations Act 2000 do not apply to the employment agreements between the applicants and the respondent.
17 February 2017
_________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Employment Court is restored.
B The order for costs made in the Court of Appeal is set aside.
C The respondent is to pay the appellants costs in respect of the Court of Appeal hearing, to be fixed by that Court, and in respect of this appeal costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 September 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 13 June 2017 (PDF, 611 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 139 (PDF, 260 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
H v The Queen
Case number
SC 146/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 35 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that evidence of the complainant’s prior consistent statement was properly admitted at trial – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against sentence. [2016] NZCA 413 CA498/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 18 August 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Attorney-General
Case number
SC 147/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial Review – Whether the High Court Judge erred in striking out the judicial review claim.[2016] NZHC 2876 CIV 2016-485-000149
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
3 March 2017
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
3 March 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
S v The Queen
Case number
SC 148/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction.CA 539/2014 [2016] NZCA 575
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Order prohibiting publication of name, address, occupation or identifying particulars of applicant remains in force pending final disposition of charges he faces in a different criminal proceeding. 4 April 2017
B Order prohibiting publication of name, address, occupation or identifying particulars of applicant remains in force pending final disposition of charges he faces in a different criminal proceeding. 4 April 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
S (SC 148/2016) v R [2017] NZSC 43 4 April 2017 (PDF, 89 KB)
Judgment appealed from
S (CA539/2014) v R [2016] NZCA 575 (Wild, French and Simon France JJ) not available online
Case name
Bushby v The Queen
Case number
SC 149/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining application for a non-party disclosure hearing. [2016] NZCA 527 CA 174/2015
Result
A notice of abandonment having been filed the appeal is deemed to be dismissed. 10 April 2017
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited v McIntyre and Williamson Partnership & Ors
Case number
SC 150/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – s 106 Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondents were “new entrants” for the purpose of s 106 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the appellant breached s 106 in offering the respondents the terms of supply set out in the milk supply agreements signed by the respondents.CA 736/2015 [2016] NZCA 538
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Fonterra Co Operative Group Ltd v McIntyre and Williamson Partnership [2016] NZCA 538).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to answer the following two questions in the affirmative:
(a) Were the respondents “new entrants” for the purposes of s 106 of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001?
(b) If so, did the appellant breach s 106 in offering the respondents the terms of supply set out in the milk supply agreements signed by the respondents?
10 April 2017
__________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay the respondents costs of $30,000 and reasonable disbursements to be determined by the Registrar if necessary. We allow for second counsel.
21 December 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to answer the following two questions in the affirmative:
(a) Were the respondents “new entrants” for the purposes of s 106 of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001?
(b) If so, did the appellant breach s 106 in offering the respondents the terms of supply set out in the milk supply agreements signed by the respondents?
10 April 2017
__________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay the respondents costs of $30,000 and reasonable disbursements to be determined by the Registrar if necessary. We allow for second counsel.
21 December 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 - 28 July 2017 (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 197 (PDF, 289 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Jay Maui Wallace (AKA Abdullah Maui Warahi) v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 151/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to grant a writ of habeas corpus. [2016] NZCA 602 CA 622/2016
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 1 February 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 15 of 16