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)

2017

Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson as Trustee of the Malcolm Rabson Family Trust v Ian Bruce Shepherd and Christine Margaret Dunphy
Case number
SC 1/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 43(2) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining the application for an extension of time. [2016] NZCA 446   CA51/2016
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
23 June 2017
Case name
Donna Michelle Ritchie v Accident Compensation Corporation
Case number
SC 2/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Accident Compensation Act 2001, s 110(3) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 110(3) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 –  Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying McGrath v Accident Compensation Corporation [2011] NZSC 77, [2011] 3 NZLR 733 –  Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of evidence.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
1 May 2017
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Linda Gallagher, Malcolm Edward Rabson as Trustee of the Malcolm Rabson Family Trust and Wayne Seymour Chapman as Trustee of the Gallagher-Rabson Family Trust
Case number
SC 3/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to decline the application for clarification of the orders in Rabson v Gallagher [2011] NZCA 669.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to each of the first and third respondents. 5 April 2017 ________________ The application for recall is dismissed. 4 May 2017
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner
Case number
SC 4/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court erred in striking out the applicant’s application for judicial review of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner’ s decision that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the applicant’ s complaint.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
27 March 2017
________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.    
9 May 2017
HC judgment appealed from

MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON v JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER [2016] NZHC 3162   20 December 2016                                              __

Case name
Gary Owen Burgess v Malley & Co 
Case number
SC 5/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by declining to remove the respondent’s legal representatives
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500. 27 March 2017
Case name
David Keith Silby v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 6/2017
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 237 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining leave to bring a second appeal against conviction and sentence in respect of offences under the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 7 April 2017
Case name
Hyun Su Park v Joong Song Kwak and Hye Sook Kwak, Andrew J Steele and Jarred Scott, Tim J Rainey and Jonathan Wood
Case number
SC 7/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006, ss 93 and 95 – Whether the High Court and Court of Appeal erred in their approach to a second appeal under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act.
Result
A The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the third respondents.                
9 February 2017
Judgment appealed from

PARK v KWAK & ANOR [2016] NZCA 574   8 December 2016 not available online  _

Case name
Nicholas David Wright v Vijay Bhosale and Attorney-General 
Case number
SC 8/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 21, 23 and 24(a) –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding there was no breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the intention required to obtain exemplary damages.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondent. 9 May 2017
Case name
Chatfield & Co Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 9/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Discovery – s 10 Judicature Amendment Act 1972 – Did the Court of Appeal err in deciding documents exchanged pursuant to a Double Taxation Agreement were not discoverable in judicial review proceedings?
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent. 11 April 2017
Case name
Craig Duthie and Kirsten Taylor-Ruiterman, and DRK Chartered Accountants Limited v Denise Michelle Roose, and Denise Developments Limited, and DMR Development Limited
Case number
SC 10/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the causes of action brought by the respondents in tort were not time barred.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Roose v Duthie [2016] NZCA 600).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the cause of action in tort accrued when the agreement for sale and purchase between Denise Developments Ltd and DMR Development Ltd was settled rather than when the agreement became unconditional.
2 May 2017
___________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are to pay costs of $25,000 to the respondents and reasonable disbursements.
6 October 2017