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.
16 September 2024
Case information summary 2024 (as at 13 September 2024) – Cases where leave granted (122 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 13 September 2024) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 124 KB)
All years
Case name
Kyburn Investments Limited v Beca Corporate Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 77/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of the applicant’s application to have an arbitral award set aside. [2015] NZCA 290 CA 130/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
21 October 2015
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
21 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
HHR Christchurch NTL Limited v Crystal Imports Limited and Allianz New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 78/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicant and second respondent were estopped from denying that the first respondent’s interest in the relevant property was insured – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the second cause of action, estoppel, was appropriate for summary judgment.Civil Appeal/Cross Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the first respondent’ s first cause of action (a declaration that it was insured under the relevant insurance policy) was not appropriate for summary judgment.[2015] NZCA 283 CA 734/2013
Result
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the applications for leave to appeal and cross appeal are deemed to be dismissed. 18 September 2015
Case name
Barrie James Skinner v The Queen
Case number
SC 79/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to decline the application to adduce further evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against conviction.[2015] NZCA 233 CA 573/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted on the question whether s 109 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 precluded conviction on counts 101–110 (Rowley v R [2015] NZCA 233, (2015) 27 NZTC. In all other respects the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed save that, in the case of Mr Rowley’s challenge to his sentence, this is with the reservation identified in [23].
15 February 2016
______________
The appeals are dismissed.
10 August 2016
15 February 2016
______________
The appeals are dismissed.
10 August 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 9 June 2016 (PDF, 456 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 101 (PDF, 239 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
SKINNER and ROWLEY v R [2016] NZSC 7 [15 February 2016] (PDF, 155 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
Alan Ivo Greer v Ray Smith and Jack Harrison
Case number
SC 80/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Habeus Corpus Act 2001 – Whether High Court correctly applied Habeus Corpus Act. [2014] NZHC 326 CIV 2015-412-15
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
21 September 2015
____________________________________________
Application for recall is dismissed.
10 February 2016
21 September 2015
____________________________________________
Application for recall is dismissed.
10 February 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Additional document
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Allianz New Zealand Limited and HHR Christchurch NTL Limited v Crystal Imports Limited and Allianz New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 81/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the second cause of action, estoppel, was appropriate for summary judgment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the law of estoppel [2015] NZCA 283 CA 734/2013
Result
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed. 18 September 2015
Case name
Heartland Bank Limited (formerly Marac Finance Limited ) v Vero Liability Insurance Limited
Case number
SC 82/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Insurance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “clear intent” in crime risk insurance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the policy when assessing coverable loss. [2015] NZCA 288 CA 712/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicant to the respondent.
3 November 2015
3 November 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Shane James Old v The Queen
Case number
SC 83/2015
Summary
Criminal appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to evidential issues.[2015] NZCA 252 CA 739/2014
Result
The application for an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 18 November 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SHANE JAMES OLD v R [2015] NZSC 175 18 November 2015 (PDF, 75 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
B v C
Case number
SC 84/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Application for leave for a direct appeal from High Court – Whether the High Court erred in not declaring the proceedings as null and void due to the applicant’s diplomatic immunity – Whether the High Court erred in holding that the New Zealand Family Court is the appropriate forum in which to decide issues concerning the care and welfare of the applicant and the respondent’s children.[2015] NZHC 1595 CIV 2014 485 11245
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The application for interim relief is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
16 September 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Transparency International New Zealand Incorporated
Case number
SC 85/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 43(2) – Whether the Court of Appeal should have granted the application for an extension of time. 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.
16 October 2015
___________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
22 October 2015
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
16 October 2015
___________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
22 October 2015
Recall judgment
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Morton v The Queen
Case number
SC 86/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against pre-trial ruling – Evidence Act 2006, s 49 – Appellant charged as party to offending when principals convicted in previous trial – Whether exceptional circumstances exist to direct that convictions are not conclusive evidence of principal offending.[2015] NZCA 322 CA 266/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (M v R [2015] NZCA 322).B The approved question is:“Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of ss 44 and 49 of the Evidence Act 2006”.
27 August 2015
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B Permission under s 49(2)(a) of the Evidence Act 2006 is given to the appellant to adduce evidence from himself and the co-defendants in which they may give their accounts of their interactions with the complainant on the night of the offending and as to the prior sexual relationship of one of the co-defendants with the complainant.
C Permission is refused in respect of the recantation and inconsistent conduct evidence and the evidence referred to in [74] (other than that identified in [77]).
D There is no direction under s 49(2)(b).
5 May 2016
27 August 2015
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B Permission under s 49(2)(a) of the Evidence Act 2006 is given to the appellant to adduce evidence from himself and the co-defendants in which they may give their accounts of their interactions with the complainant on the night of the offending and as to the prior sexual relationship of one of the co-defendants with the complainant.
C Permission is refused in respect of the recantation and inconsistent conduct evidence and the evidence referred to in [74] (other than that identified in [77]).
D There is no direction under s 49(2)(b).
5 May 2016
Date of hearing
18 November 2015
Judges
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Substantive judgment
Page 127 of 248