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
Doug Andrews Heating and Ventilation Limited and Multi KC Limited v Wayne James Dil, Gary Roy Mitchell and G & W Imports Limited'
Case number
SC 45/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the applicant’s appeal against the High Court’s decision dismissing the applicant’s claim of patent infringement.[2015] NZCA 122 CA 5/2014
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed.
B The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $5,000 in respect of both applications.
8 October 2015
B The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $5,000 in respect of both applications.
8 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Richard John Creser v Janine Michelle Creser and The Official Assignee
Case number
SC 46/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether Cooper J erred in dismissing the application under appeal without a hearing.[2015] NZHC 709 CIV 2015-485-60
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
16 July 2015
___
Application for recall is dismissed.
21 July 2015.
___
Second application for recall is dismissed.
22 July 2015.
___
A The application for recall is dismissed.
B The Registrar is directed not to accept for filing any further applications for recall. 29 July 2015 ___ The application for review of Glazebrook J’ s decision is dismissed.
19 October 2015
B There is no order for costs.
16 July 2015
___
Application for recall is dismissed.
21 July 2015.
___
Second application for recall is dismissed.
22 July 2015.
___
A The application for recall is dismissed.
B The Registrar is directed not to accept for filing any further applications for recall. 29 July 2015 ___ The application for review of Glazebrook J’ s decision is dismissed.
19 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Recall judgment
Supreme court decision
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Mita Michael Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Limited and The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 47/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that Landcorp’s entry into an agreement to sell Whārere Farm was not tainted by bad faith – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that certain actions of the Office of Treaty Settlements were not justiciable – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusions as to shareholding ministers’ powers to direct Landcorp.[2015] NZCA 160 CA 336/2014; CA 337/2014; CA 29/2015
Result
An order is made that the first respondent, Landcorp Farming Ltd, not proceed with the sale of the Wharere Farm until further order of the Court.
14 May 2015
______________________
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (The Attorney-General v Ririnui [2015] NZCA 160).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse the relief sought by the applicant based on:
(a) the claimed bad faith on the part of Landcorp;
(b) the acknowledged error of law by the Office of Treaty Settlements in its advice to Landcorp;
(c) the failure of the shareholding Ministers of Landcorp to intervene.
C The first respondent is restrained until further order of the Court from settling the agreement for sale and purchase of Whārere Farm, with leave reserved to the parties or to the purchaser to apply for discharge or variation of this order.
D The Registrar is directed to serve a copy of this judgment on the purchaser.
27 May 2015
________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B The following declarations are made:
(i) The decision of Landcorp Farming Limited’s shareholding Ministers and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations not to intervene in the tender process on behalf of Ngāti Whakahemo as they did on behalf of Ngāti Mākino was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
(ii) The decision by Landcorp Farming Limited on 28 February 2014 to sell Whārere farm to Micro Farms Limited was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
C All other forms of relief claimed by the appellant are declined.
D The restraining order made by this Court in Order C of its judgment granting leave to appeal (Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Ltd [2015] NZSC 72) is discharged.
E Costs are reserved. The parties may file written submissions as to costs in this Court and in the Courts below if they are unable to reach agreement.
9 June 2016
___________
A The orders of the Court of Appeal as to costs are quashed.
B The parties are to bear their own costs in all Courts.
1 May 2017
14 May 2015
______________________
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (The Attorney-General v Ririnui [2015] NZCA 160).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse the relief sought by the applicant based on:
(a) the claimed bad faith on the part of Landcorp;
(b) the acknowledged error of law by the Office of Treaty Settlements in its advice to Landcorp;
(c) the failure of the shareholding Ministers of Landcorp to intervene.
C The first respondent is restrained until further order of the Court from settling the agreement for sale and purchase of Whārere Farm, with leave reserved to the parties or to the purchaser to apply for discharge or variation of this order.
D The Registrar is directed to serve a copy of this judgment on the purchaser.
27 May 2015
________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B The following declarations are made:
(i) The decision of Landcorp Farming Limited’s shareholding Ministers and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations not to intervene in the tender process on behalf of Ngāti Whakahemo as they did on behalf of Ngāti Mākino was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
(ii) The decision by Landcorp Farming Limited on 28 February 2014 to sell Whārere farm to Micro Farms Limited was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
C All other forms of relief claimed by the appellant are declined.
D The restraining order made by this Court in Order C of its judgment granting leave to appeal (Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Ltd [2015] NZSC 72) is discharged.
E Costs are reserved. The parties may file written submissions as to costs in this Court and in the Courts below if they are unable to reach agreement.
9 June 2016
___________
A The orders of the Court of Appeal as to costs are quashed.
B The parties are to bear their own costs in all Courts.
1 May 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 May 2015 (PDF, 308 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 62 (PDF, 265 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Supreme Court - order made
Additional document
Transcription hearing 17 - 18 August 2015 (PDF, 1.5 MB)
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer and Jane Dinsdale Siemer v Kevin Stanley Brown and others
Case number
SC 48/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether Wild J erred in dismissing the application for review of a decision of the Registrar.[2015] NZCA 161 CA 31/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay costs to the first to fourteenth respondents (collectively) of $1,500 and costs of $1,500 to the fifteenth respondent. Their liability is joint and several.
14 July 2015
___
Application for recall dismissed.
13 August 2015
B The applicants must pay costs to the first to fourteenth respondents (collectively) of $1,500 and costs of $1,500 to the fifteenth respondent. Their liability is joint and several.
14 July 2015
___
Application for recall dismissed.
13 August 2015
Recall judgment
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Mohammed Munif Sahib v The Queen
Case number
SC 49/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether propensity evidence was correctly admitted – Whether s 44 of the Evidence Act 2006 was applied correctly by the trial judge.[2015] NZCA 112 CA 252/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
20 July 2015
20 July 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Antony Thomas Gough, Tracy Owen Gough and Harcourt David Gough v Gough Holdings Limited and Gina Louise Satherthwaite and others
Case number
SC 50/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Interpretation of clause in company constitution – Whether Court of Appeal correct in interpretation – Whether Court of Appeal correctly used extrinsic aids to interpretation.[2015] NZCA 130 CA 380/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondents.
29 July 2015
29 July 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
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
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
24 July 2015
_____________________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
4 August 2015
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
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
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
24 July 2015
________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
4 August 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
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
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
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
The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondent. 31 July 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 120 of 244