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
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
11 April 2013.
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
15 April 2013.
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay by way of costs:
(a) the sum of $4,000 to the first respondent; and
(b) the sum of $4,000 to the second respondents –
plus, in each case, reasonable
18 April 2013
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
5 March 2013
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
19 April 2013.
Should the appellant have received a reduction in his sentence for the breach of his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990?
1 April 2014
_____________
A The application for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed.
B The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
7 July 2015
- MR [2015] NZSC 98 (PDF, 250 KB)
Hearing date : 3 and 4 March 2015
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ
The approved ground is:
Did the Court of Appeal interpret s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 correctly?
15 April 2013
________________
The appeal is allowed.
The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants in SC 19/2013 plus usual disbursements (to be set by the Registrar, if necessary). We certify for two counsel.
23 December 2013
Hearing date : 17 October 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, Glazebrook, Gault, Anderson JJ.
(a) Are the Body Corporate and Theta liable in nuisance and if so on what basis?
(b) What, if any orders, are appropriate as to damages?
3 May 2013
____________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of Asher J on the first cause of action is reinstated.
B The cross appeal is dismissed.
C The respondents are to pay to the appellant costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary).
9 October 2014
_______________
tc
- Hearing date 7 November 2013 (PDF, 504 KB)
- sc 20 2013 wu v body corporate media release (PDF, 86 KB)
The respondents are to pay, jointly and severally, costs of $25,000 to the appellants in SC 21/2013 (to be set by the Registrar, if necessary). We certify for two counsel.
23 December 2013.
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is:
Did the Court of Appeal interpret s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 correctly?
15 April 2013.
17 October 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, Glazebrook, Gault, Anderson JJ.
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
2 July 2013.