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)
All years
Case name
Northland Environmental Protection Society Incorporated v The Chief Executive of the Ministry for Primary Industries, Comptroller of Customs and The Chief Executive of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage
Case number
SC 10/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Forests Act 1949 and the Protected Objects Act 1975
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Northland Environmental Protection Society Incorporated v Chief Executive of the Ministry for Primary Industries [2017] NZCA 607).
B The approved questions are:
(a) Was the Court of Appeal correct in its interpretation of “finished or manufactured indigenous timber product” and the effect of the export restrictions in s 67C of the Forests Act 1949?
(b) Was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that some or all swamp kauri is not a “protected New Zealand object” as defined in s 2(1) of the Protected Objects Act 1975?
19 April 2018
___________________________
A The appeal relating to the interpretation of the export restriction in s 67C(1)(b) of the Forests Act 1949 is allowed.
B The appeal relating to the Protected Objects Act 1975 is dismissed.
C Costs are reserved.
9 November 2018
B The approved questions are:
(a) Was the Court of Appeal correct in its interpretation of “finished or manufactured indigenous timber product” and the effect of the export restrictions in s 67C of the Forests Act 1949?
(b) Was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that some or all swamp kauri is not a “protected New Zealand object” as defined in s 2(1) of the Protected Objects Act 1975?
19 April 2018
___________________________
A The appeal relating to the interpretation of the export restriction in s 67C(1)(b) of the Forests Act 1949 is allowed.
B The appeal relating to the Protected Objects Act 1975 is dismissed.
C Costs are reserved.
9 November 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 June 2018 (PDF, 394 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 105 (PDF, 61 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust v Minister of Conservation, Fullers Group Limited and Motutapu Island Restoration Trust
Case number
SC 11/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Conservation Act 1987 and Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that concessions to conduct guided tours over Rangitoto and Motutapu could be granted despite iwi objections.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust v Minister of Conservation [2017] NZCA 613).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal of the applicant to that Court.
8 May 2018
______________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B We direct that the second respondent’ s application for a concession be reconsidered by the first respondent’ s delegate in light of this judgment. The licence awarded to the second respondent on 31 August 2015 will remain in force until that reconsideration has occurred.
C The decision of the first respondent’s delegate granting a permit to the third respondent dated 15 October 2015 is quashed. We direct that the third respondent’s application for a concession be reconsidered by the first respondent’s delegate in light of this judgment.
D Costs are reserved.
14 December 2018
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal of the applicant to that Court.
8 May 2018
______________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B We direct that the second respondent’ s application for a concession be reconsidered by the first respondent’ s delegate in light of this judgment. The licence awarded to the second respondent on 31 August 2015 will remain in force until that reconsideration has occurred.
C The decision of the first respondent’s delegate granting a permit to the third respondent dated 15 October 2015 is quashed. We direct that the third respondent’s application for a concession be reconsidered by the first respondent’s delegate in light of this judgment.
D Costs are reserved.
14 December 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 14 August 2018 (PDF, 646 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 122 (PDF, 260 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
AN v Bupa Care Services NZ Limited and District Court at Manukau
Case number
SC 12/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court erred in refusing to allow the applicant to file an application for habeas corpus – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding the applicant’s appeal should not be given precedence, per s 17(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001.
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed. B No order as to costs. 19 March 2018 _____________________ The application for recall is dismissed. 22 March 2018
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Wayne Jones v The Queen
Case number
SC 13/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction – Whether the persons called by the Crown to give evidence met the definition of “witness” in s 4 of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the trial Judge erred in allowing the Crown to call knowingly hostile witnesses.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
10 May 2018
10 May 2018
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
WAYNE JONES v R [2018] NZSC 44 [10 May 2018] (PDF, 197 KB)
Case name
John William Ross v The Queen
Case number
SC 14/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 122 of the Evidence Act 2006.
Result
A The application for an extension of time is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
30 April 2018
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
30 April 2018
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JOHN WILLIAM ROSS v R [2018] NZSC 38 [30 April 2018] (PDF, 229 KB)
Case name
Nobilangelo Ceramalus v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and The Minister of Immigration
Case number
SC 15/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Immigration Act 2009 – Whether the High Court Judge erred in striking out the applicant’s application for review of Immigration New Zealand’s refusal to grant a visa.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents. 27 March 2018
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
W v The Queen
Case number
SC 16/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether trial counsel’s failure to follow applicant’s instructions was grounds for a mistrial – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
14 May 2018
14 May 2018
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
W (SC 16/2018) v R [2018] NZSC 46 [14 May 2018] (PDF, 203 KB)
Case name
Phillip John Smith v Attorney General
Case number
SC 17/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that wearing a hairpiece does not constitute expression and therefore is not protected under s 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
7 May 2018
7 May 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Peter Richard Prescott v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 18/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Deputy Registrar to not waive a filing fee.
Result
A The applicant’s applications for leave to appeal and to set aside the High Court judgment are dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
9 May 2018
B The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
9 May 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Christopher Joseph O'Neill v Kit Toogood, Cecil Harding Croucher and Matt Amon
Case number
SC 19/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in declining to recall its judgment refusing to grant the applicant extension of time to apply for leave to appeal to that Court.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
17 April 2018
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
17 April 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 81 of 250