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
W v The Queen
Case number
SC 132/2016
Summary
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted. [2016] NZHC 2401 CRI 2016-087-000335
Result
Judgment released.
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment or any part of the proceedings (including the result) in the news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the trial. Publication in a law report or law digest permitted.
30 November 2016
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment or any part of the proceedings (including the result) in the news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the trial. Publication in a law report or law digest permitted.
30 November 2016
SC judgment
not publicly available
Judgment appealed from
not publicly available
Case name
Derek Lester King v The Queen
Case number
SC 133/2016
Summary
Criminal appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by declining to grant further adjournment in the appeal against conviction and sentence. [2015] NZCA 506 CA7/2013
Result
A notice of abandonment having been lodged, the application is deemed dismissed.
10 April 2017
10 April 2017
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Todd Aaron Marteley v The Queen
Case number
SC 134/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the applicant was prevented by counsel error from vacating his guilty plea – Whether the Court of Appeal took insufficient time to consider the applicant’s appeal against sentence.[2016] NZCA 480 CA509/2011
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
13 March 2017
___________
The application for recall is dismissed.
16 May 2017
_______________
The application for recall is dismissed.
8 June 2017
13 March 2017
___________
The application for recall is dismissed.
16 May 2017
_______________
The application for recall is dismissed.
8 June 2017
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
TODD AARON MARTELEY v R [2017] NZSC 72 [16 May 2017] (PDF, 65 KB)
Recall judgment
TODD AARON MARTELEY v R [2017] NZSC 83 [8 June 2017] (PDF, 65 KB)
Case name
Eric Meserve Houghton v Timothy Ernest Corbett Saunders, Samuel John Magill, John Michael Feeney, Craig Edgeworth Horrocks, Peter David Hunter, Peter Thomas and Joan Withers, and Credit Suisse Private Equity Inc, and Credit Suisse First Boston Asian Me
Case number
SC 135/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Securities Act 1978 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the Securities Act 1978, ss 2, 55 and 56 – Whether the Court of Appeal findings preclude Fair Trading Act 1986 claims. [2016] NZCA 493 CA578/2014
Result
A The appeal in relation to the fourth and fifth respondents is dismissed.
B The appeal in relation to the first, second and third respondents is allowed to the limited extent described below.
C The Court of Appeal’s finding that the forecast of revenue for the financial year ended 30 June 2004 (the untrue statement) was, at the time of allotment of the shares offered for subscription in the Feltex prospectus, an untrue statement for the purposes of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978, is upheld.
D The Court of Appeal’s findings that the untrue statement did not give rise to liability under s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and was not in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 are set aside.
E We find that the untrue statement was in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986.
F The questions of whether plaintiffs represented by the appellant: (i) invested on the faith of the prospectus in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so; (ii) suffered any loss by reason of the untrue statement in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so, the quantum of such loss; and (iii) are entitled to any remedy under the Fair Trading Act 1986 are left for resolution by the High Court at the stage 2 hearing.
G In all other respects, the appeal in relation to the first to third respondents is dismissed.
H Costs in this Court and the Courts below are reserved. Submissions on costs should be filed and served according to the following timetable: (i) Appellant: 20 working days after the date of this judgment. (ii) First to third respondents: 10 working days after the appellant’s submissions are filed. (iii) Fourth and fifth respondents: 10 working days after the first to third respondents’ submissions are filed. (iv) Appellant in reply: 10 working days after the fourth and fifth respondents’ submissions are filed.
15 August 2018
_________________________________
A The first to third respondents must pay the appellant costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements.
B Costs in the High Court should be reconsidered by that Court in light of this Court’s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal should be determined in light of this Court’ s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment if the agreement between the parties as to costs in that Court expressly or impliedly allows for such a determination to occur.
22 November 2018
B The appeal in relation to the first, second and third respondents is allowed to the limited extent described below.
C The Court of Appeal’s finding that the forecast of revenue for the financial year ended 30 June 2004 (the untrue statement) was, at the time of allotment of the shares offered for subscription in the Feltex prospectus, an untrue statement for the purposes of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978, is upheld.
D The Court of Appeal’s findings that the untrue statement did not give rise to liability under s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and was not in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 are set aside.
E We find that the untrue statement was in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986.
F The questions of whether plaintiffs represented by the appellant: (i) invested on the faith of the prospectus in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so; (ii) suffered any loss by reason of the untrue statement in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so, the quantum of such loss; and (iii) are entitled to any remedy under the Fair Trading Act 1986 are left for resolution by the High Court at the stage 2 hearing.
G In all other respects, the appeal in relation to the first to third respondents is dismissed.
H Costs in this Court and the Courts below are reserved. Submissions on costs should be filed and served according to the following timetable: (i) Appellant: 20 working days after the date of this judgment. (ii) First to third respondents: 10 working days after the appellant’s submissions are filed. (iii) Fourth and fifth respondents: 10 working days after the first to third respondents’ submissions are filed. (iv) Appellant in reply: 10 working days after the fourth and fifth respondents’ submissions are filed.
15 August 2018
_________________________________
A The first to third respondents must pay the appellant costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements.
B Costs in the High Court should be reconsidered by that Court in light of this Court’s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal should be determined in light of this Court’ s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment if the agreement between the parties as to costs in that Court expressly or impliedly allows for such a determination to occur.
22 November 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 April 2017 (PDF, 284 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 74 (PDF, 68 KB)
Additional document
Transcript hearing date 5 September 2017 (PDF, 1.4 MB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
HOUGHTON v SAUNDERS & ORS [2017] NZSC 55 (PDF, 113 KB)
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Glenn Roderick Holland v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 136/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Parole Act 2002, pt 1A – Extended supervision order – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Parole Act 2002 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the gravity of the offending – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the length of the extended supervision order was proportionate to the risk posed by the defendant. [2016] NZCA 504 CA119/2016
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Holland v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZCA 504).B The approved questions are:
(a) Whether offences against the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 set out in s 107B(3) of the Parole Act 2002 are relevant only to eligibility for an extended supervision order; and
(b) If they are only relevant to eligibility, whether the extended supervision order should have been made.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
8 June 2017
__________________
The appeal is dismissed
27 October 2017
(a) Whether offences against the Films, Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 set out in s 107B(3) of the Parole Act 2002 are relevant only to eligibility for an extended supervision order; and
(b) If they are only relevant to eligibility, whether the extended supervision order should have been made.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
8 June 2017
__________________
The appeal is dismissed
27 October 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 3 October 2017 (PDF, 111 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 161 (PDF, 286 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Amanda Adele White and Anne Leoline Emily Freeman v Christopher Maurice Lynch and Stuart Gordon Spence
Case number
SC 137/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to grant an extension of time to file case on appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing application to debar counsel. [2016] NZCA 513 CA740/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
16 February 2017
________________
A The application to recall the judgment is dismissed.
B We direct the Registrar not to accept any further applications by the applicants in respect of their dispute with the respondents.
16 March 2017
16 February 2017
________________
A The application to recall the judgment is dismissed.
B We direct the Registrar not to accept any further applications by the applicants in respect of their dispute with the respondents.
16 March 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Mark Albert Horsfall v Diana Jane Potter and 168 Group Limited
Case number
SC 138/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – s 44 Property (Relationships) Act 1976 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 44.[2016] NZCA 514 CA720/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Potter v Horsfall [2016] NZCA 514).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the disposition of the proceeds of the College Street property was made by the applicant to defeat the claim or rights of the first respondent for the purposes of s 44 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.
2 March 2017
_________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay the first respondent costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
21 December 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the disposition of the proceeds of the College Street property was made by the applicant to defeat the claim or rights of the first respondent for the purposes of s 44 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.
2 March 2017
_________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay the first respondent costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
21 December 2017
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 196 (PDF, 285 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Hearing date : 15 June 2017
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and McGrath JJ.
Case name
Ryan Warren Geary-Smart v The Queen
Case number
SC 139/2016
Summary
Criminal appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 62 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by requiring that further independent advice regarding the privilege against self‑incrimination be offered to a co-defendant – Whether the Court erred in refusing to grant leave to admit fresh evidence – Whether the Court erred by upholding the decision to admit propensity evidence – Whether the Court erred in upholding the sentence. [2016] NZCA 509 CA132/2015
Result
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
3 March 2017
3 March 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GEARY-SMART v R [2017] NZSC 23 3 March 2017 (PDF, 85 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Jacob Christopher Geary-Smart v The Queen
Case number
SC 140/2016
Summary
Criminal appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 62 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by requiring that further independent advice regarding the privilege against self‑incrimination be offered to a co-defendant – Whether the Court erred in refusing to grant leave to admit fresh evidence – Whether the Court erred by upholding the decision to admit propensity evidence – Whether the Court erred in upholding the sentence. [2016] NZCA 509 CA134/2015
Result
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed. 3 March 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GEARY-SMART v R [2017] NZSC 23 3 March 2017 (PDF, 85 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
New Health New Zealand Inc v South Taranaki District Council and Attorney-General (for and on behalf of the Minister of Health)
Case number
SC 141/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (New Health New Zealand Inc v South Taranaki District Council [2016] NZCA 462, [2017] 2 NZLR 13).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals of the appellant in CA159/2014, CA615/2014 and CA529/2015.
20 February 2017
___________________________________________________
The application for leave to admit the TDB report annexed to the affidavit of Philip Barry is dismissed.
30 October 2017
_________________________________________________
A The appeals from the decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to CA529/2015 and CA615/2014, referred to respectively as the Regulations and Medicines Act appeals, are dismissed.
B Costs are reserved. Any memoranda on costs may be filed by 31 July 2018. 27 June 2018 A The appeal is dismissed. B The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements.
C We make no award of costs in favour of the second respondent.
27 June 2018
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals of the appellant in CA159/2014, CA615/2014 and CA529/2015.
20 February 2017
___________________________________________________
The application for leave to admit the TDB report annexed to the affidavit of Philip Barry is dismissed.
30 October 2017
_________________________________________________
A The appeals from the decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to CA529/2015 and CA615/2014, referred to respectively as the Regulations and Medicines Act appeals, are dismissed.
B Costs are reserved. Any memoranda on costs may be filed by 31 July 2018. 27 June 2018 A The appeal is dismissed. B The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements.
C We make no award of costs in favour of the second respondent.
27 June 2018
Date of hearing
16 November 2017
- 17 November 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 and 17 November 2017 (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 59 and MR [2018] NZSC 60 (PDF, 259 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Page 113 of 244