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
Toni Maree Miller v The Queen
Case number
SC 91/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the allegation of conspiracy made by counsel for a co-accused resulted in a miscarriage of justice.[2015] NZCA 312     CA 364/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
4 November 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Tariana Hineteangaurangi Jones v The Queen
Case number
SC 92/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to address the ground of appeal that the jury should have been directed on an alternative explanation of the facts – Whether the allegation of conspiracy made by counsel for a co-accused resulted in a miscarriage of justice.[2015] NZCA 312     CA 369/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 4 November 2015.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Carter Holt Harvey Limited v Minister of Education, Secretary for Education, Ministry for Education, and Board of Trustees of Orewa Primary School
Case number
SC 93/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Negligence – Building Act 2004, s 392(2) limitation period – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the longstop limitation provision under s 393(2) of the Building Act does not apply to claims made in this proceeding – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding not to strike out the respondents’ claims in negligence against Carter Holt Harvey.[2015] NZCA 321     CA 238/2014
Result
A  The applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal are granted (Carter Holt Harvey Ltd v Minister of Education [2015] NZCA 321, (2015) 14 TCLR 106).
B  The approved grounds are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that:
(i)   The claims in negligence are arguable;
(ii)  The claims for negligent misstatement are not arguable; and(iii)  Section 393 of the Building Act 2004 does not apply to the claims.
30 November 2015
____________________
A The appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
B The respondents’ cross-appeal is allowed.
C The order striking out the negligent misstatement cause of action is quashed.D The appellant must pay to the respondents (collectively) costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
29 July 2016
Case name
Brown v The Queen
Case number
SC 94/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Refusal of pre-trial application to dismiss charges based on delay – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of s 322 of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989. [2015] NZCA 3215    CA 320/2015
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from

Brown v R [2015] NZCA 325 (Wild, Keane and Kó s JJ) not available

Case name
Bevin Hall Skelton v Daran Nair
Case number
SC 95/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – whether Winkelmann J erred in dismissing an application to review the Registrar of the Court of Appeal’s refusal to dispense with security for costs.[2015] NZCA 343   CA 294/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
9 November 2015
Case name
Dion Edward Gurran v The Queen
Case number
SC 96/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in stating that the trial Judge’s reliability warning was sufficient for the purposes of s 122 of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not granting leave to adduce fresh evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial Judge adequately summarised the defence case to the jury.     [2015] NZCA 347   CA 412/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
1 February 2016
Case name
Jeremy George Edward McLaughlin v The Queen
Case number
SC 97/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether DNA evidence was misused at trial – Whether the trial judge’s direction as to lies was inadequate – Whether a direction under s 32 Evidence Act 2006 was required – Whether the summing up was unfair. [2015] NZCA 339   CA 752/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
3  November 2015
Case name
Antony Fredrick Gray v The Queen
Case number
SC 98/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against sentence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to grant a sentence reduction for injuries suffered while in prison on remand.[2015] NZCA 297   CA 67/2015
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 October 2015
Case name
John Grant Cuthers  v The Queen
Case number
SC 99/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, ss 167(b) and 168(1)(a) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the High Court Judge was correct not to direct that jury that they had to be unanimous as to the applicant’ s knowledge.[2015] NZCA 366   CA 186/014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
22 August 2016
Case name
Gary Owen Burgess v TSB Bank Limited
Case number
SC 100/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Mortgagee sale – Property Law Act 2007, s 119 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the notice issued under s 119 was not invalid – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondent did not have to specify the consequences of not remedying the default. [2015] NZCA 361  CA 47/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The applicant must pay the respondent costs on an indemnity basis.
3 February 2016