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.
11 July 2024
Case information summary 2024 (as at 5 July 2024) – Cases where leave granted (123 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 5 July 2024) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 126 KB)
All years
Case name
Patrick Dean Norris v Bruce Donald Gemmell and Rhys James Cain
Case number
SC 119/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993, ss 255 and 283 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by ignoring the requirements of s 255(2)(b) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by misdirecting themselves on the statutory purpose and the natural wording of s 283(2) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that liquidators appointed pursuant to s 283 are not required to advise the Registrar of their appointment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that a liquidator’s statutory ability to act as liquidator does not commence immediately on appointment as has been long held in law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that pursuant to s 283(2) if the person who wishes to resign is not currently the liquidator there can be no resignation and no new appointment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that there was a vacancy when Messrs Gemmell and Cain were appointed by the Official Assignee – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the Official Assignee was able to arbitrarily remove and replace a statutorily appointed and properly acting liquidator – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that Mr Churchill was never validly appointed – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not allowing leave to adduce certain new evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in their approach to costs.[2014] NZCA 490 CA 857/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondents costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
19 December 2014
The applicant is to pay the respondents costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
19 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
NR v District Court at Auckland and MR
Case number
SC 120/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Deputy Registrar’s decision not to provide the applicant with information he requested.[2014] NZCA 514
Result
The application to file further submissions is declined.
The interlocutory application of 1 December 2014 is dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 are to be paid by the applicant to Ms M.
19 December 2014
_____________
A The applications for leave to appeal in SC 77/2014, SC 120/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 are dismissed.
B The application for recall of this Court’s judgment dated 19 December 2014 ([2014] NZSC 189) is dismissed.
C The other interlocutory applications of 12 January 2015 are dismissed.
D Costs of $10,000 are to be paid by the applicant to Ms M (as first respondent in SC 77/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 and second respondent in SC 120/2014).
E Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents in SC 77/2014 and SC 125/2014.
27 February 2015
The interlocutory application of 1 December 2014 is dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 are to be paid by the applicant to Ms M.
19 December 2014
_____________
A The applications for leave to appeal in SC 77/2014, SC 120/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 are dismissed.
B The application for recall of this Court’s judgment dated 19 December 2014 ([2014] NZSC 189) is dismissed.
C The other interlocutory applications of 12 January 2015 are dismissed.
D Costs of $10,000 are to be paid by the applicant to Ms M (as first respondent in SC 77/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 and second respondent in SC 120/2014).
E Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents in SC 77/2014 and SC 125/2014.
27 February 2015
Court of Appeal decision
Supreme court decision
N v M [2014] NZSC 189 [19 December 2014] (PDF, 95 KB)
Supreme court decision
N v M [2015] NZSC 15 [27 February 2015] (PDF, 164 KB)
Case name
Razdan Rafiq v The Secretary for the Department of Internal Affairs of New Zealand, The Director of the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, The Commissioner of Police, the
Case number
SC 121/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to dispense with security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not granting a stay of proceedings[2014] NZCA 518
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
20 February 2015
Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
20 February 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Razdan Rafiq v The Director of the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand
Case number
SC 122/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to dispense with security for costs.[2014] NZCA 519
Result
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
28 November 2014
28 November 2014
Case name
MTR v The Queen
Case number
SC 123/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the evidence ought to be admitted at trial – Whether the evidence was obtained in breach of the Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning – The proper manner in which s 30(5) and (6) of the Evidence Act 2006 where there has been a breach of the Practice Note.[2014] NZCA 520 CA404/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
11 December 2014
11 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
[2014] NZCA 520 not available online
Case name
Jianyoung Guo, Jiaxi Guo, Jiaming Guo v Minister of Immigration
Case number
SC 124/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Immigration – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 26(2) – Human Rights Act 1993, s 21(1)(l)(iv) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the deportation order against Mr Guo was unjust on the basis that it involved double jeopardy, in breach of s 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the deportation orders against the remaining applicants were unjust on the basis that they involved discriminating on a ground expressly prohibited by s 21(1)(l)(iv) of the Human Rights Act, being a relative of a particular person – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to give leave to appeal in relation to the grounds advanced in the application for leave to appeal to the High Court.[2014] NZCA 513 CA263/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal by Jianyong Guo is dismissed.
B The applications for leave to appeal by Jiaxi Guo and Jiaming Guo are granted (Guo v Minister of Immigration [2014] NZCA 513).
C The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was right to decline the applications of Jiaxi Guo and Jiaming Guo for leave to appeal to the High Court against the decision of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal dismissing their appeals against deportation.
3 June 2015
____________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The appellants are granted leave to appeal to the High Court against the dismissal by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal of their appeals on the question whether the Tribunal erred in law in concluding that it would not be unjust or unduly harsh to deport them from New Zealand.
C All issues as to costs, including the order for costs made in the High Court, are reserved. Any application in respect of costs is to be made within 10 working days.
2 September 2015
B The applications for leave to appeal by Jiaxi Guo and Jiaming Guo are granted (Guo v Minister of Immigration [2014] NZCA 513).
C The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was right to decline the applications of Jiaxi Guo and Jiaming Guo for leave to appeal to the High Court against the decision of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal dismissing their appeals against deportation.
3 June 2015
____________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The appellants are granted leave to appeal to the High Court against the dismissal by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal of their appeals on the question whether the Tribunal erred in law in concluding that it would not be unjust or unduly harsh to deport them from New Zealand.
C All issues as to costs, including the order for costs made in the High Court, are reserved. Any application in respect of costs is to be made within 10 working days.
2 September 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 1 April 2015 (PDF, 93 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 132 (PDF, 247 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Transcript Hearing date 9 July 2015 (PDF, 577 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
NR v M and others
Case number
SC 125/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether there were a number of material errors in the Court of Appeal’s hearing and judgment[2014] NZCA 526 CA 144/2014
Result
The application to file further submissions is declined. The interlocutory application of 1 December 2014 is dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 are to be paid by the applicant to Ms M.
19 December 2014
______________
A The applications for leave to appeal in SC 77/2014, SC 120/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 are dismissed.
B The application for recall of this Court’s judgment dated 19 December 2014 ([2014] NZSC 189) is dismissed.
C The other interlocutory applications of 12 January 2015 are dismissed.
D Costs of $10,000 are to be paid by the applicant to Ms M (as first respondent in SC 77/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 and second respondent in SC 120/2014).
E Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents in SC 77/2014 and SC 125/2014.
27 February 2015
Costs of $2,500 are to be paid by the applicant to Ms M.
19 December 2014
______________
A The applications for leave to appeal in SC 77/2014, SC 120/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 are dismissed.
B The application for recall of this Court’s judgment dated 19 December 2014 ([2014] NZSC 189) is dismissed.
C The other interlocutory applications of 12 January 2015 are dismissed.
D Costs of $10,000 are to be paid by the applicant to Ms M (as first respondent in SC 77/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 and second respondent in SC 120/2014).
E Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents in SC 77/2014 and SC 125/2014.
27 February 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
N v M [2014] NZSC 189 [19 December 2014] (PDF, 95 KB)
Substantive judgment
N v M [2015] NZSC 15 [27 February 20 (PDF, 164 KB)
Case name
Robert Clifford Hoani Cribb v Evia Rural Finance Limited and The Official Assignee
Case number
SC 126/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal decision had a sound factual basis – Whether the Court of Appeal decision failed to consider the appellant’s argument – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to admit the further evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the appellant to be insolvent – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in supporting the exercise of the discretion by the Associate Judge.[2014] NZCA 543 CA 179/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 18 February 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Terranova Homes & Care Limited v Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated and Kristine Bartlett
Case number
SC 127/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Equal Pay Act 1972 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 3(1)(b) of the Equal Pay Act 1972. [2014] NZCA 516 CA 631/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
22 December 2014
22 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Ian Russell Geary v Accident Compensation Corporation
Case number
SC 128/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal fulfilled the role of an appeal court – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the High Court Rules endorse the practice of a Judge hearing an application for leave to appeal against his or her own decision.[2014] NZCA 534 CA 472/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500 together with disbursements (to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar).
23 February 2015
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500 together with disbursements (to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar).
23 February 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 142 of 245