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.
28 November 2025
Case information summary 2025 (as at 28 November 2025) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary 2025 (as at 28 November 2025) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 120 KB)
All years
Case name
Ranjit Keshvara v David Murray Blanchett & Grant Edward Burns as liquidators of APG Holdings Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 1/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 19(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that it was not necessary for a Court to hear evidence as to the particular circumstances giving rise to the supply of information used for the composition of business records before a Court can rule on admissibility of hearsay statements contained in those business records. [2012] NZCA 553 CA 665/2011
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay to the respondents costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
21 March 2013.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassney and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 2/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the registrar’s refusal to dispense with security for costs on the basis that it relied on incorrect evidence, was based on the Judge’s predeterminations regarding the merits of the case, and unjustly restricts the applicant’ s access to the court.CA 362/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs to the respondent $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements,
7 March 2013
_________________________________________
Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
26 March 2013
_________________________________________
Second application for recall of judgment dismissed.
11 April 2013
Costs to the respondent $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements,
7 March 2013
_________________________________________
Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
26 March 2013
_________________________________________
Second application for recall of judgment dismissed.
11 April 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIEMER v STIASSNY SC 2/2013 [7 March 2013] (PDF, 52 KB)
Case name
Taylor Jade Schmidt v Pepper New Zealand (Custodians) Limited and others
Case number
SC 3/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Extension of time – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and/or law – Whether the Court of Appeal displayed pre-determination and bias – Whether the Court of Appeal acted on wrong principle – Whether the Court of Appeal took irrelevant matters into account – Whether the Court of Appeal was plainly wrong.[2012] NZCA 565 CA 763/2011; CA 764/2011; CA 765/2011
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicants must pay costs of $2,000 to the second and third respondents and $750 to the first respondent, in each case together with reasonable disbursements to be determined, if necessary, by the Registrar. The liability of the applicants is joint and several.
12 April 2013
The applicants must pay costs of $2,000 to the second and third respondents and $750 to the first respondent, in each case together with reasonable disbursements to be determined, if necessary, by the Registrar. The liability of the applicants is joint and several.
12 April 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
George Charles Kain, George Michael Kain, George Thomas Kain, George Harry Kain & Georgina Kain v Wynn Williams & Co
Case number
SC 4/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether conditional fee agreement between a solicitor and client is champertous only where there is proof of unjustified interference in the client’s affairs by solicitor – Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, ss 6, 11(1)(d)(ii) and 13 – Meaning of consumer credit contract – Whether conditional fee agreement constituted a consumer credit contract. [2012] NZCA 563 CA 635/2011
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs to the respondent $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements.
8 April 2013
Costs to the respondent $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements.
8 April 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
KAIN v WYNN WILLIAMS & CO SC 4/2013 [8 April 2013] (PDF, 51 KB)
Case name
Planet Kids Limited v Auckland Council
Case number
SC 5/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – frustration of purpose – whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and law in finding that the settlement agreement between the parties was frustrated by the termination of the lease held by the appellant under a clause of the deed of lease.[2012] NZCA 562 CA 58/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that Planet Kids Ltd was not entitled to summary judgment against the Auckland Council.
18 April 2013
____________
tbc
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that Planet Kids Ltd was not entitled to summary judgment against the Auckland Council.
18 April 2013
____________
tbc
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 June 2013 (PDF, 379 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2013] NZSC 147 (PDF, 84 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Terminals (NZ) Limited v The Comptroller of Customs
Case number
SC 6/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Customs and Excise Act 1996 – definition of “manufacture” – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the addition of small quantities of butane on which excise duty had previously been paid to imported motor spirit on which excise-equivalent duty had previously been paid constituted “manufacture”.[2012] NZCA 598 CA 366/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the activity conducted by the applicant constituted or involved the manufacture of motor spirit.
19March 2013 __________________ The appeal is dismissed. Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (to be determined by the Registrar if necessary) are to be paid to the respondent. We certify for two counsel. 6 December 2013
19March 2013 __________________ The appeal is dismissed. Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (to be determined by the Registrar if necessary) are to be paid to the respondent. We certify for two counsel. 6 December 2013
Transcript
Hearing dates : 5 and 6 August 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Gault JJ.
Case name
Roderick Bryan Turner v Allister John Davis, Clark Boyce and James Rapley
Case number
SC 7/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Summary judgment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s summary judgment order against the appellant as there exists a genuine dispute as to the material facts of the case – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the summary judgment order as there are outstanding matters of law. [2012] NZCA 576 CA 360/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the first and second respondents and $2,500 to the third respondent, in each case plus reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
12 April 2013.
12 April 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TURNER v DAVIS SC 7/2013 [12 April 2013] (PDF, 57 KB)
Case name
Philip Joseph Fava v Aral Property Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 8/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 – Whether a court is permitted to entertain an application when the party making the application is represented by a lawyer (or a firm including a lawyer) whose conduct is in issue in the proceedings in a manner contemplated by Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, r 13.5.3 – Whether a lawyer’s conduct will be in issue in proceedings for the purpose of r 13.5.3 where the case before the court protects or furthers the lawyer’s own interests.[2012] NZCA 585 CA 500/2012
Dates
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
8 May 2013.
Case name
John Anthony Osborne and Helen Osborne v The Auckland Council and the Weathertight Homes Tribunal
Case number
SC 9/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006, s 14(a) – Interpretation of “built” – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to hold that a dwellinghouse is “built” at the time it passes its final building inspection. [2012] NZCA 609 CA 650/2011
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved questions are:
(a) Is the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of s 14(a) of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 correct?
(b) Given the dismissal by the High Court of the appeal against the removal order, does s 95(2) of that Act preclude the granting of any remedy to the applicants?
1 May 2013
______________________
A The appeal is allowed with the result that the eligibility decision of the Tribunal chair is set aside and there is a declaration that the appellants’ claim is eligible.
B Leave is reserved to apply for further relief should that be necessary.
C In relation to this appeal, the appellants are awarded costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements against the first respondent. They are also awarded costs on the judicial review proceedings in the High Court and on the appeal to the Court of Appeal, in sums to be fixed by those courts.
10 June 2014
___________________
Application for further relief declined.
No order for costs.
29 September 2014
B The approved questions are:
(a) Is the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of s 14(a) of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 correct?
(b) Given the dismissal by the High Court of the appeal against the removal order, does s 95(2) of that Act preclude the granting of any remedy to the applicants?
1 May 2013
______________________
A The appeal is allowed with the result that the eligibility decision of the Tribunal chair is set aside and there is a declaration that the appellants’ claim is eligible.
B Leave is reserved to apply for further relief should that be necessary.
C In relation to this appeal, the appellants are awarded costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements against the first respondent. They are also awarded costs on the judicial review proceedings in the High Court and on the appeal to the Court of Appeal, in sums to be fixed by those courts.
10 June 2014
___________________
Application for further relief declined.
No order for costs.
29 September 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 November 2013 SC 9 2013 (PDF, 516 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 67 (PDF, 92 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
OSBORNE v AUCKLAND COUNCIL SC 9/2013 [1 May 2013] (PDF, 33 KB)
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Neal Medhurst Nicholls v The Queen
Case number
SC 10/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 220 – Theft by person in a special relationship – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial judge had applied the correct test for intention in relation to a s 220 charge – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Crown had established that the appellants knew that the relevant transactions were in breach of the relevant requirements beyond reasonable doubt. [2012] NZCA 610 CA 624/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
19 April 2013.
Page 169 of 270