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.
17 August 2026
Case information summary (as at 17 August 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 17 August 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 128 KB)
All years
Case name
Colin James Dallas v Wellington City Council
Case number
SC 14/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Fair Trading Act 1986, s 9 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding a breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act.[2014] NZCA 631 CA 148/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Wellington City Council v Dallas [2014] NZCA 631). B The approved questions are: (a) Was the Court of Appeal correct to have found the applicant liable under the Fair Trading Act 1986? (b) If so, should the applicant have been held liable for 50 per cent of the respondent’s loss? 26 June 2015 ________________________ Notice of abandonment being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed. 11 November 2015
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Mobil Oil New Zealand Limited v Development Auckland Limited (formerly Auckland Waterfront Agency Limited)
Case number
SC 107/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal –– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the applicant’s contractual obligations to remediate contamination of land it had occupied. [2015] NZCA 390 CA 111/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Auckland Waterfront Development Agency Ltd v Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd [2015] NZCA 390).
B The approved questions are:
Did the “clean and tidy” clauses in the 1985 leases between Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd and the Auckland WaterfrontDevelopment Agency Ltd require Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd to remediate any hydrocarbon contamination of the leased land on termination of the leases?
If not, is Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd liable for the costs of remediating any such contamination on the basis that it breached an implied term in the leases not to commit waste?
If the answer to either (a) or (b) is “yes”, does the remediation obligation relate only to hydrocarbon contamination caused since 1985 or does it extend to contamination caused to the land since 1925?
20 November 2015
______________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the judgment of Katz J (including the costs orders made by her) is restored.
B Mobil is entitled to costs in respect of the appeal to the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court and to costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements in respect of the appeal to this Court.
20 July 2016
B The approved questions are:
Did the “clean and tidy” clauses in the 1985 leases between Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd and the Auckland WaterfrontDevelopment Agency Ltd require Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd to remediate any hydrocarbon contamination of the leased land on termination of the leases?
If not, is Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd liable for the costs of remediating any such contamination on the basis that it breached an implied term in the leases not to commit waste?
If the answer to either (a) or (b) is “yes”, does the remediation obligation relate only to hydrocarbon contamination caused since 1985 or does it extend to contamination caused to the land since 1925?
20 November 2015
______________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the judgment of Katz J (including the costs orders made by her) is restored.
B Mobil is entitled to costs in respect of the appeal to the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court and to costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements in respect of the appeal to this Court.
20 July 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 April 2016 (PDF, 490 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 89 (PDF, 246 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Escrow Holdings Forty-One Limited and Kallina Limited v District Court at Auckland and Body Corporate 341188 and others
Case number
SC 108/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property Law Act 1952 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the land covenant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to give any weight to extrinsic evidence in the interpretation of the covenant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to give proper weight to the distinction between a covenant and an easement as distinguished in the Property Law Act. [2015] NZCA 393 CA 185/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Body Corporate 341188 v District Court at Auckland [2015] NZCA 393).
B The approved ground is:Does the Deed of Covenant (when read alongside the Memorandum of Encumbrance) confer on the registered proprietors of Lot 2 the exclusive right to use the area shown as “A” on the plan attached to the Deed of Covenant (area “A”) for the purposes of car parking and the right to use the right of way shown as “F” and “G” on the same plan to access area “A”?
C We make a direction that service on the fourteenth to thirty-ninth respondents be dispensed with.
10 December 2015
___________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the second to twelfth respondents costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements, to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We certify for two counsel.
20 December 2016
B The approved ground is:Does the Deed of Covenant (when read alongside the Memorandum of Encumbrance) confer on the registered proprietors of Lot 2 the exclusive right to use the area shown as “A” on the plan attached to the Deed of Covenant (area “A”) for the purposes of car parking and the right to use the right of way shown as “F” and “G” on the same plan to access area “A”?
C We make a direction that service on the fourteenth to thirty-ninth respondents be dispensed with.
10 December 2015
___________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the second to twelfth respondents costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements, to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We certify for two counsel.
20 December 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 28 June 2016 (PDF, 624 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 167 (PDF, 251 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Michael Kinlim Yan v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 111/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Employment Court failed to adopt the correct test for bias in respect of dismissal from the Public Service.[2015] NZEmpC 36 ARC 11/14
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500. 9 November 2015
Employment Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Douglas Banks and Christine Sandra Banks v Grey District Council
Case number
SC 114/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a document sought to be discovered by the applicants was legally privileged – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the leases – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicants had failed to discharge the evidential burden as to fraudulent misrepresentation. [2015] NZCA 417 CA 460/2013; CA 667/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B Costs of $2,500 are payable to the respondent.
28 October 2015
______________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
11 November 2015
28 October 2015
______________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
11 November 2015
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Recall judgment
Case name
Jetstar Airways Limited v Richard Greenslade
Case number
SC 116/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000, s 69ZH(2) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the requirement for rest periods under the Australian Civil Aviation Order 48 was not a requirement for a rest break for the purposes of the Employment Relations Act.[2015] NZCA 432 CA 125/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
4 December 2015
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
4 December 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Employment Court decision
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Charles William Williams, Jean Elizabeth Morley, Inez Beverly Flavell, Lesley Anne Hensleigh, The Royal Foundation of the Blind, Donald Alexander Mackintosh, Lynda Anne Ryan, Janice Aileen Robertson, Gilliam Madge Clarke, Rosalie Hilda Mailand, Donald
Case number
SC 124/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – Public Works Act 1981 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “successor” in s 40(5) of the Public Works Act 1981 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to exercise the residual discretion to grant declaratory relief.[2015] NZCA 479 CA 251/2014
Result
A. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B. The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
11 March 2016
_______________________________
A. The application to recall the judgment in Williams v Auckland Council [2016] NZSC 20 is dismissed.
B. The applicants must pay costs of $1,000 to the respondent.
30 September 2016
B. The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
11 March 2016
_______________________________
A. The application to recall the judgment in Williams v Auckland Council [2016] NZSC 20 is dismissed.
B. The applicants must pay costs of $1,000 to the respondent.
30 September 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Yoon Lee v District Court at Auckland; Zhi Hong Gao and Lin Ge; John Carter and Brent O’Callaghan and The Official Assignee
Case number
SC 127/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the High Court was entitled to make an award of indemnity costs against the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the applicant’s appeal seeking a stay of enforcement was moot, the debts at issue having been discharged.[2015] NZCA 498 CA 262/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The applicant must pay each of the second and third respondents costs of $2,500. 17 February 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Simon John Moffatt Hampton v Canterbury Regional Council (Environment Canterbury)
Case number
SC 128/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in their approach to the priority of resource consent applications – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that there had been no derogation of the applicant’s rights – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the applicant had no legitimate expectation that a resource consent would be granted.[2015] NZCA 509 CA 745/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent
3 May 2016
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent
3 May 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Glover No 2 Limited v The Glover Trust Limited, Bailey Trustee Services Limited and Auckland West Legal Services Limited, and CIT Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 6/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the partie’s intention to create the bare trust was unmistakeable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trust structure was used to achieve the best result for the beneficiaries of the Glover No 2 Trust – Whether the Court of Appeal erred when it held that the deed of bare trust was not severable from the other bundle of documents executed on the same day due to its status as a “rogue” document – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to consider the argument that it was against public policy to enforce this document.[2013] NZCA 608 CA 194/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Cost to the respondents $2,500.00
7 May 2014
7 May 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 12 of 20