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.
19 June 2026
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 89 KB)
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 126 KB)
All years
Case name
Local Government Mutual Funds Trustee Limited v Napier City Council
Case number
SC 103/2022
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Napier City Council v Local Government Mutual Funds Trustee Ltd [2022] NZCA 422).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct:
(a) in its interpretation of exclusion 13(a) of the Protection Wording; and
(b) in its consequent finding that the claim by the respondent in relation to its liability to owners of apartments in the Waterfront Apartments complex was excluded by exclusion 13(a) only to the extent that the respondent’s liability arose directly or indirectly out of, or in respect of, weathertightness defects.
21 December 2022
______________________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
1 August 2023
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct:
(a) in its interpretation of exclusion 13(a) of the Protection Wording; and
(b) in its consequent finding that the claim by the respondent in relation to its liability to owners of apartments in the Waterfront Apartments complex was excluded by exclusion 13(a) only to the extent that the respondent’s liability arose directly or indirectly out of, or in respect of, weathertightness defects.
21 December 2022
______________________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
1 August 2023
Date of hearing
27 April 2023
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, O'Regan, Ellen France, Williams and Kós JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing 27 April 2023 Appellant Submissions (PDF, 7.9 MB)
- Hearing 27 April 2023 Appellant oral outline (PDF, 318 KB)
- Hearing 27 April 2023 Respondent Submissions (PDF, 681 KB)
- Hearing 27 April 2023 Respondent Oral Outline (PDF, 779 KB)
- Hearing 27 April 2023 Joint Chronology (PDF, 347 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 April 2023 (PDF, 550 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 27 April 2023 (PDF, 557 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2023] NZSC 97 (PDF, 259 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Videos
- Local Government Mutual Funds Trustee Limited v Napier City Council - SC 103/2022 (Recorded, 27 April 2023)
Case name
A, B and C v D and E Limited as Trustees of the Z Trust
Case number
SC 106/2022
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (D and E Ltd as Trustees of the Z Trust v A, B and C [2022] NZCA 430).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
C We make an order prohibiting publication of names, addresses or identifying particulars of any persons or entities connected to this proceeding.
20 December 2022
_____________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
28 November 2024
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
C We make an order prohibiting publication of names, addresses or identifying particulars of any persons or entities connected to this proceeding.
20 December 2022
_____________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
28 November 2024
Date of hearing
13 June 2023
- 14 June 2023
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 13 and 14 June 2023 Appellant submissions (PDF, 461 KB)
- Hearing date 13 and 14 June 2023 Respondent submissions (PDF, 963 KB)
- Hearing date 13 and 14 June 2023 Counsel to Assist Submissions (PDF, 257 KB)
- Hearing date 13 and 14 June 2023 Joint Chronology (PDF, 545 KB)
Transcripts
Media Releases
- MR [2024] NZSC 161 (PDF, 242 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Donglin Deng v Lu Zheng
Case number
SC 5/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Zheng v Deng [2020] NZCA 614).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to make a declaration that there was a partnership between Mr Zheng and Mr Deng in which they were equal partners and to make orders that were consequential on that finding.
14 May 2021
_________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Mr Deng must pay Mr Zheng costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (including travelling expenses for two counsel), to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
20 June 2022
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to make a declaration that there was a partnership between Mr Zheng and Mr Deng in which they were equal partners and to make orders that were consequential on that finding.
14 May 2021
_________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Mr Deng must pay Mr Zheng costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (including travelling expenses for two counsel), to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
20 June 2022
Date of hearing
17 August 2021
Judges
William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 17 August 2021 (PDF, 553 KB)
Media Releases
- MR 2022 NZSC 76 (PDF, 334 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
DONGLIN DENG v LU ZHENG [2021] NZSC 43 [14 May 2021] (PDF, 200 KB)
Substantive judgment
DONGLIN DENG v LU ZHENG [2022] NZSC 76 [20 June 2022] (PDF, 503 KB)
Case name
Te Warena Taua, George Hori Winikerei Taua, Ngarama Walker, Hamuera Taua and Miriama Tamaariki as Trustees of the Te Kaweray Iwi Tribal Authority and Te Warena Taua, George Hori Winikerei Taua, Ngarama Walker, Hamuera Taua and Miriama Tamaariki as Truste
Case number
SC 9/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Taua v Tahi Enterprises Ltd [2020] NZCA 639).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
15 July 2021
_____________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed to the extent that, by consent, the orders made in the High Court and the Court of Appeal granting discovery of the register of iwi members are set aside and the other orders set out below at [16] are substituted.
B Leave is reserved to the parties and any member of the iwi to apply to the High Court for modifications of these orders. The High Court may make such orders, including any additional or ancillary orders.
C There is no order as to costs in this Court. The costs orders made in the Court of Appeal on the appeal in that Court in favour of the respondents are set aside. The respondents must pay the appellants costs in that Court calculated for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements. The costs orders made in the High Court stand.
15 December 2021
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
15 July 2021
_____________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed to the extent that, by consent, the orders made in the High Court and the Court of Appeal granting discovery of the register of iwi members are set aside and the other orders set out below at [16] are substituted.
B Leave is reserved to the parties and any member of the iwi to apply to the High Court for modifications of these orders. The High Court may make such orders, including any additional or ancillary orders.
C There is no order as to costs in this Court. The costs orders made in the Court of Appeal on the appeal in that Court in favour of the respondents are set aside. The respondents must pay the appellants costs in that Court calculated for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements. The costs orders made in the High Court stand.
15 December 2021
Date of hearing
19 November 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France, Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 18 May 2021 (PDF, 202 KB)
- Hearing date 19 November 2021 (PDF, 279 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Case name
Katharine Elizabeth Preston v Grant Lee Preston and Grant Lee Preston and Fisher Partners Limited as Trustees of the Grant Preston Family Trust
Case number
SC 10/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Preston v Preston [2020] NZCA 679).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss Ms Preston’s appeal in relation to her claim for an award of part of the assets of the Grant Preston Family Trust under s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980.
12 May 2021
____________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B Orders are made that the Grant Preston Family Trust pay the Huntbos Family Trust $141,000 and release any claim to the $192,000 of the funds held on joint account (the Grant Preston Family Trust share of these funds is $102,000 and the Huntbos Family Trust share is $90,000).
C The Grant Preston Family Trust deed is amended by removing the appellant as a discretionary beneficiary.
D Leave is reserved to the parties to seek further directions or orders that may be necessary to give effect to this judgment.
E The first respondent must pay the appellant costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for second counsel. Unless the parties can agree, costs in the Courts below are to be redetermined in those Courts in accordance with this judgment.
9 November 2021
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss Ms Preston’s appeal in relation to her claim for an award of part of the assets of the Grant Preston Family Trust under s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980.
12 May 2021
____________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B Orders are made that the Grant Preston Family Trust pay the Huntbos Family Trust $141,000 and release any claim to the $192,000 of the funds held on joint account (the Grant Preston Family Trust share of these funds is $102,000 and the Huntbos Family Trust share is $90,000).
C The Grant Preston Family Trust deed is amended by removing the appellant as a discretionary beneficiary.
D Leave is reserved to the parties to seek further directions or orders that may be necessary to give effect to this judgment.
E The first respondent must pay the appellant costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for second counsel. Unless the parties can agree, costs in the Courts below are to be redetermined in those Courts in accordance with this judgment.
9 November 2021
Date of hearing
03 August 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O’Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 3 August 2021 (PDF, 444 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 154 (PDF, 195 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Tourism Holdings Limited v A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Case number
SC 15/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Tourism Holdings Ltd [2021] NZCA 1).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal correctly answered the questions of law submitted for determination by it.
6 May 2021
___________________________________________________________
A We amend the answer given by the Court of Appeal to the first of the questions submitted for determination by that Court so that it reads:
Payments are “a regular part of the employee’s pay” if they are of a kind made regularly when assessed against the standard of a four-week period.
That apart, the appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $15,000 plus usual disbursements.
15 November 2021
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal correctly answered the questions of law submitted for determination by it.
6 May 2021
___________________________________________________________
A We amend the answer given by the Court of Appeal to the first of the questions submitted for determination by that Court so that it reads:
Payments are “a regular part of the employee’s pay” if they are of a kind made regularly when assessed against the standard of a four-week period.
That apart, the appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $15,000 plus usual disbursements.
15 November 2021
Date of hearing
01 July 2021
Judges
William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 1 July 2021 (PDF, 391 KB)
Media Releases
- MR 2021 NZSC 157 (PDF, 250 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated v New Zealand Transport Agency
Case number
SC 25/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal to this Court is granted (Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc v New Zealand Transport Agency [2021] NZHC 390).
B The approved question is whether the High Court was correct to dismiss the appeal against the decision of the Board of Inquiry.
28 May 2021
__________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The matter is remitted to the Board of Inquiry for reconsideration in line with the terms of this judgment.
C Costs are reserved.
11 April 2024
__________________________________________________________
A The respondent must pay the appellant costs of $35,000 plus disbursements, to be fixed by the Registrar. We allow for second counsel.
B The High Court should now determine costs in that Court in light of this Court’s judgment allowing the appeal.
7 November 2024
B The approved question is whether the High Court was correct to dismiss the appeal against the decision of the Board of Inquiry.
28 May 2021
__________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The matter is remitted to the Board of Inquiry for reconsideration in line with the terms of this judgment.
C Costs are reserved.
11 April 2024
__________________________________________________________
A The respondent must pay the appellant costs of $35,000 plus disbursements, to be fixed by the Registrar. We allow for second counsel.
B The High Court should now determine costs in that Court in light of this Court’s judgment allowing the appeal.
7 November 2024
Date of hearing
16 November 2021
- 18 November 2021
Judges
CJ Winkelmann, Young, Glazebrook, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 - 18 November 2021 (PDF, 1.5 MB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 16 - 18 November (PDF, 425 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2024] NZSC 26 (PDF, 288 KB)
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme Court - order made
Case name
C v The Queen
Case number
SC 29/2021
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 retrial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
Result
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. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.
Date of hearing
05 November 2021
Judges
William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Case name
Shane Dromgool, Dorothy Dromgool, Alan Darvall Poulton, Jennifer Poulton and Newman Farms Limited v Minister for Land Information
Case number
SC 32/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Minister for Land Information v Dromgool [2021] NZCA 44). The approved question is:
Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its interpretation of the role and obligations of the Minister for Land Information in deciding an application under s 186(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 and, in particular, whether the Minister must be satisfied that the proposed taking is fair, sound and reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the network utility operator or whether it is sufficient that the Minister is satisfied the proposed taking is capable of meeting that test.
B The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
24 June 2021
__________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
22 December 2022
Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its interpretation of the role and obligations of the Minister for Land Information in deciding an application under s 186(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 and, in particular, whether the Minister must be satisfied that the proposed taking is fair, sound and reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the network utility operator or whether it is sufficient that the Minister is satisfied the proposed taking is capable of meeting that test.
B The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
24 June 2021
__________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
22 December 2022
Date of hearing
22 March 2022
Judges
Winkelman CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 22 March 2022 (PDF, 588 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 157 (PDF, 202 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Richard Ciliang Yan v Mainzeal Property and Construction Limited (in Liquidation) And Ors
Case number
SC 48/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal and Cross Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Yan v Mainzeal Property and Construction Ltd (in liq) [2021] NZCA 99).
B Leave to cross appeal is granted.
6 September 2021
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A The appeals by the directors are dismissed.
B The cross-appeal by the liquidators is allowed to the extent that in lieu of the remittal of the proceedings back to the High Court, we order the directors to contribute to the assets of Mainzeal $39.8 million together with interest at prescribed rates since 28 February 2013 with the liabilities of Dame Jennifer Shipley and Messrs Tilby and Gomm each limited to $6.6 million and interest.
C The directors are to pay costs in the sum of $65,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
25 August 2023
B Leave to cross appeal is granted.
6 September 2021
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A The appeals by the directors are dismissed.
B The cross-appeal by the liquidators is allowed to the extent that in lieu of the remittal of the proceedings back to the High Court, we order the directors to contribute to the assets of Mainzeal $39.8 million together with interest at prescribed rates since 28 February 2013 with the liabilities of Dame Jennifer Shipley and Messrs Tilby and Gomm each limited to $6.6 million and interest.
C The directors are to pay costs in the sum of $65,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
25 August 2023
Date of hearing
07 March 2022
- 11 March 2022
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 7 - 11 March 2022 (PDF, 2 MB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing Mon 7 March - Fri 11 March 2022 (PDF, 436 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2023] NZSC 113 (PDF, 342 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 10 of 22