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
Southern Response Earthquake Services Limited v Brendan Miles Ross and Colleen Anne Ross
Case number
SC 105/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Civil procedure – Class actions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that an opt-out procedure should be the norm for class actions in New Zealand – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that an opt-out approach was appropriate for the class action in this case.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Ross v Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd [2019] NZCA 431).
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
9 December 2019
_____________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondents costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for second counsel.
17 November 2020
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
9 December 2019
_____________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondents costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for second counsel.
17 November 2020
Transcripts
- Hearing date 15 - 16 June 2020 (PDF, 886 KB)
Case Synopses
- Southern Response v Ross synopsis June 2020 (PDF, 153 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 126 (PDF, 196 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Supreme court decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Lambie Trustee Limited v Prudence Anne Addleman
Case number
SC 118/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted on whether the Court of Appeal was correct to order the applicant to disclose to the respondent any legal opinions and other advice obtained by the trustees of the Lambie Trust and funded by the Trust (Addleman v Lambie Trustee Ltd [2019] NZCA 480, (2019) 5 NZTR 29-016).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to reject the applicant’s claims of legal advice privilege and litigation privilege respectively.
C In all other respects, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
4 March 2020
______________________
A With the clarification that the orders for disclosure made by the Court of Appeal do not extend to legal advice given from June 2015 in connection with this litigation and with leave reserved to Lambie Trustee Ltd to revert to this Court in relation to advice received after 7 November 2014 and before June 2015, the appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
1 June 2021
__________________________________
A Mrs Addleman is to receive out of the Lambie Trust her actual costs in relation to the appeal to this Court plus usual disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary). We allow for second counsel. Mrs Addleman is to provide a schedule of the costs incurred to Lambie Trustee Ltd within 10 working days of the date of delivery of this judgment. Any issue as to the reasonableness of the costs sought is to be determined by the Registrar.
B Lambie Trustee Ltd is not entitled to any indemnity for costs and expenses in connection with the appeal to this Court, including both its own legal fees and any solicitor client costs and disbursements due to Mrs Addleman.
C Lambie Trustee Ltd is to reimburse the Lambie Trust (from funds not sourced from the Trust) the costs awarded by this Court on the appeal.
D The orders of this Court at B and C, above, apply to the award of costs in the Court of Appeal.
E Mrs Addleman is entitled to costs on a 2B basis together with reasonable disbursements in relation to costs in the High Court. Orders B and C, above, apply to the award of costs in that Court.
17 February 2023
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to reject the applicant’s claims of legal advice privilege and litigation privilege respectively.
C In all other respects, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
4 March 2020
______________________
A With the clarification that the orders for disclosure made by the Court of Appeal do not extend to legal advice given from June 2015 in connection with this litigation and with leave reserved to Lambie Trustee Ltd to revert to this Court in relation to advice received after 7 November 2014 and before June 2015, the appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
1 June 2021
__________________________________
A Mrs Addleman is to receive out of the Lambie Trust her actual costs in relation to the appeal to this Court plus usual disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary). We allow for second counsel. Mrs Addleman is to provide a schedule of the costs incurred to Lambie Trustee Ltd within 10 working days of the date of delivery of this judgment. Any issue as to the reasonableness of the costs sought is to be determined by the Registrar.
B Lambie Trustee Ltd is not entitled to any indemnity for costs and expenses in connection with the appeal to this Court, including both its own legal fees and any solicitor client costs and disbursements due to Mrs Addleman.
C Lambie Trustee Ltd is to reimburse the Lambie Trust (from funds not sourced from the Trust) the costs awarded by this Court on the appeal.
D The orders of this Court at B and C, above, apply to the award of costs in the Court of Appeal.
E Mrs Addleman is entitled to costs on a 2B basis together with reasonable disbursements in relation to costs in the High Court. Orders B and C, above, apply to the award of costs in that Court.
17 February 2023
Date of hearing
02 December 2020
Judges
William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 2 December 2020 (PDF, 492 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 54 (PDF, 401 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Summary
Case name
Kathryn Anne Harlen v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
Case number
SC 12/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Social Security Act 1964, s 86 – Whether the High Court erred in its view of the Chief Executive’s discretion to decline to recover benefit overpayments.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
12 June 2017
12 June 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Chesterfields Preschools Limited (In Liq) and Therese Anne Sisson v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 91/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the High Court’s decision putting Chesterfields Preschools Ltd into liquidation.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted on one ground only (Sisson v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2017] NZCA 326).
B The approved question is whether the conditional order of the Court of Appeal setting aside the order of the High Court putting the first applicant into liquidation and remitting the proceeding to the High Court for rehearing should be quashed and replaced with an unconditional order.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
D We make no award of costs.
_____________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The order made by the Court of Appeal setting aside the order of the High Court putting the first appellant into liquidation and remitting the proceeding to the High Court for rehearing, subject to the condition that within 15 working days of the Court of Appeal judgment, the second appellant pay into the High Court at Christchurch the amount of $109,675.22, is quashed.
C In its place we make an order setting aside the order putting the first appellant into liquidation and remitting the proceeding to the High Court for rehearing.
D There is no order as to costs.
23 November 2017
B The approved question is whether the conditional order of the Court of Appeal setting aside the order of the High Court putting the first applicant into liquidation and remitting the proceeding to the High Court for rehearing should be quashed and replaced with an unconditional order.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
D We make no award of costs.
_____________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The order made by the Court of Appeal setting aside the order of the High Court putting the first appellant into liquidation and remitting the proceeding to the High Court for rehearing, subject to the condition that within 15 working days of the Court of Appeal judgment, the second appellant pay into the High Court at Christchurch the amount of $109,675.22, is quashed.
C In its place we make an order setting aside the order putting the first appellant into liquidation and remitting the proceeding to the High Court for rehearing.
D There is no order as to costs.
23 November 2017
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Christopher Duncan Baker and Kathryn Ann Baker v Wallace Douglas Hodder, Ann Adele Hodder and Kadd Farm Limited
Case number
SC 94/2017
Summary
Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the appeal was moot and that separate leave to appeal the High Court cost awards was required.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Baker v Hodder [2017] NZCA 355).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have heard and determined the applicants’ appeal to that Court. 17 November 2017
_____________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The order made under s 174 of the Companies Act 1993 against the appellants is quashed.
C The respondents must pay the appellants costs of $15,000 plus usual disbursements.
D We quash the costs orders made in the High Court and Court of Appeal. Costs should be re determined in those Courts in light of this judgment.
22 August 2018
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have heard and determined the applicants’ appeal to that Court. 17 November 2017
_____________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The order made under s 174 of the Companies Act 1993 against the appellants is quashed.
C The respondents must pay the appellants costs of $15,000 plus usual disbursements.
D We quash the costs orders made in the High Court and Court of Appeal. Costs should be re determined in those Courts in light of this judgment.
22 August 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 March 2018 (PDF, 416 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 78 (PDF, 82 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
BAKER v HODDER [2017] NZSC 171 [17 November 2017] (PDF, 183 KB)
Substantive judgment
BAKER v HODDER [2018] NZSC 78 [22 August 2018] (PDF, 128 KB)
Case name
Guirong Wen v Kok Ann Ngoi and Sunshine Estate Limited
Case number
SC 133/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contract Law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding a binding contract was formed.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
5 March 2018
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
5 March 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GUIRONG WEN v KOK ANN NGOI [2018] NZSC 18 [5 March 2018] (PDF, 105 KB)
Case name
Amanda Adele White and Anne Leoline Emily Freeman v Christopher Maurice Lynch and Stuart Gordon Spence
Case number
SC 33/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal Civil Rules 2005 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Deputy Registrar’s decision to decline to dispense with security for costs. [2016] NZCA 78 CA 740/2015
Result
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
17 May 2016
17 May 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
HC judgment
HC judgment
Case name
Amanda Adele White and Anne Leoline Emily Freeman v Christopher Maurice Lynch and Stuart Gordon Spence
Case number
SC 42/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908, s 61A(2) - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the applicants had no further right of review. [2016] NZCA 149 CA 740/2015
Result
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed. 17 May 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
CA judgment
Case name
Derek Peter Wheeldon and Carol Ann Wheeldon, Anthony John Butcher and Ruth Barbara Rogers, Larry Lawrence Small and KM Trustees Services Limited, Ivor Anthony Millington and Neville Eade v Body Corporate 342525
Case number
SC 70/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal –– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 138(1)(d) of the Unit Titles Act 2010 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 49(1) of the Building Act 2004 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Building Code. [2016] NZCA 247 CA290/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed B The applicants are to pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
14 September 2016
14 September 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Amanda Adele White and Anne Leoline Emily Freeman v Christopher Maurice Lynch and Stuart Gordon Spence
Case number
SC 137/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to grant an extension of time to file case on appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing application to debar counsel. [2016] NZCA 513 CA740/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
16 February 2017
________________
A The application to recall the judgment is dismissed.
B We direct the Registrar not to accept any further applications by the applicants in respect of their dispute with the respondents.
16 March 2017
16 February 2017
________________
A The application to recall the judgment is dismissed.
B We direct the Registrar not to accept any further applications by the applicants in respect of their dispute with the respondents.
16 March 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Page 4 of 7