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
Jacqueline Ann Cameron v The Queen
Case number
SC 142/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Appeal against sentence –  Social Security Act 1964, s 127 –  Crimes Act 1961, s 228(b) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its calculation of the debt owed by the applicant –  Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusion regarding the applicant’s counsel –  Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding there was no miscarriage of justice. [2016] NZCA 536   CA505/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
21 August 2017
Date of Judgment
01 January 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JACQUELINE ANN CAMERON v R [2017] NZSC 125 [21 August 2017] (PDF, 143 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
CAMERON v R [2016] NZCA 536 [11 November 2016]
Case name
Duncan John Napier and Sara Ann Napier v Torbay Holdings Limited and Torbay Rest Home Limited
Case number
SC 155/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Restitution – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicants were liable for money had and received – s 161 Employment Relations Act 2000 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that an action for negligence did not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority.CA 647/2015    [2016] NZCA 608
Result
A notice of abandonment having been filed the appeal is deemed to be dismissed. 06 April 2017
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Western Park Village Limited, Darryll Lawrenece Heaven, Anne Evelyn Heaven and Trustee Management Limited
Case number
SC 11/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the contract by allowing the respondent to be paid in New Zealand dollars – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the contract’s penalty interest provision.[2014] NZCA 6340   CA 115/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B  The applicants must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.  
14 May 2015
High Court decision
WESTERN PARK VILLAGE LIMITED v BAHO [2014] NZHC 198   10 February 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
WESTERN PARK VILLAGE LTD & ORS v SINAN ABED BAHO [2015] NZSC 60   14 May 2015 (PDF, 79 KB)
Judgment appealed from

WESTERN PARK VILLAGE LIMITED v BAHO CA115/2014 [2014] NZCA 630   19 December 2014
Case name
Mark Arnold Clayton and others v Melanie Ann Clayton
Case number
SC 23/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a power of appointment could be relationship property under the Property (Relationships) Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there had been a disposition with intent to defeat rights in terms of s 44 of the Act in relation to various trusts – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relation to valuation.[2015] NZCA  30  CA 473/2013; CA 474/2014
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are granted in respect of the questions identified in B and C below (Clayton v Clayton [2015] NZCA 30).  In all other respects, the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B In relation to the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT):Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there is no distinction between a sham trust and what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the VRPT was neither a sham trust nor what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?If so:
Was the bundle of rights and powers held by Mr and/or Mrs Clayton under the VRPT Trust Deed “property” for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA)?Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the power of appointment under clause 7.1 of the VRPT Trust Deed was “relationship property” for the purposes of the PRA?If so, did the Court of Appeal err in its approach to the valuation of the power?
C In relation to the Claymark Trust, was the Court of appeal correct in its interpretation and application of:
Section 44C of the PRA?
Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980?
18 June 2015
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B We set aside the findings of the Court of Appeal that cl 7.1 of the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT) trust deed (the VRPT deed) is a general power of appointment and that the power is both property and relationship property, having a value equal to that of the net assets of the VRPT.
C We substitute a finding that the powers of Mr Clayton as Principal Family Member and Trustee under cls 6.1, 7.1, 8.1 and 10.1 of the VRPT deed (read in light of cls 11.1, 14.1 and 19.1(c) of that deed) are property and relationship property having a value equal to that of the net assets of the VRPT.
D We set aside the finding of the Court of Appeal that the VRPT is not an illusory trust (i.e. that it is a valid trust).  We decline to make a ruling on that issue.
E We uphold the finding of the Court of Appeal that the VRPT is not a sham.
F We make no award of costs
23 March 2016
Transcripts
Media Releases
Court of Appeal decision
CLAYTON v CLAYTON CA438/2013 [2015] NZCA 30 [26 February 2015]
Leave judgment - leave granted
MARK ARNOLD CLAYTON v MELANIE ANN CLAYTON [2015] NZSC 84 [18 June 2015] (PDF, 134 KB)
Substantive judgment
MARK ARNOLD CLAYTON v MELANIE ANN CLAYTON [2016] NZSC 29 [23 March 2016] (PDF, 426 KB)
Case name
Melanie Ann Clayton v Mark Arnold Clayton and others
Case number
SC 38/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether the Vaughan Road Property Trust was a sham trust or an illusory trust – Whether s 44 of the Property (Relationships) Act should apply to gifts and distributions made in relation to various trusts.[2015] NZCA  30  CA 473/2013; CA 474/2014
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are granted in respect of the questions identified in B and C below (Clayton v Clayton [2015] NZCA 30).  In all other respects, the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B  In relation to the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT):

Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there is no distinction between a sham trust and what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?

Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the VRPT was neither a sham trust nor what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?

If so:
Was the bundle of rights and powers held by Mr and/or Mrs Clayton under the VRPT Trust Deed “property” for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA)?

Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the power of appointment under clause 7.1 of the VRPT Trust Deed was “relationship property” for the purposes of the PRA?

If so, did the Court of Appeal err in its approach to the valuation of the power?

C In relation to the Claymark Trust, was the Court of appeal correct in its interpretation and application of:
Section 44C of the PRA?
Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980?

18 June 2015
______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B There is no order of costs.
23 March 2016
Transcripts
Media Releases
Court of Appeal decision
CLAYTON v CLAYTON CA438/2013 [2015] NZCA 30 [26 February 2015]
Leave judgment - leave granted
MARK ARNOLD CLAYTON v MELANIE ANN CLAYTON [2015] NZSC 84 [18 June 2015] (PDF, 134 KB)
Substantive judgment
MELANIE ANN CLAYTON v MARK ARNOLD CLAYTON [2015] NZSC 30 [23 March 2016] (PDF, 444 KB)
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
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CHARLES WILLIAM WILLIAMS & ORS v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2016] NZSC 20   11 March 2016 (PDF, 86 KB)
High Court decision
J A ROBERTSON & ORS v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2014] NZHC 765   14 April 2014
Recall judgment
CHARLES WILLIAM WILLIAMS & ORS v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2016] NZSC 130   30 September 2016 (PDF, 80 KB)
Judgment appealed from

WILLIAMS v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2015] NZCA 479   9 October 2015
Case name
Victoria Elizabeth Bethell as Administrator of the estate of R M Bethell and Maria Gael Bethell v Christine  Anne Bethell
Case number
SC 102/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the Deed of Family Arrangement and whether it made a number of other errors.[2014] NZCA 442   CA 33/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
3 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
VICTORIA ELIZABETH BETHELL as administrator of the estate of ROSS MCKAY BETHELL v CHRISTINE ANNE BETHELL [2014] NZSC 177   3 December 2014 (PDF, 49 KB)
Judgment appealed from

BETHELL & ANOR v BETHELL CA33/2014 [2014] NZCA 442   5 September 2014
Case name
Mikhail Rafael Pandey-Johnson v The Queen
Case number
SC 104/2013
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Murder – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding that Crown had proved causation – Whether trial counsel erred in failing to challenge causation at trial – Whether evidence of Crown witness was admissible – Whether minimum non-parole period imposed was too high – Whether factors in s 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002 applied.  [2012] NZCA 595    CA 515/2011
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MIKHAIL RAFAEL PANDEY-JOHNSON v R [2013] NZSC 135 [2 December 2013] (PDF, 60 KB)
Dates

 Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

 2 December 2013
Case name
Ann Mary Seaton v Minister for Land Information
Case number
SC 44/2012
Summary
Civil – s 23 Public Works Act 1981– compulsory acquisition – whether s 23 empowers the Minister to acquire land indirectly required for a Government work – whether the Minister’s intention to transfer the easement interests to Transpower and Orion following acquisition meant that he had not acted for a proper purpose as required by s 23.[2012]NZCA 234  CA   360/2011
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the Public Works Act 1981 in the circumstances of this case?
25 July 2012
___________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside.
C The orders made in the High Court are restored.
D The respondent is to pay the appellant, with respect to costs in this Court, the sum of $25,000 together with disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.
E  If the parties cannot agree on costs in the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal must fix them.
29 April 2013
Media Releases
Transcript

Hearing date : 13 November 2012

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.
Case name
Neil Tony Hickman and others v Turn and Wave Limited, Greenstone Barclay Trustees Ltd and Iicon Central Ltd
Case number
SC 46/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Securities Act 1978 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 33 of the Securities Act, its interpretation of the term “debt security” under the Securities Act, and its interpretation of the scope of the exemption in s 5(1)(b) of the Securities Act – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that if the Blue Chip investment products were invalid, they were not interdependent with the sale and purchase agreements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the sale and purchase agreements were not tainted by illegality if in breach of s 33 of the Securities Act[2011] NZCA 100  CA 796/2009, CA 797/2009, CA 798/2009
Result

Leave to appeal is granted on the following questions:

(1) Did the marketing by Blue Chip companies and sales agents of the Blue Chip investment products amount to offers to the public of equity and/or debt securities for the purposes of s 37 of the Securities Act 1978?

(2) If so, is the exemption in s 5(1)(b) applicable?

(3) If the answers to questions (1) and (2) are favourable to the investors, does this impeach the ability of the developers to enforce the agreements for sale and purchase on the basis that they (a) constituted part of the relevant allotments and were thus void and of no effect under s 37(4) or, (b) were tainted by their association with those allotments and thus illegal?

6 September 2011

________________________

A The appeals are allowed.

B The SPAs executed at the same time as, or after, the corresponding Blue Chip investment product agreements were entered into are declared to be unenforceable under s 37 of the Securities Act 1978.

C The High Court is to determine whether SPAs, entered into before the corresponding Blue Chip investment products were executed, were subscriptions for securities.

D The cases are otherwise generally remitted to the High Court to make such further orders as may be consistent with this judgment.

E The respondents are to pay the appellants costs $75,000 and usual disbursements.

F  Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be as determined by those courts.

9 August 2012

______________________

Recall judgment

Former order F now replaced by orders F, G and H.

F  The existing orders for costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.

G Other than those affected by timing issues (being Mr Hutchinson in the case of TWL, and in the case of Greenstone Barclay, Mr and Mrs Bogardus, Ms Janes, Mrs and Mrs Johnson, Mr Crawford-Greene, Mr and Mrs Dick and Mr and Mrs Lester) the appellants are to be awarded costs and disbursements in the High Court and Court of Appeal in sums to be determined by those Courts in light of the judgment of this Court.

H Costs and disbursements in relation to the appellants affected by timing issues are to be addressed in the High Court and Court of Appeal once those timing issues have been resolved.

11 December 1012
Transcript
Hearing date : 7 – 9 November 2011
Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Anderson JJ.
Page 5 of 7