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
Ioane Teitiota v The Chief Executive of Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment
Case number
SC 7/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Immigration Act 2009, s 245 – Whether the word “Refugee” constitutes and incorporates those who are refugees by way of climate change – Whether the Tribunal erred in its finding that because all people in Kiribati suffer the same results of global warming, that this disqualifies the application from claiming refugee status – Whether the Tribunal failed to consider indirect human agency – Whether the Tribunal failed to consider the relevant international law relevant to the welfare of the applicant’s children – Whether the tribunal erred in failing to consider the children of the applicant separately – Whether the Tribunal erred when it made a finding of fact that the applicant’ s supplies of food and water were adequate.[2014] NZCA 173 CA 50/2014
Result
A The application for leave to adduce further evidence is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order for costs. 20 July 2015
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order for costs. 20 July 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date : 1 April 2015 (PDF, 433 KB)
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Transcript
Immigration and Protection Tribunal decision
Case name
Dawn Lorraine Greenfield v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
Case number
SC 10/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that significant physical presence in New Zealand is required for an applicant to be ‘ ordinarily resident in New Zealand’ within the meaning of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its treatment of the applicant’ s intention to resume living in New Zealand.[2014] NZCA 611 CA 351/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted (Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development v Greenfield [2014] NZCA 611). The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted the phrase “ordinarily resident in New Zealand” in s 8(a) of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001.
11 May 2015
________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
24September 2015
___________________
Application for recall dismissed.
27 October 2015
11 May 2015
________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
24September 2015
___________________
Application for recall dismissed.
27 October 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 August 2015 (PDF, 410 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 139 (PDF, 250 KB)
Additional document
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Proprietors of Wakatū and Rore Pat Stafford and others v Attorney-General and Ngāti Rārua Iwi Trust and Ngāti Kōata Trust
Case number
SC 13/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Crown breached legally enforceable obligations in respect of land acquired for the New Zealand Company’s Nelson Settlement – Whether lapse of time provides the Crown a defence – Whether the first and third appellants have standing.[2014] NZCA 628 CA 436/2012
Result
A The application by the first, second and third applicants for leave to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 19 December 2014 in Proprietors of Wakatū v Attorney-General [2014] NZCA 628, [2015] 2 NZLR 298 is granted.
B The cross-application by the respondent for leave to appeal against the finding of the Court of Appeal that the second applicant, Rore Pat Stafford, had standing to bring the proceeding is granted.
C The approved grounds are: Is the Crown in breach of duties arising out of the terms of the reservations from the land granted to the New Zealand Company in respect of its Nelson settlement and Western Te Tau Ihu? If so, are rights to seek relief for breach of such duties subject to defences available to the Crown through lapse of time? If not, do the three applicants each have standing to bring civil proceedings for breach of such duties against the Crown? If so, what relief is appropriate? Is relief barred by the terms of s 25 of the Ngā ti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Atiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Act 2014? D The appeal is set down for hearing in the Supreme Court for the four days beginning 12 October 2015.
8 May 2015
_____________________________
A The appeal by the second appellant is allowed in part and a declaration is made that the Crown owed fiduciary duties to reserve 15,100 acres for the benefit of the customary owners and, in addition, to exclude their pa, urupa and cultivations from the land obtained by the Crown following the 1845 Spain award.
B The appeals by the first appellant and the third appellant are dismissed.
C The cross-appeal by the respondent is dismissed.
D The claim by the second appellant is remitted to the High Court for determination of all remaining questions as to liability, loss and remedy to be determined in accordance with the reasons given in this Court.
E The respondent must pay the second appellant costs of $55,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. We certify for second counsel. All costs orders in the High Court and Court of Appeal are quashed. If costs are sought by the second appellant in respect of the lower Court hearings, application must be made to those Courts if the parties are unable to agree.
28 February 2017
B The cross-application by the respondent for leave to appeal against the finding of the Court of Appeal that the second applicant, Rore Pat Stafford, had standing to bring the proceeding is granted.
C The approved grounds are: Is the Crown in breach of duties arising out of the terms of the reservations from the land granted to the New Zealand Company in respect of its Nelson settlement and Western Te Tau Ihu? If so, are rights to seek relief for breach of such duties subject to defences available to the Crown through lapse of time? If not, do the three applicants each have standing to bring civil proceedings for breach of such duties against the Crown? If so, what relief is appropriate? Is relief barred by the terms of s 25 of the Ngā ti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Atiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Act 2014? D The appeal is set down for hearing in the Supreme Court for the four days beginning 12 October 2015.
8 May 2015
_____________________________
A The appeal by the second appellant is allowed in part and a declaration is made that the Crown owed fiduciary duties to reserve 15,100 acres for the benefit of the customary owners and, in addition, to exclude their pa, urupa and cultivations from the land obtained by the Crown following the 1845 Spain award.
B The appeals by the first appellant and the third appellant are dismissed.
C The cross-appeal by the respondent is dismissed.
D The claim by the second appellant is remitted to the High Court for determination of all remaining questions as to liability, loss and remedy to be determined in accordance with the reasons given in this Court.
E The respondent must pay the second appellant costs of $55,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. We certify for second counsel. All costs orders in the High Court and Court of Appeal are quashed. If costs are sought by the second appellant in respect of the lower Court hearings, application must be made to those Courts if the parties are unable to agree.
28 February 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 12 - 15 October 2015 (PDF, 2.2 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 17 (PDF, 291 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
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
B v The Queen
Case number
SC 16/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 – Whether District Court erred in ordering detention as special patient – Whether Court of Appeal erred in findings on instructions to trial counsel.[2014] NZCA 212 CA 627/2013
Result
A An extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 15 May 2015
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 15 May 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
B v R [2015] NZSC 66 15 May 2015 (PDF, 77 KB)
Judgment appealed from
B v R [2014] NZCA 212 (White, Ronald Young and Simon France JJ) [B (CA)] not available
Case name
Rikki Leigh Scott-Ngatai-Check v The Queen
Case number
SC 18/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether there has been a miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal placed insufficient weight on the prejudicial effect of the expert’s opinion evidence. [2011] NZCA 543 CA 175/2011
Result
An extension of time to make the application for leave to appeal is granted but that application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 24 April 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
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
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
- Hearing date 1, 2 and 8 September 2015 (PDF, 1.6 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 29 (PDF, 250 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Clare O’Brien and Attorney-General
Case number
SC 24/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial Review – Whether Judge correct to find imposition of security for costs lawful – Whether Judge correct to find ground of appeal on grant of standing to be hopeless and vexatious – Whether Judge correct to order security for costs.[2015] NZCA 86 CA 693/2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIEMER v O'BRIEN & ANOR [2015] NZSC 63 [15 May 2015] (PDF, 106 KB)
Recall judgment
SIEMER v O'BRIEN & ANOR [2015] NZSC 92 26 June 2015 (PDF, 194 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Janine Davina Sax v Luke Andrew Simpson
Case number
SC 29/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – whether Cooper J erred in declining to grant suppression.CA 112/2015
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
5 May 2015
5 May 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Derek Nicholas Blackwell and Charles Basil Blackwell as Executors and Trustees of the Estate of Ross Winston Blackwell v Leith Roger Chick and Rosemary Chick and Edmonds Judd
Case number
SC 30/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicants’ lack of mental capacity and unconscionable bargain defences in CA 481/2013 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the deceased had sufficient mental capacity in CA 476/2013 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding there was no causation as to the lawyer’ s negligent advice and the loss suffered by the deceased.[2015] NZCA 34 CA 481/2013; CA 476/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal in CA 481/2013 is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants to the first respondents.
C The application for leave to appeal in CA 476/2013 is granted.
D The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its conclusion that, on the findings in the High Court, the negligence of the second respondent caused no loss.
19 June 2015
________________
A The appeal is allowed. Judgment is given for the appellants in the sum of $1,000,000.
B Interest of five per cent is ordered from the date of settlement by Mr and Mrs Chick of the purchase of the farm.
C The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
D The costs order in the Court of Appeal (CA476/2013) is set aside. Costs in that Court and in the High Court should be set by those Courts in light of this judgment.
22 April 2016
B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants to the first respondents.
C The application for leave to appeal in CA 476/2013 is granted.
D The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its conclusion that, on the findings in the High Court, the negligence of the second respondent caused no loss.
19 June 2015
________________
A The appeal is allowed. Judgment is given for the appellants in the sum of $1,000,000.
B Interest of five per cent is ordered from the date of settlement by Mr and Mrs Chick of the purchase of the farm.
C The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
D The costs order in the Court of Appeal (CA476/2013) is set aside. Costs in that Court and in the High Court should be set by those Courts in light of this judgment.
22 April 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 2 February 2016 (PDF, 514 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 40 (PDF, 253 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 41 of 80