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
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
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
- Hearing date 1, 2 and 8 September 2015 (PDF, 1.6 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 30 (PDF, 404 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Sportzone Motorcyles Limited (in liquidation) and Motor Trade Finances Limited v Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 40/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of ss 41, 42 and 44. [2015] NZCA 78 CA 727/2013; CA 593/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Sportzone Motorcycles Ltd (in liq) and Motor Trade Finances Ltd v Commerce Commission [2015] NZCA 78).
B The approved question is:Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the fees charged by the applicants were unreasonable for the purposes of s 41 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003?
2 July 2015
_______________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be determined by the Registrar in the absence of agreement between the parties).
We certify for two counsel.
12 May 2016
B The approved question is:Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the fees charged by the applicants were unreasonable for the purposes of s 41 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003?
2 July 2015
_______________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be determined by the Registrar in the absence of agreement between the parties).
We certify for two counsel.
12 May 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 - 11 November 2015 (PDF, 1.2 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 53 (PDF, 242 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Mita Michael Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Limited and The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 47/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that Landcorp’s entry into an agreement to sell Whārere Farm was not tainted by bad faith – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that certain actions of the Office of Treaty Settlements were not justiciable – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusions as to shareholding ministers’ powers to direct Landcorp.[2015] NZCA 160 CA 336/2014; CA 337/2014; CA 29/2015
Result
An order is made that the first respondent, Landcorp Farming Ltd, not proceed with the sale of the Wharere Farm until further order of the Court.
14 May 2015
______________________
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (The Attorney-General v Ririnui [2015] NZCA 160).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse the relief sought by the applicant based on:
(a) the claimed bad faith on the part of Landcorp;
(b) the acknowledged error of law by the Office of Treaty Settlements in its advice to Landcorp;
(c) the failure of the shareholding Ministers of Landcorp to intervene.
C The first respondent is restrained until further order of the Court from settling the agreement for sale and purchase of Whārere Farm, with leave reserved to the parties or to the purchaser to apply for discharge or variation of this order.
D The Registrar is directed to serve a copy of this judgment on the purchaser.
27 May 2015
________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B The following declarations are made:
(i) The decision of Landcorp Farming Limited’s shareholding Ministers and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations not to intervene in the tender process on behalf of Ngāti Whakahemo as they did on behalf of Ngāti Mākino was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
(ii) The decision by Landcorp Farming Limited on 28 February 2014 to sell Whārere farm to Micro Farms Limited was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
C All other forms of relief claimed by the appellant are declined.
D The restraining order made by this Court in Order C of its judgment granting leave to appeal (Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Ltd [2015] NZSC 72) is discharged.
E Costs are reserved. The parties may file written submissions as to costs in this Court and in the Courts below if they are unable to reach agreement.
9 June 2016
___________
A The orders of the Court of Appeal as to costs are quashed.
B The parties are to bear their own costs in all Courts.
1 May 2017
14 May 2015
______________________
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (The Attorney-General v Ririnui [2015] NZCA 160).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse the relief sought by the applicant based on:
(a) the claimed bad faith on the part of Landcorp;
(b) the acknowledged error of law by the Office of Treaty Settlements in its advice to Landcorp;
(c) the failure of the shareholding Ministers of Landcorp to intervene.
C The first respondent is restrained until further order of the Court from settling the agreement for sale and purchase of Whārere Farm, with leave reserved to the parties or to the purchaser to apply for discharge or variation of this order.
D The Registrar is directed to serve a copy of this judgment on the purchaser.
27 May 2015
________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B The following declarations are made:
(i) The decision of Landcorp Farming Limited’s shareholding Ministers and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations not to intervene in the tender process on behalf of Ngāti Whakahemo as they did on behalf of Ngāti Mākino was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
(ii) The decision by Landcorp Farming Limited on 28 February 2014 to sell Whārere farm to Micro Farms Limited was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
C All other forms of relief claimed by the appellant are declined.
D The restraining order made by this Court in Order C of its judgment granting leave to appeal (Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Ltd [2015] NZSC 72) is discharged.
E Costs are reserved. The parties may file written submissions as to costs in this Court and in the Courts below if they are unable to reach agreement.
9 June 2016
___________
A The orders of the Court of Appeal as to costs are quashed.
B The parties are to bear their own costs in all Courts.
1 May 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 May 2015 (PDF, 308 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 62 (PDF, 265 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Supreme Court - order made
Additional document
Transcription hearing 17 - 18 August 2015 (PDF, 1.5 MB)
Case name
Tony Gordon Best v The Queen
Case number
SC 57/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 44 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in categorising the evidence excluded in the District Court as sexual experience evidence pursuant to s 44 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling that the evidence was inadmissible pursuant to that section – Whether even if properly excluded under s 44 the defence should have been permitted to elicit that the complainant had previously made a rape allegation. [2015] NZCA 159 CA 254/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is whether the applicant’s counsel should have been permitted to cross-examine the complainant as to her prior rape complaint and lead evidence to the effect that it was false.
3 November 2015
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
8 September 2016
B The approved ground is whether the applicant’s counsel should have been permitted to cross-examine the complainant as to her prior rape complaint and lead evidence to the effect that it was false.
3 November 2015
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
8 September 2016
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 122 (PDF, 250 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
TONY GORDON BEST v R [2015] NZSC 167 [3 November 2015] (PDF, 111 KB)
Substantive judgment
TONY GORDON BEST v R [2016] NZSC 122 [8 September 2016] (PDF, 434 KB)
Case name
John Gilbert and QSM Trustee Ltd (in receivership and in liquidation) v Body Corporate 162791
Case number
SC 59/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Gilbert was personally liable to pay certain body corporate levies under s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Gilbert’s liability was not limited or excused under s 32(7) of the Act.[2015] NZCA 185 CA 213/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert [2015] NZCA 185).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i) to hold that the first applicant was personally liable under s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 to pay body corporate levies to the respondent in relation to the second applicant’s units; and
(ii) to find that the first applicant had no arguable claim for relief from personal liability under s 32(7) of the Act.
4 September 2015
_______________
A The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.
B There is no order for costs.
2 June 2016
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i) to hold that the first applicant was personally liable under s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 to pay body corporate levies to the respondent in relation to the second applicant’s units; and
(ii) to find that the first applicant had no arguable claim for relief from personal liability under s 32(7) of the Act.
4 September 2015
_______________
A The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.
B There is no order for costs.
2 June 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 December 2015 (PDF, 393 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 61 (PDF, 250 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Justin Ames Johnston v The Queen
Case number
SC 61/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether propensity evidence was correctly admitted at trial – whether there was sufficient evidence to justify the jury’ s conclusion on intention – whether acts and omissions were sufficiently proximate to constitute an attempt. [2015] NZCA 162 CA 58/2014[2012] NZCA 559 CA 262/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Johnston v R [2015] NZCA 162).
B The approved question is whether the trial Judge was wrong to conclude that the actions of the applicant on the night of the alleged offending were sufficiently proximate to constitute the actus reus of an attempt.
15 October 2015
____________________
The appeal is dismissed.
6 July 2016
B The approved question is whether the trial Judge was wrong to conclude that the actions of the applicant on the night of the alleged offending were sufficiently proximate to constitute the actus reus of an attempt.
15 October 2015
____________________
The appeal is dismissed.
6 July 2016
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 83 (PDF, 244 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
JUSTIN AMES JOHNSTON v R [2016] NZSC 83 [6 July 2016] (PDF, 210 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ
Case name
Trustpower Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 74/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Income Tax Act 2004, s DA 2 – Whether Court of Appeal correct to consider ground of reassessment irrelevant – Whether Court of Appeal made unsupported findings of fact – Whether Court of Appeal correct to find that Feasibility Expenditure was incurred on capital account.[2015] NZCA 253 CA830/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (CIR v Trustpower [2015] NZCA 253).
B The approved questions are:(a) was the Court of Appeal wrong to consider the ground of reassessment set out in the Reassessment letter as irrelevant, or was the Court otherwise acting outside its jurisdiction in determining the appeal? If not, was the Court of Appeal correct in its conclusions on s DA 1?(b) Despite stating that it proceeded on the basis of accepting the High Court’s findings of fact, were any aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgment based on findings for which there was no evidence before the Court and/or that was contradicted by the evidence before the Court? If so, what is the significance of this?(c ) What is the correct approach to determining whether the expenditure of the type at issue in this proceeding has been incurred on revenue or capital account, for the purposes of s DA 2(1) of the Act?(d) Was the Commissioner correct, or at least not in error, to select the date by which the applicant had decided to apply for a resource consent as the point at which its expenditure was sufficiently connected to the capital purpose of obtaining a resource consent to be on capital account?
11 September 2015
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Trustpower is to pay the Commissioner costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
27 July 2016
B The approved questions are:(a) was the Court of Appeal wrong to consider the ground of reassessment set out in the Reassessment letter as irrelevant, or was the Court otherwise acting outside its jurisdiction in determining the appeal? If not, was the Court of Appeal correct in its conclusions on s DA 1?(b) Despite stating that it proceeded on the basis of accepting the High Court’s findings of fact, were any aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgment based on findings for which there was no evidence before the Court and/or that was contradicted by the evidence before the Court? If so, what is the significance of this?(c ) What is the correct approach to determining whether the expenditure of the type at issue in this proceeding has been incurred on revenue or capital account, for the purposes of s DA 2(1) of the Act?(d) Was the Commissioner correct, or at least not in error, to select the date by which the applicant had decided to apply for a resource consent as the point at which its expenditure was sufficiently connected to the capital purpose of obtaining a resource consent to be on capital account?
11 September 2015
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Trustpower is to pay the Commissioner costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
27 July 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 - 10 March 2016 (PDF, 1.4 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 91 (PDF, 246 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Barrie James Skinner v The Queen
Case number
SC 79/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to decline the application to adduce further evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against conviction.[2015] NZCA 233 CA 573/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted on the question whether s 109 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 precluded conviction on counts 101–110 (Rowley v R [2015] NZCA 233, (2015) 27 NZTC. In all other respects the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed save that, in the case of Mr Rowley’s challenge to his sentence, this is with the reservation identified in [23].
15 February 2016
______________
The appeals are dismissed.
10 August 2016
15 February 2016
______________
The appeals are dismissed.
10 August 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 9 June 2016 (PDF, 456 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 101 (PDF, 239 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
SKINNER and ROWLEY v R [2016] NZSC 7 [15 February 2016] (PDF, 155 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
Shane James Old v The Queen
Case number
SC 83/2015
Summary
Criminal appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to evidential issues.[2015] NZCA 252 CA 739/2014
Result
The application for an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 18 November 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SHANE JAMES OLD v R [2015] NZSC 175 18 November 2015 (PDF, 75 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Transparency International New Zealand Incorporated
Case number
SC 85/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 43(2) – Whether the Court of Appeal should have granted the application for an extension of time. CA 156/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
16 October 2015
___________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
22 October 2015
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
16 October 2015
___________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
22 October 2015
Recall judgment
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 42 of 80