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
Mathias Ortmann and Bram Van der Kolk v The United States of America
Case number
SC 56/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the District Court’s determination under s 24 of the Extradition Act 1999 – Whether the Supreme Court of New Zealand has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under the Extradition Act if the proceedings were commenced before 1 July 2013.
Result
The Court has jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeals.
20 December 2018
-
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
___________________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to intervene is declined.
B No order as to costs.
20 May 2019
___________________________________________________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
_________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to
this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020] NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
20 December 2018
-
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
___________________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to intervene is declined.
B No order as to costs.
20 May 2019
___________________________________________________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
_________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to
this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020] NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
Case Synopses
- Hearing 10 June 14 June 2019 (PDF, 264 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Leave to intervene declined
Additional document
Transcript hearing 10 to 17 June 2019 NZSC Trans 25 (PDF, 4.2 MB)
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Additional document
Hearing date
10 - 14 June 2019
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Willaims JJ
Supreme Court judgment / Media Release
Transcript
Case name
Kim Dotcom v The United States of America
Case number
SC 57/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the Copyright Act 1994 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its findings on the admissibility of evidence challenging the record of the case.
Result
The Court has jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeals.
20 December 2018
-
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
___________________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to intervene is declined.
B No order as to costs.
20 May 2019
___________________________________________________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
__________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the
judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020]
NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
20 December 2018
-
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
___________________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to intervene is declined.
B No order as to costs.
20 May 2019
___________________________________________________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
__________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the
judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020]
NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
Case Synopses
- Hearing 10 June 14 June 2019 (PDF, 264 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Leave to intervene declined
Additional document
Transcript hearing 10 to 17 June 2019 NZSC Trans 25 (PDF, 4.2 MB)
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Additional document
Supreme Court judgment / Media Release
Transcript
Hearing date
10 - 14 June 2019
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Case name
Kim Dotcom v The United States of America and The District Court at North Shore
Case number
SC 58/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of the application for judicial review of the District Court’s determination under s 24 of the Extradition Act 1999 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application to adduce further evidence.
Result
The Court has jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeals.
20 December 2018
-
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
___________________________________________________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
____________________________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to
this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020] NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
20 December 2018
-
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
___________________________________________________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
____________________________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to
this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020] NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
Case Synopses
- Hearing 10 June 14 June 2019 (PDF, 264 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Transcript hearing 10 to 17 June 2019 NZSC Trans 25 (PDF, 4.2 MB)
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Additional document
Hearing date
10 - 14 June 2019
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Supreme Court judgment / Media Release
Transcript
Case name
Douglas Craig Schmuck v Opua Coastal Preservation Incorporated and Far North District Council
Case number
SC 66/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the interpretation of the scope of easements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by not relying on resource consents when examining the easements at issue – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not considering the question of indefeasibility.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Opua Coastal Preservation Incorporated v Far North District Council [2018] NZCA 262).
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
21 February 2019
________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The decision of the second respondent as delegate of the Minister of Conservation to consent to the challenged easements referred to at [32] of the Reasons of the Court is reinstated.
C Costs are reserved.
D Leave is reserved to the parties to apply for consequential orders if required.
29 October 2019
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
21 February 2019
________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The decision of the second respondent as delegate of the Minister of Conservation to consent to the challenged easements referred to at [32] of the Reasons of the Court is reinstated.
C Costs are reserved.
D Leave is reserved to the parties to apply for consequential orders if required.
29 October 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 9 - 10 July 2019 (PDF, 589 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 118 (PDF, 71 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Shark Experience Limited v Pauamac5 Incorporated, Director-General of Conservation and Shark Dive New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 86/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Wildlife Act 1953.
Result
A The application for an extension of time is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is granted (PauaMAC5 Inc v Director-General of Conservation [2018] NZCA 348).
C The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that shark cage diving is an offence under s 63A of the Wildlife Act 1953.
11 December 2018
________________________________
A The application for leave to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The Court of Appeal’s declaration that “Shark cage diving is an offence under s 63A Wildlife Act 1953” is set aside.
D There is no order as to costs.
11 October 2019
B The application for leave to appeal is granted (PauaMAC5 Inc v Director-General of Conservation [2018] NZCA 348).
C The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that shark cage diving is an offence under s 63A of the Wildlife Act 1953.
11 December 2018
________________________________
A The application for leave to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The Court of Appeal’s declaration that “Shark cage diving is an offence under s 63A Wildlife Act 1953” is set aside.
D There is no order as to costs.
11 October 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 March 2019 (PDF, 687 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 111 (PDF, 98 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Jia Wen Mao v Inno Capital No.4 Limited, Damien Grant and Steven Khov as Liquidators of Chen Hong Co Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 100/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – High Court Rules 2016, Part 31 – Companies Act 1993, s 250 – Termination of a liquidation order – Substitution of creditors – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the substitution order was made under r 31.24 of the High Court Rules.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the second respondent costs of $2,500.
26 February 2019
B The applicant must pay the second respondent costs of $2,500.
26 February 2019
Court of Appeal decision
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Charitable Trust v Invercargill City Council
Case number
SC 37/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no duty of care was owed by the Invercargill City Council to the Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Charitable Trust – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of limitation and contributory negligence principles
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Invercargill City Council v Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Charitable Trust
[2017] NZCA 68).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to reverse the judgment of Dunningham J.
30 May 2017
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B The finding made in the High Court upholding the appellant’s claim against the respondent is restored. The finding of the Court of Appeal that the appellant was contributorily negligent and that an award of damages should be reduced by 50 per cent is upheld. Judgment is entered accordingly. Leave is reserved to the parties to apply if any issues arise about the calculation of the judgment sum (including interest).
C The respondent must pay the appellant costs of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements to be determined by the Registrar if necessary. We allow for second counsel.
D The costs awards made in the Court of Appeal and in the High Court are set aside. If costs in those Courts cannot be agreed they should be set by the Court of Appeal and the High Court respectively in light of this judgment.
14 December 2017
[2017] NZCA 68).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to reverse the judgment of Dunningham J.
30 May 2017
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B The finding made in the High Court upholding the appellant’s claim against the respondent is restored. The finding of the Court of Appeal that the appellant was contributorily negligent and that an award of damages should be reduced by 50 per cent is upheld. Judgment is entered accordingly. Leave is reserved to the parties to apply if any issues arise about the calculation of the judgment sum (including interest).
C The respondent must pay the appellant costs of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements to be determined by the Registrar if necessary. We allow for second counsel.
D The costs awards made in the Court of Appeal and in the High Court are set aside. If costs in those Courts cannot be agreed they should be set by the Court of Appeal and the High Court respectively in light of this judgment.
14 December 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 - 11 August 2017 (PDF, 853 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 190 (PDF, 280 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Rudi Hartono and Others v Ministry for Primary Industries and Sajo Oyang Corporation
Case number
SC 61/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Fisheries Act 1996, s 256 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the Fisheries Act to the claim for unpaid wages against a forfeited vessel.
Result
Leave to appeal is granted (Sajo Oyang Corp v Ministry for Primary Industries [2017] NZCA 182).
The approved question is whether the applicants have an interest in the Oyang 75 for the purposes of s 256 of the Fisheries Act 1996.
9 August 2017
________________________________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside (save as to the direction that the proceedings be transferred to the High Court) and the judgment of the High Court is reinstated.
B The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the appellants costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We allow for second counsel.
C The appellants are entitled to costs in the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court.
D All issues as to costs in respect of the District Court and High Court are to be determined in the High Court.
2 March 2018
The approved question is whether the applicants have an interest in the Oyang 75 for the purposes of s 256 of the Fisheries Act 1996.
9 August 2017
________________________________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside (save as to the direction that the proceedings be transferred to the High Court) and the judgment of the High Court is reinstated.
B The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the appellants costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We allow for second counsel.
C The appellants are entitled to costs in the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court.
D All issues as to costs in respect of the District Court and High Court are to be determined in the High Court.
2 March 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 14 November 2017 (PDF, 505 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 17 (PDF, 291 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
The Attorney-General v Arthur William Taylor and Hinemanu Ngaronoa, Sandra Wilde, Kirsty Olivia Fensom and Claire Thrupp
Case number
SC 65/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Senior Courts have jurisdiction to make declarations that Acts of Parliament are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the High Court’s declaration that s 80(1)(d) of the Electoral Act 1993 is inconsistent with the right to vote affirmed and guaranteed in s 12(a) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and cannot be justified under s 5 of that Act – (cross-appeal) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Taylor did not have standing to seek a declaration of inconsistency.
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal by the Attorney General and Mr Taylor are granted.
B The approved questions are whether:
(i) The Court of Appeal was correct to make a declaration of inconsistency; and
(ii) Mr Taylor has standing.
30 August 2017
_____________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed. Mr Taylor accordingly has standing.
C Costs are reserved.
9 November 2018
____________________________
A The appellant must pay to the first respondent usual disbursements.
B The appellant must pay the second to fifth respondents costs of $15,000 or such lesser figure as evidenced by invoices produced to the Registrar.
C Any issues arising as to costs in the Court of Appeal in respect of Mr Taylor are to be dealt with in that Court.
27 February 2019
B The approved questions are whether:
(i) The Court of Appeal was correct to make a declaration of inconsistency; and
(ii) Mr Taylor has standing.
30 August 2017
_____________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed. Mr Taylor accordingly has standing.
C Costs are reserved.
9 November 2018
____________________________
A The appellant must pay to the first respondent usual disbursements.
B The appellant must pay the second to fifth respondents costs of $15,000 or such lesser figure as evidenced by invoices produced to the Registrar.
C Any issues arising as to costs in the Court of Appeal in respect of Mr Taylor are to be dealt with in that Court.
27 February 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 6 - 7 March 2018 (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] 104 (PDF, 290 KB)
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Case name
Angela Claire Shaw and Ian Alexander Shaw v Colin David Owens and David Stuart Vance as liquidators of Aluminium Plus Wellington Limited
Case number
SC 90/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the directors’ conduct amounted to breach of the duties imposed by ss 135 (reckless trading) and 137 (duty of care).
Result
A The application for an extension of time to appeal is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
20 October 2017
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
20 October 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 11 of 17