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
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
D v Immigration and Protection Tribunal New Zealand and Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Case number
SC 85/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Immigration Act 2009, s 249 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of s 249. [2016] NZCA 320 CA642/2015
Result
A notice of abandonment having been lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Scott v Williams
Case number
SC 95/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether value of legal practice properly set by High Court ¬– Whether Court of Appeal erred in value of award made under s 15 PRA – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding decision of the High Court to order sale of property. [2016] NZCA 356 CA 58/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal and leave to cross appeal are granted (Scott v Williams [2016] NZCA 356).
B The approved questions are:
(i) Was the approach taken in the lower courts to the valuation of the respondent’s practice correct?
(ii) Was the amount awarded to the applicant under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 correct?
(iii) Should the order that the Remuera properties be sold, rather than vested in the applicant, have been made?
9 November 2016
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed to the extent set out below.
B The cross-appeal is dismissed.
C The vesting order made by the Family Court is restored.
D The valuation by the Family Court of the respondent’s law practice is restored. The appellant’s share is $225,000.
E An order in the appellant’s favour of $520,000 is made under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. If not able to be agreed, the parties may file submissions on interest on or before 1 February 2018.
F Costs of $25,000 are awarded to the appellant, plus usual disbursements to be set by the Registrar if not agreed. The Court allows for two counsel.
11 December 2017
B The approved questions are:
(i) Was the approach taken in the lower courts to the valuation of the respondent’s practice correct?
(ii) Was the amount awarded to the applicant under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 correct?
(iii) Should the order that the Remuera properties be sold, rather than vested in the applicant, have been made?
9 November 2016
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed to the extent set out below.
B The cross-appeal is dismissed.
C The vesting order made by the Family Court is restored.
D The valuation by the Family Court of the respondent’s law practice is restored. The appellant’s share is $225,000.
E An order in the appellant’s favour of $520,000 is made under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. If not able to be agreed, the parties may file submissions on interest on or before 1 February 2018.
F Costs of $25,000 are awarded to the appellant, plus usual disbursements to be set by the Registrar if not agreed. The Court allows for two counsel.
11 December 2017
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 185 (PDF, 275 KB)
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
SCOTT v WILLIAMS [2016] NZSC 149 [9 November 2016] (PDF, 114 KB)
Substantive judgment
SCOTT v WILLIAMS [2017] NZSC 185 [11 December 2017] (PDF, 1.3 MB)
Supreme court decision
Case name
Janferie Maeve Almond v Bruce James Read and Others, Ethne Glays Read, and Christopher John Read
Case number
SC 98/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to grant the applicant an extension of time to bring her appeal. [2016] NZCA 147 CA730/2015
Result
A The amended application for leave to appeal is granted (Almond v Read [2016] NZCA 147).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to refuse the appellant’s application for an extension of time to appeal.
2 November 2016
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The application for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal is granted.
C The stay will remain in effect until the determination of the appellant’s appeal in the Court of Appeal.
D The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $13,000 to the appellant, plus reasonable disbursements.
30 May 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to refuse the appellant’s application for an extension of time to appeal.
2 November 2016
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The application for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal is granted.
C The stay will remain in effect until the determination of the appellant’s appeal in the Court of Appeal.
D The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $13,000 to the appellant, plus reasonable disbursements.
30 May 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 December 2016 (PDF, 335 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 80 (PDF, 262 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
NR v MR and others
Case number
SC 3/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal judgment was in breach of the principles of natural justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining the debarment application – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining the disclosure application – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its award of costs.[2014] NZCA 623 CA 443/2014, CA 456/2014, CA 522/3014, CA 532/2014.
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal in SC 77/2014, SC 120/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 are dismissed.
B The application for recall of this Court’s judgment dated 19 December 2014 ([2014] NZSC 189) is dismissed.
C The other interlocutory applications of 12 January 2015 are dismissed.
D Costs of $10,000 are to be paid by the applicant to Ms M (as first respondent in SC 77/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 and second respondent in SC 120/2014).
E Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents in SC 77/2014 and SC 125/2014.
27 February 2015
B The application for recall of this Court’s judgment dated 19 December 2014 ([2014] NZSC 189) is dismissed.
C The other interlocutory applications of 12 January 2015 are dismissed.
D Costs of $10,000 are to be paid by the applicant to Ms M (as first respondent in SC 77/2014, SC 125/2014 and SC 3/2015 and second respondent in SC 120/2014).
E Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents in SC 77/2014 and SC 125/2014.
27 February 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
N v M [2015] NZSC 15 27 February 2015 (PDF, 164 KB)
Judgment appealed from
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
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
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
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
D v The Queen
Case number
SC 60/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to admit expert evidence on appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was no miscarriage of justice due to a failure to give a reliability warning under s 122(e) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial Judge’s propensity direction to the jury was adequate.[2015] NZCA 171 CA 345/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
31 July 2015
31 July 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
D (SC 60/2015) v R [2015] NZSC 119 31 July 2015 (PDF, 93 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Page 13 of 17