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
Studorp Limited & James Hardie New Zealand v Tracey Jane Cridge, Mark Anthony Unwin, Katrina McKellar Fowler, Scott Woodhead & Body Corp 316651
Case number
SC 104/2017
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
27 November 2017
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
27 November 2017
High Court decision
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
The New Zealand Registered Architects Board V Jeremiah McLanahan, E-Lyn Tan and Stephen McDougall
Case number
SC 118/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in quashing the decision of the Board dismissing the complaints made by the first respondents against the second respondent.
Result
A notice of abandonment having been lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed. 1 February 2018
Case name
Desmond James Albert Conway v Mercedes-Benz Financial Services New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 119/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 and the Property Law Act 2007 – Whether the applicant was mortgagor of vehicles repossessed by the respondent.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
23 February 2018
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
23 February 2018
High Court decision
High Court decision
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Peter Gerard Stockman v NZ Asscoiation of Counsellors Incorporated
Case number
SC 2/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal should have recalled its judgment ordering standard rather than indemnity costs – Whether judgments must directly refer to all submissions made by parties. [2015] NZCA 542 CA 669/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
There is no order for costs.
29 February 2016
_____
A The application for recall of the Court’s judgment in Stockman v New Zealand Association of Counsellors Inc [2016] NZSC 18 is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
7 April 2016
There is no order for costs.
29 February 2016
_____
A The application for recall of the Court’s judgment in Stockman v New Zealand Association of Counsellors Inc [2016] NZSC 18 is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
7 April 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
NZCA judgment appealed from
Case name
New Zealand Aluminium Smelters Limited v Weller & Ors
Case number
SC 20/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 7A of the Holidays Act 1981. [2016] NZCA 19 CA 313/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
27 April 2016
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
27 April 2016
Employment Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Prattley Enterprises Limited v Vero Insurance New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 32/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal incorrectly assessed the applicant’s entitlement under the insurance policy issued by the respondent – Whether the applicant is entitled to relief from the parties’ settlement agreement under s 6 of the Contractual Mistakes Act 1977.[2016] NZCA 67 CA 400/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Prattley Enterprises Limited v Vero Insurance New Zealand Limited [2016] NZCA 67).
B The approved grounds are:
(a) the nature and extent of the respondent’s liability under the insurance policy; and
(b) the effect of the release.
20 June 2016
____________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Prattley is to pay Vero costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
6 December 2016
B The approved grounds are:
(a) the nature and extent of the respondent’s liability under the insurance policy; and
(b) the effect of the release.
20 June 2016
____________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Prattley is to pay Vero costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
6 December 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 - 11 October 2016 (PDF, 838 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 158 (PDF, 246 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Martin James Mailley v District Court at North Shore and New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 36/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 48(4) of the Extradition Act 1999. [2016] NZCA 83 CA716/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 20 June 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
New Zealand Air Line Pilots' Association Incorporated v Air New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 48/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the respondent’s appeal from the Employment Court was not barred for want of jurisdiction by reason of s 214(1) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Employment Court had wrongly applied or failed to apply orthodox principles of contractual interpretation. [2016] NZCA 131 CA570/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Air New Zealand Limited v New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association Incorporated [2016] NZCA 131)
B The approved question is should the Court of Appeal have dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction?
13 July 2016
___________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Leave to admit the affidavit evidence adduced by Air New Zealand Limited in support of the application for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeal is declined.
C The appellant is to pay to the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary). We certify for two counsel.
14 July 2017
B The approved question is should the Court of Appeal have dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction?
13 July 2016
___________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Leave to admit the affidavit evidence adduced by Air New Zealand Limited in support of the application for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeal is declined.
C The appellant is to pay to the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary). We certify for two counsel.
14 July 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 17 October 2016 (PDF, 601 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 111 (PDF, 310 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Camille Iriana Thompson v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 63/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 compensation in relation to judicial acts. [2016] NZCA 215 CA590/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B We make no award of costs.
7 October 2016
________________________________________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 7 October 2016 (Thompson v The Attorney-General [2016] NZSC 134) is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
27 March 2023
B We make no award of costs.
7 October 2016
________________________________________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 7 October 2016 (Thompson v The Attorney-General [2016] NZSC 134) is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
27 March 2023
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Auckland Council and James Hardie New Zealand v Weathertight Homes Tribunal, and The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and Body Corporate 19500, and Gefei Liang and Others
Case number
SC 72/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the effect of s 141(4) of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 is that the multi-unit complex claim does not need to independently meet the s 16(a) eligibility criterion for resolution – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the effect of s 141(4) of the 2006 Act is that all of the claimants represented in the multi-unit complex claim receive the benefit of the date the withdrawn claim was brought under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 for the purposes of s 37 of the 2006 Act.[2016] NZCA 256 CA552/2015, CA564/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants to the second respondent.
C Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants to the third and fourth respondents.
16 September 2016
B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants to the second respondent.
C Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants to the third and fourth respondents.
16 September 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 21 of 55