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
David Brown and Glen Sycamore v New Zealand Basing Limited
Case number
SC 145/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that by selecting a different legal jurisdiction to govern their relationship, the parties could contract out of the right in the Employment Relations Act to be free from dismissal and discrimination based on age.[2016] NZCA 525 CA12/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (New Zealand Basing Ltd v Brown [2016] NZCA 525, [2017] 2 NZLR 93).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that age discrimination provisions of the Employment Relations Act 2000 do not apply to the employment agreements between the applicants and the respondent.
17 February 2017
_________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Employment Court is restored.
B The order for costs made in the Court of Appeal is set aside.
C The respondent is to pay the appellants costs in respect of the Court of Appeal hearing, to be fixed by that Court, and in respect of this appeal costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 September 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that age discrimination provisions of the Employment Relations Act 2000 do not apply to the employment agreements between the applicants and the respondent.
17 February 2017
_________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Employment Court is restored.
B The order for costs made in the Court of Appeal is set aside.
C The respondent is to pay the appellants costs in respect of the Court of Appeal hearing, to be fixed by that Court, and in respect of this appeal costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 September 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 13 June 2017 (PDF, 611 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 139 (PDF, 260 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited v McIntyre and Williamson Partnership & Ors
Case number
SC 150/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – s 106 Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondents were “new entrants” for the purpose of s 106 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the appellant breached s 106 in offering the respondents the terms of supply set out in the milk supply agreements signed by the respondents.CA 736/2015 [2016] NZCA 538
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Fonterra Co Operative Group Ltd v McIntyre and Williamson Partnership [2016] NZCA 538).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to answer the following two questions in the affirmative:
(a) Were the respondents “new entrants” for the purposes of s 106 of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001?
(b) If so, did the appellant breach s 106 in offering the respondents the terms of supply set out in the milk supply agreements signed by the respondents?
10 April 2017
__________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay the respondents costs of $30,000 and reasonable disbursements to be determined by the Registrar if necessary. We allow for second counsel.
21 December 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to answer the following two questions in the affirmative:
(a) Were the respondents “new entrants” for the purposes of s 106 of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001?
(b) If so, did the appellant breach s 106 in offering the respondents the terms of supply set out in the milk supply agreements signed by the respondents?
10 April 2017
__________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay the respondents costs of $30,000 and reasonable disbursements to be determined by the Registrar if necessary. We allow for second counsel.
21 December 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 - 28 July 2017 (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 197 (PDF, 289 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer and Jane Dinsdale Siemer v Kevin Stanley Brown and others
Case number
SC 8/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial Review – Whether the High Court incorrectly applied test for apprehended bias – Whether the High Court provided counsel with opportunity to be heard – Whether there was an inordinate delay of judgment – Whether the High Court made factual findings contrary to uncontested evidence – Whether the Judge was required to disqualify himself under Section F(1) of the New Zealand Guidelines for Judicial Conduct – Whether there was a breach of natural justice.[2014] NZHC 3175 Civ 2008 044 517
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 April 2015
_____________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
5 May 2015
20 April 2015
_____________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
5 May 2015
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
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
Western Park Village Limited, Darryll Lawrenece Heaven, Anne Evelyn Heaven and Trustee Management Limited
Case number
SC 11/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the contract by allowing the respondent to be paid in New Zealand dollars – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the contract’s penalty interest provision.[2014] NZCA 6340 CA 115/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
14 May 2015
B The applicants must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
14 May 2015
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
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
Razdan Rafiq v Commissioner of New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 15/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs.[2015] NZCA 8 CA 669/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500. 23 April 2015
The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500. 23 April 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Francisc Catalin Deliu v The New Zealand Law Society
Case number
SC 19/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court was correct to adjourn the applicant’s judicial review application pending the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings against him under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act.[2015] NZCA 12 CA 121/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs to the respondent $2,500.
2 June 2015
______________________
Application for recall dismissed.
14 July 2015
2 June 2015
______________________
Application for recall dismissed.
14 July 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson and Richard John Creser v Transparency International (New Zealand) Inc
Case number
SC 22/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court erred in striking out the applicant’s application for judicial review. [2015] NZHC 334 CIV 2014-485-10920
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are payable to the respondent.
8 May 2015
B Costs of $2,500 are payable to the respondent.
8 May 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Bruce Brendon van Essen and Jason Patterson v The Attorney-General and others
Case number
SC 28/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Unreasonable Search and Seizure under New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether Court of Appeal applied correct test for public law remedies – Whether Court of Appeal correctly applied principles in Taunoa v Attorney General – Whether Court of Appeal correct in reliance on Independent Police Conduct Authority reports as a basis for assessing NZBORA compensation – Whether Court of Appeal correct in finding there was a proper basis for obtaining and executing search warrants – Whether Court of Appeal correct in finding that s 27 Crimes Act 1961 conferred immunity on defendants.[2015] NZCA 22 CA 320/2013; CA 339/2013; CA 593/2013; CA 594/2013
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B The applicants are to pay costs of $2,500 to both:
the first respondent, and the second and third respondents jointly.
13 July 2015
_________________
Reissued 3 November 2015.
A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
________________________
We certify that, were it not for s 45(2) of the Legal Services Act 2011, the applicants would have been ordered to pay the second and third respondents jointly costs of $2,500.
15 March 2016
B The applicants are to pay costs of $2,500 to both:
the first respondent, and the second and third respondents jointly.
13 July 2015
_________________
Reissued 3 November 2015.
A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
________________________
We certify that, were it not for s 45(2) of the Legal Services Act 2011, the applicants would have been ordered to pay the second and third respondents jointly costs of $2,500.
15 March 2016
Supreme court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 23 of 55