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.

22 September 2026

Case information summary (as at 18 September 2026) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 112 KB)
Case information summary (as at 18 September 2026)  – Currently unavailable

All years

Case name
West City Construction Limited v Henry David Levin and David Stuart Vance as liquidators of St George Developments Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 43/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that there was no agreement to assign and/or equitable assignment of the bond monies – Whether the deed of assignment enabled the applicant to receive more towards the satisfaction of debt than it would receive or be likely to receive in the debtor’s liquidation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the sum payable under s 295 of the Companies Act 1993.[2014] NZCA 98   CA 101/2013
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Levin v West City Construction [2014] NZCA 98).
B The approved grounds of appeal are:
Whether the assignment of the development bond is a voidable transaction under s 292 of the Companies Act 1993; and
Whether the Court of Appeal correctly exercised the discretion under s 295 of the Companies Act.
7 August 2014
_______________________________________
A    The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the judgment of the Associate Judge in the High Court is restored.  
B    The liquidators are to pay the appellant costs and disbursements in respect of the appeal to the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court and costs in relation to the appeal to this Court in the sum of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
15 December 2014
Transcripts
Media Releases
Court of Appeal decision
LEVIN & ANOR v WEST CITY CONSTRUCTION LTD CA326/2013 [2014] NZCA 98 [27 March 2014]
Leave judgment - leave granted
WEST CITY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED v HENRY DAVID LEVIN AND DAVID STUART VANCE AS LIQUIDATORS OF ST GEORGE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2014] NZSC 106 [7 August 2014] (PDF, 11 KB)
Substantive judgment
WEST CITY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED v HENRY DAVID LEVIN AND DAVID STUART VANCE AS LIQUIDATORS OF ST GEORGE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2014] NZSC 183 [15 December 2014] (PDF, 153 KB)
Case name
Christine Hamilton Thompson v Michael Leith Thompson
Case number
SC 50/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a sum received for a restraint of trade covenant against Mr Thompson personally was not relationship property under ss 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(l) of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a sum received for a restraint of trade covenant against Mr Thompson personally should not be treated, in the Court’s discretion, as relationship property, either in whole or in part, under s 9(4) of the Act.  [2014] NZCA 117  CA 701/2013; CA 711/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Thompson v Thompson [2014] NZCA 117).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the sum received by the respondent for giving the restraint of trade covenant:
(a) was not relationship property under s 8(1)(e) or s 8(1)(l) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976; and, in the alternative,
(b) should not be treated
5 August 2014
_________________________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside.
B The $8 million restraint of trade payment received by Mr Thompson is declared to be relationship property.
C The case is remitted to the Family Court for the making of such orders as may be necessary to give effect to the declaration.
D The appellant is awarded costs of $25,000 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar in respect of the appeal to this Court and costs and disbursements in respect of the proceedings in the Family Court, High Court and Court of Appeal to be fixed by those Courts.
13 March 2015
Transcripts
Media Releases
Court of Appeal decision
THOMPSON V THOMPSON & ORS CA701/2013 & CA711/2013 [2014] NZCA 117 [8 April 2014
Leave judgment - leave granted
CHRISTINE HAMILTON THOMPSON v MICHAEL LEITH THOMPSON [2014] NZSC 101 [5 August 2014] (PDF, 11 KB)
Substantive judgment
CHRISTINE HAMILTON THOMPSON v MICHAEL LEITH THOMPSON [2015] NZSC 26 [13 March 2015] (PDF, 354 KB)
Case name
Rhys Michael Cullen v The Queen
Case number
SC 68/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the actions and state of mind of an employee authorised by s 19 of the Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers Act 2004 to enter into transactions on behalf of a license holder are attributable to the licence holder – Whether the acts of an employee whose normal duties include assistance in dismantling cars are attributable to the employer as acts helping to dispose of property within the scope of s 246 of the Crimes Act 1961. [2014] NZCA 325 CA 769/2013.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.

The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss Mr Cullen’s appeal.
22 October 2014
__________________
Appeal dismissed.
29 May 2015
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
RHYS MICHAEL CULLEN v R [2014] NZSC 148 [22 October 2014] (PDF, 65 KB)
Substantive judgment
CULLEN v R [2015] NZSC 73 [29 May 2015] (PDF, 162 KB)
Case name
Michael Christopher Cruickshank v The Queen
Case number
SC 140/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the trial Judge misdirected the jury as to the state of the applicant’s knowledge of whether the medical certificate was accurate – Whether the trial Court had jurisdiction to determine loss or abatement of entitlement in light of the Accident Compensation Act 2001, section 133(5) – Whether there was a sufficient evidential foundation for an award of reparation[2014] NZCA 574 CA  367/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
31 March 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MICHAEL CHRISTOPHER CRUICKSHANK v R [2015] NZSC 32   31 March 2015 (PDF, 75 KB)
Judgment appealed from

CRUICKSHANK V R CA300/2014 [2014] NZCA 574     28 November 2014
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassney and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 2/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the registrar’s refusal to dispense with security for costs on the basis that it relied on incorrect evidence, was based on the Judge’s predeterminations regarding the merits of the case, and unjustly restricts the applicant’ s access to the court.CA 362/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs to the respondent $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements,
7 March 2013
_________________________________________

Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
26 March 2013
_________________________________________

Second application for recall of judgment dismissed.
11 April 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIEMER v STIASSNY SC 2/2013 [7 March 2013] (PDF, 52 KB)
Case name
George Charles Kain, George Michael Kain, George Thomas Kain, George Harry Kain & Georgina Kain v Wynn Williams & Co
Case number
SC 4/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether conditional fee agreement between a solicitor and client is champertous only where there is proof of unjustified interference in the client’s affairs by solicitor – Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, ss 6, 11(1)(d)(ii) and 13 – Meaning of consumer credit contract – Whether conditional fee agreement constituted a consumer credit contract. [2012] NZCA 563  CA 635/2011
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs to the respondent $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements.
8 April 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
KAIN v WYNN WILLIAMS & CO SC 4/2013 [8 April 2013] (PDF, 51 KB)
Case name
Chuan Wu v Body Corporate 366611 and Theta Management Limited
Case number
SC 20/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Damages – Whether the Court of Appeal, after upholding the High Court’s decision on liability in favour of the appellant, ought not to have remitted the calculation of damages payable to the appellant back to the High Court.[2012] NZCA 614  CA 402/2011
Result
Leave to appeal and cross appeal is granted.  The approved questions are:
(a) Are the Body Corporate and Theta liable in nuisance and if so on what basis?
(b) What, if any orders, are appropriate as to damages?
3 May 2013
____________________
A  The appeal is allowed and the judgment of Asher J on the first cause of action is reinstated.
B  The cross appeal is dismissed.
C  The respondents are to pay to the appellant costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary).
9 October 2014 
_______________
tc
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
WU v BODY CORPORATE 366611 SC 20/2013 [3 May 2013] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
CHUAN WU v BODY CORPORATE 366611 [2014] NZSC 137 [9 October 2014] (PDF, 330 KB)
Recall judgment
CHUAN WU v BODY CORPORATE 366611 [2014] NZSC 178 [5 December 2014] (PDF, 86 KB)
Case name
Kim Dotcom, Finn Batato, Mathias Ortmann and Bram van der Kolk v The United States of America and The District Court at North Shore
Case number
SC 30/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Extradition – Disclosure – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the NZ/US Treaty – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of ss 22, 24, 25 and 102(1)(e)(i) of the Extradition Act 1999 which allow for and contemplate disclosure – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the relevant Canadian and United States authorities – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the Criminal Disclosure Act 2007 did not apply in the extradition context – Whether the Court of Appeal erred, in relation to the cross-appeal, in determining that s 184B of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 procedure applies in the extradition context.[2013] NZCA 38    CA526/2012
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted. 
B  The approved ground is: was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that the disclosure orders made in the District Court and upheld by the High Court were wrongly made? 
16 May 2013
___________
Appeal dismissed.
Costs reserved

21 March 2014
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
DOTCOM, BATATO, ORTMANN and VAN DER KOLK v THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [2014] NZSC 24 [21 March 2014] (PDF, 755 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 30 July 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Blanchard JJ.
Case name
Vikram Kumar and Nirupama Kumar, Robert James Selwyn, Michael Donaldson and Patricia Bronwyn Donaldson v Station Properties Limited (in receivership and liquidation)
Case number
SC 39/2013
Summary
Contract interpretation – Essentiality of terms – Whether respondents breached essential terms of the contract – Repudiation of contract – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the respondents were entitled to cancel the contract with the applicants for repudiation and claim damages.  [2013] NZCA 90  CA 715/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved question is whether Station Properties Ltd was entitled to cancel the agreements for sale and purchase.
21 August 2013
_____________________
The appeal is allowed. The orders of Toogood J are reinstated.
The respondent must pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants collectively, together with reasonable disbursements.
The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is quashed.  Costs in that Court are to be fixed in light of this judgment.
15 October 2014   
_________________
A  The application for recall is dismissed.
B Costs of $10,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellants.
C The judgment of this Court of 15 October 2014 (Kumar v Station Properties [2014] NZSC 146) is reissued with the corrections and additions noted in the Appendix to this judgment.
1 April 2015
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
VIKRAM KUMAR AND NIRUPAMA KUMAR v STATION PROPERTIES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION AND IN RECEIVERSHIP) [2015] NZSC 34 [15 October 2014] (PDF, 421 KB)
Recall judgment
VIKRAM KUMAR AND NIRUPAMA KUMAR v STATION PROPERTIES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) [2015] NZSC 33 [1 April 2015] (PDF, 342 KB)
Transcripts

Hearing 12 November 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.

Hearing date recall : 8 December 2014
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Richard Heron and others
Case number
SC 45/2013
Summary
Recall of judgments – Whether the High Court’s decision erred in regards to the law governing the recall of judgments – Whether the Court of Appeal’s delay in processing the applicant’s appeal constitutes a breach of natural justice warranting a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.[2012] NZHC 2802   CIV 2012 404 4128
Dates

A  The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.

B  Any further applications to this Court that relate to the underlying High Court appeal at issue in these applications should not be accepted for filing.

C  Costs of $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary) are to be paid to the first and second respondents.

14 November 2013
Page 11 of 21