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.
31 July 2026
Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 131 KB)
All years
Case name
Rangitira Developments Limited v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated
Case number
SC 105/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in quashing the declarations and orders made by the High Court
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc v Rangitira Developments Ltd [2018] NZCA 445).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was in error in setting aside the declarations made at [86] of the judgment of the High Court (Rangitira Developments Ltd v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Ltd [2018] NZHC 146, (2018) ELRNZ 312).
20 February 2019
________________________________________________________
A Leave to appeal is revoked.
B Costs of $6,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the respondent.
C Leave is reserved to apply again for leave to appeal if the proposed appeal is no longer moot.
26 July 2019
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was in error in setting aside the declarations made at [86] of the judgment of the High Court (Rangitira Developments Ltd v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Ltd [2018] NZHC 146, (2018) ELRNZ 312).
20 February 2019
________________________________________________________
A Leave to appeal is revoked.
B Costs of $6,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the respondent.
C Leave is reserved to apply again for leave to appeal if the proposed appeal is no longer moot.
26 July 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 July 2019 (PDF, 131 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 66 (PDF, 125 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Case name
Commercial Factors Limited v Jeffrey Philip Meltzer, Lloyd James Hayward and Arron Leslie Heath
Case number
SC 111/2018
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the appellant funder was not entitled to payment according to the terms of its litigation funding agreement with the respondents as liquidators of Blue Chip New Zealand Ltd.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay to the respondents costs of $2,500.
27 February 2019
B The applicant must pay to the respondents costs of $2,500.
27 February 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Lodge Real Estate Limited, Monarch Real Estate Limited, Brian King and Jeremy O'Rourke v Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 116/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Commerce Act 1986, s 30 – Whether there must be a moral obligation for the purposes of price fixing – Whether there was an agreement to vendor fund – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the respondent’s appeal against the High Court’s decision.
Result
A An extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal is granted.
B Leave to appeal is granted (Commerce Commission v Lodge Real Estate Ltd [2018] NZCA 523) on the question whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the respondent’s appeal to that Court except as set out at C below.
C To the extent the application for leave seeks to argue that the respondent had not adequately pleaded and to appeal from the dismissal of the applicants’ cross appeal the application is dismissed.
19 March 2019
___________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements to the respondent.
2 April 2020
B Leave to appeal is granted (Commerce Commission v Lodge Real Estate Ltd [2018] NZCA 523) on the question whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the respondent’s appeal to that Court except as set out at C below.
C To the extent the application for leave seeks to argue that the respondent had not adequately pleaded and to appeal from the dismissal of the applicants’ cross appeal the application is dismissed.
19 March 2019
___________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements to the respondent.
2 April 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 21-22 August 2019 (PDF, 839 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 25 (PDF, 68 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Chatfield & Co Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 9/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Discovery – s 10 Judicature Amendment Act 1972 – Did the Court of Appeal err in deciding documents exchanged pursuant to a Double Taxation Agreement were not discoverable in judicial review proceedings?
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent. 11 April 2017
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent. 11 April 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Craig Duthie and Kirsten Taylor-Ruiterman, and DRK Chartered Accountants Limited v Denise Michelle Roose, and Denise Developments Limited, and DMR Development Limited
Case number
SC 10/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the causes of action brought by the respondents in tort were not time barred.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Roose v Duthie [2016] NZCA 600).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the cause of action in tort accrued when the agreement for sale and purchase between Denise Developments Ltd and DMR Development Ltd was settled rather than when the agreement became unconditional.
2 May 2017
___________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are to pay costs of $25,000 to the respondents and reasonable disbursements.
6 October 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the cause of action in tort accrued when the agreement for sale and purchase between Denise Developments Ltd and DMR Development Ltd was settled rather than when the agreement became unconditional.
2 May 2017
___________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are to pay costs of $25,000 to the respondents and reasonable disbursements.
6 October 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 August 2017 (PDF, 577 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 152 (PDF, 266 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Substantive judgment
Case name
Anna Elizabeth Osborne and Sonya Lynne Rockhouse v Worksafe New Zealand and District Court at Wellington
Case number
SC 23/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the first respondent had not exercised its prosecutorial discretion unlawfully or unreasonably – Whether the dismissal of charges by the second respondent was ultra vires because the Judge hearing the matter had earlier recused herself from the proceedings.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Osborne v Worksafe New Zealand [2017] NZCA 11).
B Subject to the qualification discussed at [1], the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal to that Court.
19 June 2017
_______________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B A declaration is made that the decision of WorkSafe New Zealand to offer no evidence in the prosecution of Peter William Whittall was unlawful.
C Costs are reserved. The parties may file memoranda by 31 January 2018 if an order for costs is sought.
23 November 2017
B Subject to the qualification discussed at [1], the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal to that Court.
19 June 2017
_______________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B A declaration is made that the decision of WorkSafe New Zealand to offer no evidence in the prosecution of Peter William Whittall was unlawful.
C Costs are reserved. The parties may file memoranda by 31 January 2018 if an order for costs is sought.
23 November 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 October 2017 (PDF, 241 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 175 (PDF, 272 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
AN v Bupa Care Services (New Zealand) Limited
Case number
SC 24/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Habeas Corpus Act 2001 – Whether the High Court erred in finding the applicant’s detention lawful.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The application for leave to allow the publication of the applicant’s name and identifying particulars is dismissed.
C There is no order for costs. 12 April 2017 _____ The application for recall is dismissed.
1 May 2017
B The application for leave to allow the publication of the applicant’s name and identifying particulars is dismissed.
C There is no order for costs. 12 April 2017 _____ The application for recall is dismissed.
1 May 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Wellington International Airport Limited v New Zealand Airline Pilots' Association Industrial Union of Workers Incorporated and Director of Civil Aviation
Case number
SC 26/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Civil Aviation Rules, Part 139 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the term “practicable” in Part 139 of the Civil Aviation Rules – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its consideration of the matters that the Director of Civil Aviation may take into account.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (New Zealand Air Line Pilots' Association Industrial Union of Workers Inc v Director of Civil Aviation and Wellington International Airport Ltd [2017] NZCA 27).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the first respondent’s appeal to that Court.16 May 2017
________________________
A The appeals are dismissed.
B The Director of Civil Aviation and Wellington International Airport Limited are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $30,000 to the New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association Industrial Union of Workers Incorporated, plus 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 correct to allow the first respondent’s appeal to that Court.16 May 2017
________________________
A The appeals are dismissed.
B The Director of Civil Aviation and Wellington International Airport Limited are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $30,000 to the New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association Industrial Union of Workers Incorporated, plus reasonable disbursements to be determined by the Registrar if necessary. We allow for second counsel.
21 December 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 24 - 25 August 2017 (PDF, 506 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 199 (PDF, 316 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Director of Civil Aviation v New Zealand Airline Pilots' Association Industrial Union of Workers Incorporated and Wellington International Airport Limited
Case number
SC 30/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Civil Aviation Rules, Part 139 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the term “practicable” in Part 139 of the Civil Aviation Rules – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its consideration of the matters that the Director of Civil Aviation may take into account.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (New Zealand Air Line Pilots' Association Industrial Union of Workers Inc v Director of Civil Aviation and Wellington International Airport Ltd [2017] NZCA 27).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the first respondent’s appeal to that Court.
16 May 2017
_________________
A The appeals are dismissed.
B The Director of Civil Aviation and Wellington International Airport Limited are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $30,000 to the New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association Industrial Union of Workers Incorporated, plus 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 correct to allow the first respondent’s appeal to that Court.
16 May 2017
_________________
A The appeals are dismissed.
B The Director of Civil Aviation and Wellington International Airport Limited are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $30,000 to the New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association Industrial Union of Workers Incorporated, plus reasonable disbursements to be determined by the Registrar if necessary. We allow for second counsel.
21 December 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 24 - 25 August 2017 (PDF, 506 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 199 (PDF, 316 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Midgen Enterprises Limited and David James Midgen v Water Guard NZ Limited
Case number
SC 32/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning the costs award of the High Court.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants are to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
9 May 2017
B The applicants are to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
9 May 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 26 of 78