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
John Frederick Ericson v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 55/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Habeas Corpus – Whether the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections holds a valid warrant of commitment for imprisonment in respect of the applicant. [2015] NZCA 199 CA 241/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
29 June 2015
29 June 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Kenneth Angus Holmes and others v Kiriwai Consultants Limited
Case number
SC 56/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 2003, s 149 – Whether Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to make a finding on fact-based fiduciary duty – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding existence of fact-based fiduciary duty – Whether Court of Appeal erred in determining the fair value of shares.[2015] NZCA 149 CA 201/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent. The liability of the applicants is joint and several.
4 August 2015
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent. The liability of the applicants is joint and several.
4 August 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
John Gilbert and QSM Trustee Ltd (in receivership and in liquidation) v Body Corporate 162791
Case number
SC 59/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Gilbert was personally liable to pay certain body corporate levies under s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Gilbert’s liability was not limited or excused under s 32(7) of the Act.[2015] NZCA 185 CA 213/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert [2015] NZCA 185).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i) to hold that the first applicant was personally liable under s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 to pay body corporate levies to the respondent in relation to the second applicant’s units; and
(ii) to find that the first applicant had no arguable claim for relief from personal liability under s 32(7) of the Act.
4 September 2015
_______________
A The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.
B There is no order for costs.
2 June 2016
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i) to hold that the first applicant was personally liable under s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 to pay body corporate levies to the respondent in relation to the second applicant’s units; and
(ii) to find that the first applicant had no arguable claim for relief from personal liability under s 32(7) of the Act.
4 September 2015
_______________
A The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.
B There is no order for costs.
2 June 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 December 2015 (PDF, 393 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 61 (PDF, 250 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
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
Case name
Susan Marie Heazlewood v Memorial Avenue Investments Limited
Case number
SC 66/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976, s 42 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicant’s notices under s 42 of the Property (Relationship) Act 1976 against the respondent’ s properties were not sustainable. [2015] NZCA 213 SC 644/2014
Result
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed. 13 August 2015
Judgment appealed from
Case name
John Gilbert Sturgess v Robert Mark Patrick Dunphy, Greymouth Holdings Limited and others
Case number
SC 73/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993, s 174 – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to not uphold the High Court order that the applicant’ s shares in the joint venture are to be sold at fair market value. [2015] NZCA 265 CA366/2013
Result
Notice of abandonment being filed, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed. 19 October 2015
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Trustpower Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 74/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Income Tax Act 2004, s DA 2 – Whether Court of Appeal correct to consider ground of reassessment irrelevant – Whether Court of Appeal made unsupported findings of fact – Whether Court of Appeal correct to find that Feasibility Expenditure was incurred on capital account.[2015] NZCA 253 CA830/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (CIR v Trustpower [2015] NZCA 253).
B The approved questions are:(a) was the Court of Appeal wrong to consider the ground of reassessment set out in the Reassessment letter as irrelevant, or was the Court otherwise acting outside its jurisdiction in determining the appeal? If not, was the Court of Appeal correct in its conclusions on s DA 1?(b) Despite stating that it proceeded on the basis of accepting the High Court’s findings of fact, were any aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgment based on findings for which there was no evidence before the Court and/or that was contradicted by the evidence before the Court? If so, what is the significance of this?(c ) What is the correct approach to determining whether the expenditure of the type at issue in this proceeding has been incurred on revenue or capital account, for the purposes of s DA 2(1) of the Act?(d) Was the Commissioner correct, or at least not in error, to select the date by which the applicant had decided to apply for a resource consent as the point at which its expenditure was sufficiently connected to the capital purpose of obtaining a resource consent to be on capital account?
11 September 2015
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Trustpower is to pay the Commissioner costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
27 July 2016
B The approved questions are:(a) was the Court of Appeal wrong to consider the ground of reassessment set out in the Reassessment letter as irrelevant, or was the Court otherwise acting outside its jurisdiction in determining the appeal? If not, was the Court of Appeal correct in its conclusions on s DA 1?(b) Despite stating that it proceeded on the basis of accepting the High Court’s findings of fact, were any aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgment based on findings for which there was no evidence before the Court and/or that was contradicted by the evidence before the Court? If so, what is the significance of this?(c ) What is the correct approach to determining whether the expenditure of the type at issue in this proceeding has been incurred on revenue or capital account, for the purposes of s DA 2(1) of the Act?(d) Was the Commissioner correct, or at least not in error, to select the date by which the applicant had decided to apply for a resource consent as the point at which its expenditure was sufficiently connected to the capital purpose of obtaining a resource consent to be on capital account?
11 September 2015
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Trustpower is to pay the Commissioner costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
27 July 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 - 10 March 2016 (PDF, 1.4 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 91 (PDF, 246 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Kyburn Investments Limited v Beca Corporate Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 77/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of the applicant’s application to have an arbitral award set aside. [2015] NZCA 290 CA 130/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
21 October 2015
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
21 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
HHR Christchurch NTL Limited v Crystal Imports Limited and Allianz New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 78/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicant and second respondent were estopped from denying that the first respondent’s interest in the relevant property was insured – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the second cause of action, estoppel, was appropriate for summary judgment.Civil Appeal/Cross Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the first respondent’ s first cause of action (a declaration that it was insured under the relevant insurance policy) was not appropriate for summary judgment.[2015] NZCA 283 CA 734/2013
Result
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the applications for leave to appeal and cross appeal are deemed to be dismissed. 18 September 2015
Case name
Allianz New Zealand Limited and HHR Christchurch NTL Limited v Crystal Imports Limited and Allianz New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 81/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the second cause of action, estoppel, was appropriate for summary judgment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the law of estoppel [2015] NZCA 283 CA 734/2013
Result
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed. 18 September 2015
Page 36 of 78