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
Heartland Bank Limited (formerly Marac Finance Limited ) v Vero Liability Insurance Limited
Case number
SC 82/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Insurance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “clear intent” in crime risk insurance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the policy when assessing coverable loss. [2015] NZCA 288 CA 712/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicant to the respondent.
3 November 2015
3 November 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
B v C
Case number
SC 84/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Application for leave for a direct appeal from High Court – Whether the High Court erred in not declaring the proceedings as null and void due to the applicant’s diplomatic immunity – Whether the High Court erred in holding that the New Zealand Family Court is the appropriate forum in which to decide issues concerning the care and welfare of the applicant and the respondent’s children.[2015] NZHC 1595 CIV 2014 485 11245
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The application for interim relief is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
16 September 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Carter Holt Harvey Limited v Minister of Education, Secretary for Education, Ministry for Education, and Board of Trustees of Orewa Primary School
Case number
SC 93/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Negligence – Building Act 2004, s 392(2) limitation period – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the longstop limitation provision under s 393(2) of the Building Act does not apply to claims made in this proceeding – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding not to strike out the respondents’ claims in negligence against Carter Holt Harvey.[2015] NZCA 321 CA 238/2014
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal are granted (Carter Holt Harvey Ltd v Minister of Education [2015] NZCA 321, (2015) 14 TCLR 106).
B The approved grounds are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that:
(i) The claims in negligence are arguable;
(ii) The claims for negligent misstatement are not arguable; and(iii) Section 393 of the Building Act 2004 does not apply to the claims.
30 November 2015
____________________
A The appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
B The respondents’ cross-appeal is allowed.
C The order striking out the negligent misstatement cause of action is quashed.D The appellant must pay to the respondents (collectively) costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
29 July 2016
B The approved grounds are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that:
(i) The claims in negligence are arguable;
(ii) The claims for negligent misstatement are not arguable; and(iii) Section 393 of the Building Act 2004 does not apply to the claims.
30 November 2015
____________________
A The appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
B The respondents’ cross-appeal is allowed.
C The order striking out the negligent misstatement cause of action is quashed.D The appellant must pay to the respondents (collectively) costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
29 July 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 13 - 15 April 2016 (PDF, 1.5 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] 95 (PDF, 248 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Dion Edward Gurran v The Queen
Case number
SC 96/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in stating that the trial Judge’s reliability warning was sufficient for the purposes of s 122 of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not granting leave to adduce fresh evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial Judge adequately summarised the defence case to the jury. [2015] NZCA 347 CA 412/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
1 February 2016
1 February 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
John Grant Cuthers v The Queen
Case number
SC 99/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, ss 167(b) and 168(1)(a) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the High Court Judge was correct not to direct that jury that they had to be unanimous as to the applicant’ s knowledge.[2015] NZCA 366 CA 186/014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
22 August 2016
22 August 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Gary Owen Burgess v TSB Bank Limited
Case number
SC 100/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Mortgagee sale – Property Law Act 2007, s 119 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the notice issued under s 119 was not invalid – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondent did not have to specify the consequences of not remedying the default. [2015] NZCA 361 CA 47/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The applicant must pay the respondent costs on an indemnity basis.
3 February 2016
3 February 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Greenshell New Zealand Limited (in receivership) v Kennedy Bay Mussel Company (NZ) Limited
Case number
SC 104/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to exercise its discretion to grant relief from forfeiture of the deeds of lease and licence between the respondent and the applicant. [2015] NZCA 374 CA 3962014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Greenshell New Zealand Ltd (In Receivership) v Kennedy Bay Mussel Company (NZ) Ltd [2015] NZCA 374). B Leave to cross-appeal is also granted. C The approved grounds are: Was the Court of Appeal correct to find there was jurisdiction to grant the applicant relief against forfeiture of its rights under the deed of lease and deed of sub‑licence? If so, did the Court of Appeal err in declining to grant such relief?
24 November 2015
_____________
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
15 February 2016
24 November 2015
_____________
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
15 February 2016
Leave judgment - leave granted
High Court decision
Judgment appealed from
Hearing
12 April 2016
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ
Case name
Mobil Oil New Zealand Limited v Development Auckland Limited (formerly Auckland Waterfront Agency Limited)
Case number
SC 107/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal –– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the applicant’s contractual obligations to remediate contamination of land it had occupied. [2015] NZCA 390 CA 111/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Auckland Waterfront Development Agency Ltd v Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd [2015] NZCA 390).
B The approved questions are:
Did the “clean and tidy” clauses in the 1985 leases between Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd and the Auckland WaterfrontDevelopment Agency Ltd require Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd to remediate any hydrocarbon contamination of the leased land on termination of the leases?
If not, is Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd liable for the costs of remediating any such contamination on the basis that it breached an implied term in the leases not to commit waste?
If the answer to either (a) or (b) is “yes”, does the remediation obligation relate only to hydrocarbon contamination caused since 1985 or does it extend to contamination caused to the land since 1925?
20 November 2015
______________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the judgment of Katz J (including the costs orders made by her) is restored.
B Mobil is entitled to costs in respect of the appeal to the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court and to costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements in respect of the appeal to this Court.
20 July 2016
B The approved questions are:
Did the “clean and tidy” clauses in the 1985 leases between Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd and the Auckland WaterfrontDevelopment Agency Ltd require Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd to remediate any hydrocarbon contamination of the leased land on termination of the leases?
If not, is Mobil Oil New Zealand Ltd liable for the costs of remediating any such contamination on the basis that it breached an implied term in the leases not to commit waste?
If the answer to either (a) or (b) is “yes”, does the remediation obligation relate only to hydrocarbon contamination caused since 1985 or does it extend to contamination caused to the land since 1925?
20 November 2015
______________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the judgment of Katz J (including the costs orders made by her) is restored.
B Mobil is entitled to costs in respect of the appeal to the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court and to costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements in respect of the appeal to this Court.
20 July 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 April 2016 (PDF, 490 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 89 (PDF, 246 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Escrow Holdings Forty-One Limited and Kallina Limited v District Court at Auckland and Body Corporate 341188 and others
Case number
SC 108/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property Law Act 1952 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the land covenant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to give any weight to extrinsic evidence in the interpretation of the covenant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to give proper weight to the distinction between a covenant and an easement as distinguished in the Property Law Act. [2015] NZCA 393 CA 185/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Body Corporate 341188 v District Court at Auckland [2015] NZCA 393).
B The approved ground is:Does the Deed of Covenant (when read alongside the Memorandum of Encumbrance) confer on the registered proprietors of Lot 2 the exclusive right to use the area shown as “A” on the plan attached to the Deed of Covenant (area “A”) for the purposes of car parking and the right to use the right of way shown as “F” and “G” on the same plan to access area “A”?
C We make a direction that service on the fourteenth to thirty-ninth respondents be dispensed with.
10 December 2015
___________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the second to twelfth respondents costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements, to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We certify for two counsel.
20 December 2016
B The approved ground is:Does the Deed of Covenant (when read alongside the Memorandum of Encumbrance) confer on the registered proprietors of Lot 2 the exclusive right to use the area shown as “A” on the plan attached to the Deed of Covenant (area “A”) for the purposes of car parking and the right to use the right of way shown as “F” and “G” on the same plan to access area “A”?
C We make a direction that service on the fourteenth to thirty-ninth respondents be dispensed with.
10 December 2015
___________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the second to twelfth respondents costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements, to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We certify for two counsel.
20 December 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 28 June 2016 (PDF, 624 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 167 (PDF, 251 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Lindsay James Trevor Smallbone v George Paul London, Ian Neville Wishart, Howling at the Moon Publishing Limited, Paulette Merle London
Case number
SC 109/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court was correct to recall the original judgment issued post verdict in a civil jury trial for defamation – Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to order a retrial post verdict – Whether new evidence justified ordering a retrial.[2015] NZCA 391 CA 324/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the first and fourth respondents. 17 December 2015
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 37 of 78