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
Douglas Banks and Christine Sandra Banks v Grey District Council
Case number
SC 114/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a document sought to be discovered by the applicants was legally privileged – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the leases – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicants had failed to discharge the evidential burden as to fraudulent misrepresentation. [2015] NZCA 417 CA 460/2013; CA 667/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B Costs of $2,500 are payable to the respondent.
28 October 2015
______________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
11 November 2015
28 October 2015
______________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
11 November 2015
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Recall judgment
Case name
Jetstar Airways Limited v Richard Greenslade
Case number
SC 116/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000, s 69ZH(2) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the requirement for rest periods under the Australian Civil Aviation Order 48 was not a requirement for a rest break for the purposes of the Employment Relations Act.[2015] NZCA 432 CA 125/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
4 December 2015
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
4 December 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Employment Court decision
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Thomas Frederick Mazlin King and Judith Ruth King v PFL Finance Limited and Craig Becroft
Case number
SC 130/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – Receivership – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 18 of the Receivership Act 1993 and s 121 of the Property Law Act 2007 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its findings on causation of loss – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of compellability under the hearsay provisions of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether there was oppressive enforcement of a credit contract under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003.[2015] NZCA 517 CA 74/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. If the applicants are not legally aided, costs of $2,500 are payable to the respondents. If the applicants are legally aided, we make an order under s 45(5) of the Legal Services Act 2011 that, had the applicants not been legally aided, they would have been liable for costs of $2,500. 17 February 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Galvanising (HB ) Limited and others v John Howard Ross Fisk and Tony Wayne Pattison as liquidators of East Quip Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 132/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993, s 292 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 292(4B) of the Companies Act.[2015] NZCA 529 CA 69/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents
3 May 2016
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents
3 May 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Case name
Jeremy James McGuire v Wellington Standards Committee (No 1) and The Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal
Case number
SC 138/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Lawyers and Conveyances Act (Disciplinary Tribunal) Regulations 2008 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding the Wellington Standards Committee had jurisdiction to amend the charges against the appellant during the disciplinary hearing – Whether the unsatisfactory conduct charge was invalid – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s order on costs and disbursements.[2015] NZCA 569 CA 26/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 are payable to the First Respondent.
15 February 2016
_________________________________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
Costs $250.00 payable to the first respondent.
6 April 2016
_____________________________________
2nd application for recall dismissed. (direction)
12 April 2016
Costs of $2,500 are payable to the First Respondent.
15 February 2016
_________________________________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
Costs $250.00 payable to the first respondent.
6 April 2016
_____________________________________
2nd application for recall dismissed. (direction)
12 April 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
JCS Cost Management Ltd and Stephen Roy Johnston v QBE Insurance (International) Ltd
Case number
SC 141/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to interpreting the insurance policy.[2015] NZCA 524 CA 698/20014
Result
Leave to appeal JCS Cost Management Ltd v QBE Insurance (International) Ltd [2015] NZCA 524 is granted. The approved question is whether the majority in the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the putative liability did not arise out of conduct that occurred in connection with the insured’s Professional Business Practice.
4 April 2016
_____________
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
25 May 2016
4 April 2016
_____________
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
25 May 2016
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Quake Outcasts v The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, The Chief Executive of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, Fowler Developments Limited
Case number
SC 5/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Government had lawfully established the residential red zone in Christchurch through the use of its common law or third source powers – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the creation of the residential red zone did not affect the legal rights and liberties of the affected residents such that recourse to the third source was available – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Government’ s offers to purchase the properties of the applicants and the third respondent under s 53 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 (Act) could be implemented without compliance with the regime set out in the Act for a planned and co-ordinated earthquake recovery approach – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the different treatment of the applicants and third respondent was not in itself a reviewable error as there was a rational basis for differentiating between insured and uninsured land owners. [2013] NZCA 588 CA 571/2013
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal in SC 5/2014 and SC 8/2014 are granted.
B The questions on which leave is granted are:
Were the offers made by the Crown to Residential Red Zone property owners under s 53 of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 lawfully made? In particular:
(i) Was there a material failure to comply with the Act?
(ii) Was there a rational basis for the distinction drawn between those owners who were insured and those who were uninsured?
5 May 2014
__________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B There is a declaration that the September 2012 decisions relating to uninsured improved residential property owners and to vacant residential land owners in the red zones were not lawfully made.
C The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 and the respondent in SC 8/2014 are directed to reconsider their decisions in light of this judgment.
D Leave is reserved to apply for any supplementary or consequential orders.
E The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 are to pay to the appellants costs of $40,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for three counsel.
F The respondent in SC 8/2014 is to pay to the appellant costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 March 2015
B The questions on which leave is granted are:
Were the offers made by the Crown to Residential Red Zone property owners under s 53 of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 lawfully made? In particular:
(i) Was there a material failure to comply with the Act?
(ii) Was there a rational basis for the distinction drawn between those owners who were insured and those who were uninsured?
5 May 2014
__________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B There is a declaration that the September 2012 decisions relating to uninsured improved residential property owners and to vacant residential land owners in the red zones were not lawfully made.
C The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 and the respondent in SC 8/2014 are directed to reconsider their decisions in light of this judgment.
D Leave is reserved to apply for any supplementary or consequential orders.
E The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 are to pay to the appellants costs of $40,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for three counsel.
F The respondent in SC 8/2014 is to pay to the appellant costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 March 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 29 - 31 July 2014 (PDF, 1.2 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 27 (PDF, 162 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Glover No 2 Limited v The Glover Trust Limited, Bailey Trustee Services Limited and Auckland West Legal Services Limited, and CIT Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 6/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the partie’s intention to create the bare trust was unmistakeable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trust structure was used to achieve the best result for the beneficiaries of the Glover No 2 Trust – Whether the Court of Appeal erred when it held that the deed of bare trust was not severable from the other bundle of documents executed on the same day due to its status as a “rogue” document – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to consider the argument that it was against public policy to enforce this document.[2013] NZCA 608 CA 194/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Cost to the respondents $2,500.00
7 May 2014
7 May 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Paul Anthony Thompson v The Queen
Case number
SC 7/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a general challenge to the credibility of a witness is sufficient to satisfy a trial counsel’s duty to run a defendant’s alibi defence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial counsel’ s questions did not involve an implicit acceptance of facts.[2013] NZCA 640 CA 110/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
4 April 2014
4 April 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Fowler Developments Limited v The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, The Chief Executive of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority.
Case number
SC 8/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that there was a rational basis for the respondent, in making the September 2012 offer to purchase the applicant’s land, to differentiate between insured residential property owners and uninsured owners.[2013] NZCA 588 CA571/2013
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal in SC 5/2014 and SC 8/2014 are granted.
B The questions on which leave is granted are: Was the establishment of the Residential Red Zones in Christchurch lawful as being a legitimate exercise of any common law powers or “residual freedom” the Crown may have, given the terms of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011? Were the offers made by the Crown to Residential Red Zone property owners under s 53 of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 lawfully made? In particular: (i) Was there a material failure to comply with the Act? (ii) Was there a rational basis for the distinction drawn between those owners who were insured and those who were uninsured?
5 May 2014
____________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B There is a declaration that the September 2012 decisions relating to uninsured improved residential property owners and to vacant residential land owners in the red zones were not lawfully made.
C The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 and the respondent in SC 8/2014 are directed to reconsider their decisions in light of this judgment.
D Leave is reserved to apply for any supplementary or consequential orders.
E The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 are to pay to the appellants costs of $40,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for three counsel.
F The respondent in SC 8/2014 is to pay to the appellant costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 March 2015
B The questions on which leave is granted are: Was the establishment of the Residential Red Zones in Christchurch lawful as being a legitimate exercise of any common law powers or “residual freedom” the Crown may have, given the terms of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011? Were the offers made by the Crown to Residential Red Zone property owners under s 53 of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 lawfully made? In particular: (i) Was there a material failure to comply with the Act? (ii) Was there a rational basis for the distinction drawn between those owners who were insured and those who were uninsured?
5 May 2014
____________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B There is a declaration that the September 2012 decisions relating to uninsured improved residential property owners and to vacant residential land owners in the red zones were not lawfully made.
C The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 and the respondent in SC 8/2014 are directed to reconsider their decisions in light of this judgment.
D Leave is reserved to apply for any supplementary or consequential orders.
E The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 are to pay to the appellants costs of $40,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for three counsel.
F The respondent in SC 8/2014 is to pay to the appellant costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 March 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 29 31 July 2014 (PDF, 1.2 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 27 (PDF, 162 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 38 of 78