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
Fiona Caroline Graham v Queenstown Lakes District Council
Case number
SC 85/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Building Act 2004 – Whether the High Court erred in classifying the residential building as other than a single household unit – Whether High Court erred in holding that the C/AS1 purpose group SA was the appropriate proxy to meet the Building Code fire safety requirements for a residential building – Whether the High Court failed to take proper account of the different criminal and civil standards of proof – Whether the convictions were based on improperly obtained evidence – Whether leave to adduce fresh evidence should be granted.[2012] NZHC 284
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 December 2014
23 December 2014
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner and others
Case number
SC 86/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908, s 61A(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to address the main ground of the appellant’ s application for an order under s 61A(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the relevant application was subject to the review of the Registrar – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Registrar was correct to conclude that the appellant did not meet the financial test – Whether the Chambers judgment will be an unsafe contradiction of prior directions given by the Supreme Court.[2014] NZCA 358 CA 173/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
9 October 2014
9 October 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Accent Management Limited v Attorney-General and Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 90/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Income Tax Act 1994 - Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to provide a remedy if a Judge attempting to calculate tax overlooks the direction in s EH 8(1) of the Income Tax Act 1994 that subpart EG and s DL 1(3) of that Act are not to apply, where failure to comply with them engages the Constitution Act 1986 and the Bill of Rights 1688 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court has jurisdiction to overlook the direction in s EH 8(1), whether in demanding tax or reviewing such a demand - Whether the proceeding involves substantial relitigation of issues already determined by the courts.[2014] NZCA 351 CA 541/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Costs are reserved. If the respondents wish to obtain orders for costs they should apply within 14 days setting out in detail the orders sought. If such applications are made, the applicants may respond within a further 14 days.
2 December 2014
_____________
We fix costs and disbursements in favour of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in the sum of $3,659.67.
8 June 2015
Costs are reserved. If the respondents wish to obtain orders for costs they should apply within 14 days setting out in detail the orders sought. If such applications are made, the applicants may respond within a further 14 days.
2 December 2014
_____________
We fix costs and disbursements in favour of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in the sum of $3,659.67.
8 June 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Supreme court decision
Case name
Mark Stephen Hotchin v The New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Limited and Perpetual Trust Limited
Case number
SC 92/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it is necessary for both tortfeasors to have a coordinate liability to the plaintiff on a claim for contribution against a co-tortfeasor under s 17(1)(c) of the Law Reform Act 1936 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the same contribution principles apply to both tort and equity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it was unarguable that the applicant and the respondents are potentially liable for the same damage suffered by investors – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant’s claim for equitable contribution is unarguable.[2014] NZCA 400 CA 494/2013
Result
A The application to appeal is granted (Hotchin v The New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Limited [2014] NZCA 400).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to uphold the striking out of Mr Hotchin’s third party claims against the respondents.
30 October 2014
_________________
A. The appeal is allowed.
B. Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellant. We certify for second counsel.
C. The costs orders in the High Court and the Court of Appeal are set aside.15 March 2016
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to uphold the striking out of Mr Hotchin’s third party claims against the respondents.
30 October 2014
_________________
A. The appeal is allowed.
B. Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellant. We certify for second counsel.
C. The costs orders in the High Court and the Court of Appeal are set aside.15 March 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 March 2015 (PDF, 561 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 24 (PDF, 405 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
William Elliot Hamilton and W E H Trustee Limited v Jane Mare Murrell
Case number
SC 95/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Relationship Breakdown – Property – Constructive Trust – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that trust property could be impressed with a constructive trust as a result of the conduct of a trustee who had de facto responsibility for the day-to-day running of a trust, with the co-trustee’s agreement – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that allowing the respondents claim did not alienate trust property or deprive the beneficiaries of the trust of something to which they were entitled – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that in all the circumstances, the trustees should reasonably expect to yield an interest in the trust property to the respondent and, accordingly, that the fourth element of a constructive trust over asserted relationship property was established. [2014] NZCA 377 CA 31/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay the respondent costs of $2,500, plus reasonable disbursements. 12 November 2014
The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay the respondent costs of $2,500, plus reasonable disbursements. 12 November 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Wilson Parking New Zealand Limited v Fanshawe 136 Limited, 136 Fanshawe Limited and Fanshawe Capital Limited
Case number
SC 98/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the approach adopted by Court of Appeal in determining the appropriate remedy in cases where an equitable estoppel was wrong in law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining the appropriate remedy in this case.[2014] NZCA 407 CA 24/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
1 December 2014
The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
1 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Elvis Heremia Teddy v New Zealand Poice
Case number
SC 101/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Maritime Transport Act 1994 – Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 65 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 applied extraterritorially to New Zealand ships – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the arrest powers in the Crimes Act 1961 empower the New Zealand Police to stop and board New Zealand ships and to arrest offenders extraterritorially.[2014] NZCA 422 CA 614/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
17 February 2015
17 February 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Zoggs International Limited v Sexwax Incorporated
Case number
SC 105/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Trade Marks Act 2002 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the test for comparing the existing and proposed trade marks under s 17(1)(a) of the Act –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider granting the applicant’s trade mark application in part – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning earlier findings of fact which were not plainly wrong.[2014] NZCA 311 CA 461/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500, plus reasonable disbursements. 2 March 2015
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500, plus reasonable disbursements. 2 March 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
QBE Insurance (International) Limited v Wild South Holdings Limited and Maxims Fashions Limited
Case number
SC 106/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the automatic reinstatement clauses in the insurance policies.[2014] NZCA 447 CA 776/2013
Result
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed. 12 November 2014
Case name
Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London and Sirius International Insurance Group Limited v Crystal Imports Limited
Case number
SC 107/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the automatic reinstatement clauses in the insurance policies.[2014] NZCA 447 CA 65/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicants must pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements (to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar).
16 December 2014
The applicants must pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements (to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar).
16 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 42 of 78