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
Planet Kids Limited v Auckland Council
Case number
SC 5/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – frustration of purpose – whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and law in finding that the settlement agreement between the parties was frustrated by the termination of the lease held by the appellant under a clause of the deed of lease.[2012] NZCA 562 CA 58/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that Planet Kids Ltd was not entitled to summary judgment against the Auckland Council.
18 April 2013
____________
tbc
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that Planet Kids Ltd was not entitled to summary judgment against the Auckland Council.
18 April 2013
____________
tbc
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 June 2013 (PDF, 379 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2013] NZSC 147 (PDF, 84 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Terminals (NZ) Limited v The Comptroller of Customs
Case number
SC 6/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Customs and Excise Act 1996 – definition of “manufacture” – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the addition of small quantities of butane on which excise duty had previously been paid to imported motor spirit on which excise-equivalent duty had previously been paid constituted “manufacture”.[2012] NZCA 598 CA 366/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the activity conducted by the applicant constituted or involved the manufacture of motor spirit.
19March 2013 __________________ The appeal is dismissed. Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (to be determined by the Registrar if necessary) are to be paid to the respondent. We certify for two counsel. 6 December 2013
19March 2013 __________________ The appeal is dismissed. Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (to be determined by the Registrar if necessary) are to be paid to the respondent. We certify for two counsel. 6 December 2013
Transcript
Hearing dates : 5 and 6 August 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Gault JJ.
Case name
Philip Joseph Fava v Aral Property Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 8/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 – Whether a court is permitted to entertain an application when the party making the application is represented by a lawyer (or a firm including a lawyer) whose conduct is in issue in the proceedings in a manner contemplated by Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, r 13.5.3 – Whether a lawyer’s conduct will be in issue in proceedings for the purpose of r 13.5.3 where the case before the court protects or furthers the lawyer’s own interests.[2012] NZCA 585 CA 500/2012
Dates
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
8 May 2013.
Case name
John Anthony Osborne and Helen Osborne v The Auckland Council and the Weathertight Homes Tribunal
Case number
SC 9/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006, s 14(a) – Interpretation of “built” – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to hold that a dwellinghouse is “built” at the time it passes its final building inspection. [2012] NZCA 609 CA 650/2011
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved questions are:
(a) Is the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of s 14(a) of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 correct?
(b) Given the dismissal by the High Court of the appeal against the removal order, does s 95(2) of that Act preclude the granting of any remedy to the applicants?
1 May 2013
______________________
A The appeal is allowed with the result that the eligibility decision of the Tribunal chair is set aside and there is a declaration that the appellants’ claim is eligible.
B Leave is reserved to apply for further relief should that be necessary.
C In relation to this appeal, the appellants are awarded costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements against the first respondent. They are also awarded costs on the judicial review proceedings in the High Court and on the appeal to the Court of Appeal, in sums to be fixed by those courts.
10 June 2014
___________________
Application for further relief declined.
No order for costs.
29 September 2014
B The approved questions are:
(a) Is the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of s 14(a) of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 correct?
(b) Given the dismissal by the High Court of the appeal against the removal order, does s 95(2) of that Act preclude the granting of any remedy to the applicants?
1 May 2013
______________________
A The appeal is allowed with the result that the eligibility decision of the Tribunal chair is set aside and there is a declaration that the appellants’ claim is eligible.
B Leave is reserved to apply for further relief should that be necessary.
C In relation to this appeal, the appellants are awarded costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements against the first respondent. They are also awarded costs on the judicial review proceedings in the High Court and on the appeal to the Court of Appeal, in sums to be fixed by those courts.
10 June 2014
___________________
Application for further relief declined.
No order for costs.
29 September 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 November 2013 SC 9 2013 (PDF, 516 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 67 (PDF, 92 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
OSBORNE v AUCKLAND COUNCIL SC 9/2013 [1 May 2013] (PDF, 33 KB)
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Neal Medhurst Nicholls v The Queen
Case number
SC 10/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 220 – Theft by person in a special relationship – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial judge had applied the correct test for intention in relation to a s 220 charge – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Crown had established that the appellants knew that the relevant transactions were in breach of the relevant requirements beyond reasonable doubt. [2012] NZCA 610 CA 624/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
19 April 2013.
Case name
Wayne Leslie Douglas v The Queen
Case number
SC 11/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 220 – Theft by person in a special relationship – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial judge had applied the correct test for intention in relation to a s 220 charge – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Crown had established that the appellants knew that the relevant transactions were in breach of the relevant requirements beyond reasonable doubt. [2012] NZCA 610 CA 623/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
19 April 2013.
Case name
Independent Fisheries Limited and Clearwater Land Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 15/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister of Canterbury Earthquake Recovery had exercised his powers under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 (Act) for proper purposes – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister’ s exercise of powers under the Act did not infringe the principle that the executive should not deprive persons of access to the courts without explicit statutory authority. [2012] NZCA 601 CA 438/2012
Dates
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay by way of costs:
(a) the sum of $4,000 to the first respondent; and
(b) the sum of $4,000 to the second respondents –
plus, in each case, reasonable
18 April 2013
ase Number
SC 15/2013
Case name
BFSL 32007 Limited and others v Peter David Steigrad
Case number
SC 19/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Law Reform Act 1936, s 9 – Charge on insurance monies in favour of third parties paid to indemnify an insured in respect of insured’s liability to third party – Priority between a s 9 charge in favour of third party claimants and an uncharged claim to defence costs by directors of a company – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that a s 9 charge only attaches to the balance of the insurance money available to meet third party claims after any defence cost liability has been met – Whether question of priorities under s 9 is subject to contract of insurance.[2012] NZCA 604 CA 674/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is:
Did the Court of Appeal interpret s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 correctly?
15 April 2013
________________
The appeal is allowed.
The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants in SC 19/2013 plus usual disbursements (to be set by the Registrar, if necessary). We certify for two counsel.
23 December 2013
The approved ground is:
Did the Court of Appeal interpret s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 correctly?
15 April 2013
________________
The appeal is allowed.
The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants in SC 19/2013 plus usual disbursements (to be set by the Registrar, if necessary). We certify for two counsel.
23 December 2013
Media Releases
- MR [2013] NZSC 156 (PDF, 74 KB)
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Hearing date : 17 October 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, Glazebrook, Gault, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Chuan Wu v Body Corporate 366611 and Theta Management Limited
Case number
SC 20/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Damages – Whether the Court of Appeal, after upholding the High Court’s decision on liability in favour of the appellant, ought not to have remitted the calculation of damages payable to the appellant back to the High Court.[2012] NZCA 614 CA 402/2011
Result
Leave to appeal and cross appeal is granted. The approved questions are:
(a) Are the Body Corporate and Theta liable in nuisance and if so on what basis?
(b) What, if any orders, are appropriate as to damages?
3 May 2013
____________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of Asher J on the first cause of action is reinstated.
B The cross appeal is dismissed.
C The respondents are to pay to the appellant costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary).
9 October 2014
_______________
tc
(a) Are the Body Corporate and Theta liable in nuisance and if so on what basis?
(b) What, if any orders, are appropriate as to damages?
3 May 2013
____________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of Asher J on the first cause of action is reinstated.
B The cross appeal is dismissed.
C The respondents are to pay to the appellant costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary).
9 October 2014
_______________
tc
Transcripts
- Hearing date 7 November 2013 (PDF, 504 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 137 (PDF, 86 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Case name
Eric Meserve Houghton v AIG Insurance Limited and TEC Saunders and others
Case number
SC 21/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Law Reform Act 1936, s 9 – Charge on insurance monies in favour of third parties paid to indemnify an insured in respect of insured’s liability to third party – Priority between a s 9 charge in favour of third party claimants and an uncharged claim to defence costs by directors of a company – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that a s 9 charge only attaches to the balance of the insurance money available to meet third party claims after any defence cost liability has been met – Whether question of priorities under s 9 is subject to contract of insurance ¬– Whether Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the outcome of the Steigrad appeal (on appeal SC 19/2013) would dictate the outcome of this appeal. [2012] NZCA 604 CA 841/2011
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is: Did the Court of Appeal interpret s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 correctly?
15 April 2013.
____________________________________________
The appeal is allowed. The Court of Appeal’ s declaration in SC 21/2013 is set aside.
The respondents are to pay, jointly and severally, costs of $25,000 to the appellants in SC 21/2013 (to be set by the Registrar, if necessary). We certify for two counsel.
23 December 2013.
B The approved ground is: Did the Court of Appeal interpret s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 correctly?
15 April 2013.
____________________________________________
The appeal is allowed. The Court of Appeal’ s declaration in SC 21/2013 is set aside.
The respondents are to pay, jointly and severally, costs of $25,000 to the appellants in SC 21/2013 (to be set by the Registrar, if necessary). We certify for two counsel.
23 December 2013.
Date of hearing
17 October 2013
Judges
Elias CJ, McGrath, Glazebrook, Gault, Anderson JJ.
Page 44 of 78