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
Vikram Kumar and Nirupama Kumar, Robert James Selwyn, Michael Donaldson and Patricia Bronwyn Donaldson v Station Properties Limited (in receivership and liquidation)
Case number
SC 39/2013
Summary
Contract interpretation – Essentiality of terms – Whether respondents breached essential terms of the contract – Repudiation of contract – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the respondents were entitled to cancel the contract with the applicants for repudiation and claim damages. [2013] NZCA 90 CA 715/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved question is whether Station Properties Ltd was entitled to cancel the agreements for sale and purchase.
21 August 2013
_____________________
The appeal is allowed. The orders of Toogood J are reinstated.
The respondent must pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants collectively, together with reasonable disbursements.
The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is quashed. Costs in that Court are to be fixed in light of this judgment.
15 October 2014
_________________
A The application for recall is dismissed.
B Costs of $10,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellants.
C The judgment of this Court of 15 October 2014 (Kumar v Station Properties [2014] NZSC 146) is reissued with the corrections and additions noted in the Appendix to this judgment.
1 April 2015
21 August 2013
_____________________
The appeal is allowed. The orders of Toogood J are reinstated.
The respondent must pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants collectively, together with reasonable disbursements.
The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is quashed. Costs in that Court are to be fixed in light of this judgment.
15 October 2014
_________________
A The application for recall is dismissed.
B Costs of $10,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellants.
C The judgment of this Court of 15 October 2014 (Kumar v Station Properties [2014] NZSC 146) is reissued with the corrections and additions noted in the Appendix to this judgment.
1 April 2015
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 146 (PDF, 266 KB)
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Transcripts
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Savvy Vineyards 3552 Limited and Savvy Vineyards 4334 Limited v Kakara Estate Limited and Weta Estate Limited
Case number
SC 44/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Contract Interpretation – Whether transfer of agreements to appellants by original contracting parties constituted an assignment or novation – Whether respondents’ actions were indicative of consent to novation by conduct – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the notices of termination issued by the respondents’ in respect of agreements were valid. [2013] NZCA 101 CA 178/2013
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the applicants had not, by novation, been substituted for Goldridge Estate Ltd in respect of the management and supply agreements in issue in the proceedings.
17 July 2013
_______________________________
A The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the judgment of Andrews J is restored.
B In this Court, the appellants are entitled to costs of $25,000 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
C In the Court of Appeal, the appellants are entitled to costs and disbursements to be fixed by that Court.
5 September 2014
The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the applicants had not, by novation, been substituted for Goldridge Estate Ltd in respect of the management and supply agreements in issue in the proceedings.
17 July 2013
_______________________________
A The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the judgment of Andrews J is restored.
B In this Court, the appellants are entitled to costs of $25,000 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
C In the Court of Appeal, the appellants are entitled to costs and disbursements to be fixed by that Court.
5 September 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 13 February 2014 (PDF, 392 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 121 (PDF, 91 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Napier Tool & Die Limited v Oraka Technologies Limited and others
Case number
SC 46/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Intellectual Property – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in equating respondents’ effort in devising their product with level of protection available under copyright law for respondents’ copyright works – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the test for breach of copyright by divorcing the substantiality enquiry from enquiries into objective similarity and causation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in remitting proceeding to High Court for enquiry into damages and should have directed determination of respondents’ loss based on quantum evidence led at trial.[2013] NZCA 171 CA 271/2011
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.The applicant must pay the respondents (collectively) costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.
12 September 2013
12 September 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Worldwide NZ LCC v New Zealand Venue and Event Management Limited
Case number
SC 50/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908, s 87 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that under s 87 a court may award interest on a debt only from the date on which the debt is ascertained or becomes immediately ascertainable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the price payable for the “B” units and shares, being their fair market value, was not an ascertainable debt under s 87 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that a cause of action for recovery of the unascertained debt did not arise until after determination of the value of the units and shares – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting “debt or damages” – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by concluding, in effect, that the equitable principle requiring a purchaser in possession to pay interest to an unpaid vendor did not come within s 87 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by concluding, in effect, that the applicant’s pleaded claim asserting rights pursuant to a vendor’ s lien was disentitling conduct preventing it from receiving interest for the period during which the respondent enjoyed the benefits of owning the units and shares.[2013] NZCA 130 CA 834/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was in error in not awarding interest on the value fixed in respect of the “B” units and shares
11 October 2013
__________________
A The appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court relating to interest is re-instated.
B The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellant, plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
B The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is set aside. If costs cannot be agreed in the Court of Appeal they should be set by that Court in light of this judgment.
11 August 2014
11 October 2013
__________________
A The appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court relating to interest is re-instated.
B The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellant, plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
B The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is set aside. If costs cannot be agreed in the Court of Appeal they should be set by that Court in light of this judgment.
11 August 2014
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 108 (PDF, 93 KB)
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Allied Concrete Limited v Jeffrey Philip Meltzer and Lloyd James Hayward as liquidators of Window Holdings Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 51/2013
Summary
Companies Act 1993, s 296 – Whether the High Court erred in finding that the giving of value in terms of s 296(3)(c) of the Companies Act 1993 does not include value given at the time the antecedent debt is created – Whether the giving of time to pay was “giving value” for the purposes of the Act – Whether release or discharge of a liability for prior indebtedness is “value” for the purpose of s 296(3)(c). [2013] NZHC 977 Civ 2012 404 3170
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved question is whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal (as the case may be) was correct to conclude that the payments made to Allied Concrete Ltd, Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Ltd and Fences and Kerbs Ltd should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them accordingly.
24 October 2013
____________________
A The appeals are allowed.
B The applications of the liquidators for the transactions to be voided are dismissed.
C The respondents in each appeal must pay costs of $10,000 to the appellant in the relevant appeal, plus the appellant’s reasonable disbursements.
D Absent agreement between the parties, costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be fixed by those Courts in light of this judgment.
18 February 2015
The approved question is whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal (as the case may be) was correct to conclude that the payments made to Allied Concrete Ltd, Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Ltd and Fences and Kerbs Ltd should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them accordingly.
24 October 2013
____________________
A The appeals are allowed.
B The applications of the liquidators for the transactions to be voided are dismissed.
C The respondents in each appeal must pay costs of $10,000 to the appellant in the relevant appeal, plus the appellant’s reasonable disbursements.
D Absent agreement between the parties, costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be fixed by those Courts in light of this judgment.
18 February 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 18 March 2014 (PDF, 387 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 7 (PDF, 255 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Stuart Murray Wilson v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 52/2013
Summary
Extended supervision order – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to hold that the High Court’s determination of the Chief Executive of the Department of Correction’s application for an extended supervision order was premature – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding the High Court did have a proper basis for making the extended supervision order.[2013] NZCA 144 CA 482/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 August 2013.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner and others
Case number
SC 55/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Review of a Registrar’s decision – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to address whether the Court of Appeal Registrar has power to refuse an application for filing a notice of appeal or review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Court of Appeal’s review powers under s 61A(2) of the Judicature Act 1908 are expressly limited to orders made by a single Judge pursuant to s 61A(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding there is no power for the Court to review decisions made under s 61A(3).[2013] NZCA 205 CA 422/2012
Dates
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements (to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar) to the first respondent.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements (to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar) to the first respondent.
14 October 2013
Case name
Zurich Australian Insurance Limited trading as Zurich New Zealand v Cognition Education Limited
Case number
SC 58/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Arbitration Act 1996 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by finding that the test for whether there is a dispute for the purposes of a stay application under Article 8 of the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act 1996 is whether there is an “arguable defence” and, as such, is the inverse of the test to apply for a summary judgment.[2013] NZCA 180 CA 867/2012
Result
Was the Court of Appeal correct to conclude that there will be no dispute for the purposes of art 8(1) of the First Schedule to the Arbitration Act 1996 unless the defendant has an arguable basis for disputing the plaintiff’s claim as is sufficient to resist an application for summary
_______________
Appeal allowed.
19 December 2014
_______________
Appeal allowed.
19 December 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 9 October 2013 (PDF, 376 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 188 (PDF, 196 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
Harmon Lynn Wilfred, Carolyn Dare Wilfred Wilfred, Angela Marie Smalley, La Famia No 1 Limited, La Famia No 4 Limited v Kaiwan Gan and Yuzhen Yu
Case number
SC 65/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Stay of proceedings – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s decision to discharge a stay – Whether there has been a breach of the appellants’ right to due process to have its case heard on appeal – Whether the appellants have been deprived of their rights to natural justice and fairness.[2013] NZCA 295 CA 184/2013
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The application for a stay is dismissed.
The applicants are to pay to the respondents costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
26 July 2013
Case name
Te Rünanga-ä-iwi-o Ngäti Kahu v Far North District Council, Carrington Farms Limited, Carrington Estate Limited, Carrington Resort Limited.
Case number
SC 66/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management – Resource Management Act 1991, ss 91, 94C, 104 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 94C – Whether the Court of Appeal misinterpreted the decision of the Supreme Court in Westfield (New Zealand) v North Shore City Council [2005] NZSC 17, [2005] 2 NZLR 597 – Whether the Court of Appeal incorrectly applied its decision in Queenstown Lakes District Council v Hawthorn Estates Ltd [2006] NZRMA 424 (CA) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the settlement agreement. [2013] NZCA 221 CA 705/2011; CA 706/2011; CA 54/2012; CA 56/2012.
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.The approved grounds of appeal are:
(a) In relation to the land use consent application:
(i) Whether or not “special circumstances” existed such that the Far North District Council had discretion in terms of s 94C(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991 to notify the application for the land use consent;
(ii) Whether or not the authority made a reviewable error in exercising that discretion; and
(iii) What degree of scrutiny is appropriate when reviewing non-notification decisions.
(b) In relation to the subdivision consent application, whether or not the unimplemented land use consent should have been taken into account, when determining the application for the subdivision consent, as part of:
(i) The “environment” under s 104(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991; or
(ii) The permitted baseline under s 104(2).
(c) Whether the Court of Appeal’ s interpretation of the settlement agreement was correct.
2 December 2013
_____________________________________________
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
20 January 2015.
(a) In relation to the land use consent application:
(i) Whether or not “special circumstances” existed such that the Far North District Council had discretion in terms of s 94C(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991 to notify the application for the land use consent;
(ii) Whether or not the authority made a reviewable error in exercising that discretion; and
(iii) What degree of scrutiny is appropriate when reviewing non-notification decisions.
(b) In relation to the subdivision consent application, whether or not the unimplemented land use consent should have been taken into account, when determining the application for the subdivision consent, as part of:
(i) The “environment” under s 104(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991; or
(ii) The permitted baseline under s 104(2).
(c) Whether the Court of Appeal’ s interpretation of the settlement agreement was correct.
2 December 2013
_____________________________________________
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
20 January 2015.
Leave judgment - leave granted
Page 46 of 78