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
Paul Robert Devcich and others v AMI Insurance Limited
Case number
SC 78/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Insurance – Arson – Applicant claims indemnification against respondent insurer for fire damage and stolen property in respect of deliberately started fire at his Auckland property – Whether Court of Appeal correct to find on civil standard of proof that applicant himself responsible for starting fire – Whether Court of Appeal wrong to find that High Court’s approach did not apply an appropriate standard of proof and imposed too high a standard for respondent to meet – Whether Court of Appeal did not defer appropriately to High Court’s factual findings.[2011] NZCA 266   CA 522/2010
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 to the respondent.
30 August 2011.
Case name
NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Company v New Zealand Milk Brands Limited
Case number
SC 79/2011
Summary
Civil – Intellectual Property – Trademark registration – Trade Marks Act 2002 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in not allowing registration of appellant’s mark in relation to tea, cocoa, chocolate, artificial coffee, flavourings for beverages and non-dairy creamer – Whether Court of Appeal misdirected itself on “similar goods” in the context of s 25(1)(b) and (c) of the Trade Marks Act 2002 – Relevance of test in British Sugar Plc v James Robertson & Sons Ltd [1996] RPC 281 (Ch) under the Trade Marks Act 2002. [2011] NZCA 264   CA 25/2009
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $2,500. 

22 September 2011
Case name
Otehei Bay Holdings Limited and Explore NZ (2004) Limited v Fuller Bay of Islands Limited, Intercity Group (NZ) Limited and Minister of Conservation
Case number
SC 85/2011
Summary
Civil – Reserves and Domains Act 1953 – Reserves Act 1977 – Conservation Act 1987, Part 3B – That the appellants’ lease was not brought within the jurisdiction of the Reserves and Domains Act 1953 when the Crown acquired Urupukapuka Island (where the appellant’s leasehold is situated) as a recreation reserve – That s 59A of the Reserves Act 1977 does not apply to the appellants’ lease, and no concession under Part 3B of the Conservation Act 1987 is required to render the appellant’ s lease lawful.[2011] NZCA 300    CA 57/2010, CA 684/2010
Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B  The approved grounds of appeal are:
(i) Was the lease at Otehei Bay brought within the jurisdiction of the Reserves and Domains Act 1953 upon the Crown’ s acquisition of Urupukapuka Island as a recreation reserve in 1970?
(ii)  Does s 59A of the Reserves Act 1977, as inserted by the Reserves Amendment Act 1996, apply to the lease at Otehei Bay?
C The approved grounds are intended to comprehend the sub issues referred to in the submissions of the third respondent dated 15 September, namely:
(i) Is the lease a perpetually renewable lease which has been extended since its creation, or is it one where a new lease has been entered into each time it has been extended or renewed?
(ii)  What is the effect of the 10 to 15 year period where the lease may not have been renewed by the parties?

29 September 2011.
Hearing

Notice of abandonment being filed, the appeal  is deemed to be dismissed.

26 July 2012.
Case name
Specialized Bicycle Components Inc v Sheppard Industries Ltd and Avanti Bicycle Company Ltd
Case number
SC 91/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Evidence – Scope of privilege for settlement negotiations or mediation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of s 57 of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal gave proper effect to the mediation agreement and confidentiality agreement between the parties – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the respondents could adduce particular affidavit evidence and evidence of what occurred during the course of mediation.[2011] NZCA 346 CA 805/2010
Result
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the appeal  is deemed to be dismissed.
Dates

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved ground is whether the respondents are precluded by the terms of the mediation agreement and/or the confidentiality agreement from adducing the disputed evidence.

12 October 2011.
Case name
Robert Michael Symons, Gregory John Symons and others v Wiltshire Investments Limited
Case number
SC 92/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Appeal against Court of Appeal upholding a summary decision of the High Court – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the refusal by the respondents to produce critical relevant documents that are in the respondent’s sole possession did not constitute a failure by the respondent to discharge the onus on a summary judgment application to establish that the appellants had no arguable defence – Whether the use of residual discretion to refuse an application for summary judgment under r 12.2 of the High Court Rules was justified – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the confidentiality can be a valid ground for refusal to disclose relevant documentation to the Court and the defendants in a summary judgment application. [2011] NZCA 397 CA 534/2010
Result
Leave to appeal is granted in relation to the indebtedness associated with Opus Fintek Ltd (in receivership). The approved question is whether the Associate Judge ought to have entered summary judgment despite the non disclosure of the 2009 settlement agreement between Opus Fintek Ltd and Hats Holdings Ltd.
17 November 2011
_________________________________
A Leave to appeal is extended to cover the indebtedness of Fibroin Initiatives Ltd.
B The appeal is allowed with the result that the entry of summary judgment is set aside but with leave reserved to the respondent to seek summary judgment once it has disclosed the settlement agreement to the appellants.
C The awards of costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside. 9 August 2012
___________________________________
17 October 2012: 
Judgment recalled and reissued.  A Leave to appeal is extended to cover the indebtedness of Fibroin Initiatives Ltd.
B The appeal is allowed with the result that the entry of summary judgment is set aside.
C Upon disclosure of the settlement agreement to the appellants, the application for summary judgment is, at the option of the respondent, to be reheard in the High Court with the appellants at liberty to resist the claim (and, if they think appropriate, produce additional evidence) on the basis of (i) defences associated with, or arising out of the disclosure of the settlement agreement and (ii), subject to the leave of the High Court being obtained, on any other basis. The appellants are also at liberty to make such interlocutory applications to the High Court as they see fit. D The awards of costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.
Leave judgment - leave granted
sc 92 2011 symons v wiltshire investments ltd (PDF, 10 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 17 April 2012

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ
Case name
Rodney Mark Gibson and Habode IP Limited v Richard John Curtis and Curtis Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 94/2011
Summary
Civil – Existence of Joint Venture – Jurisdiction – Judicature Act 1908, s66 – Costs – Whether Court of Appeal exceeded its jurisdiction by hearing argument not put in issue in High Court as to existence of joint venture – Whether Court of Appeal made factual findings inconsistent with evidence presented, particularly as to the Australian company Habode Holdings Ltd – Whether Court of Appeal made factual findings for which there was no evidential basis – Whether Court of Appeal misapplied the test for determining imposition of joint venture obligations – Whether correct approach taken to costs. [2011] NZCA 373  CA 368/2010 CA 285/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal declined. Costs to respondent $2,500.
Case name
Luaiava Fagalilo v Seneti Time
Case number
SC 102/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Trusts – The Green Valley Church Assembly formed in 1984 and was formally affiliated with Assemblies of God in New Zealand Incorporated (AOGNZ) – The church set up a trust to own their church property in 1985 – The Trust Deed specified that trustees could not act inconsistently with the AOGNZ Constitution and Rules – The Constitution stated that no member church could also hold a certificate of membership with another organised body with a distinct constitution – A schism in the church occurred in 2005 when the Samoan Assemblies of God New Zealand (SAOG), which some church members were affiliated with, incorporated – Trustees who were affiliated with the SAOG were not acting in accordance with the Trust Deed – Appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal requiring an election by the members of the church affiliated with the AOGNZ of persons to be nominated as trustees – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by effectively giving full control of church property to members affiliated with the AOGNZ – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not obliging the respondent to enter into dialogue aimed at settlement of the parties’ differences –   Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to consider the existence of constructive trusts whereby the Trust Board holds its assets in trust for the people who paid for them or otherwise contributed to them since acquisition.  [2010] NZCA 402   CA 191/2010
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs payable by the applicant to the respondent of $2,500.
16 April 2012.
Case name
Shelley Anne Francis Mitchell v Trustees Executors Limited
Case number
SC 115/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Summary judgment against guarantor of defaulted loan – That the respondent breached its duty to act fairly in relation to the sale and letting of the mortgaged property, in particular through its non-compliance with the Property Law Act 2007, and the appellant therefore has a defence to the action – That this conduct entitles the appellant to re-open the loan contract for oppression.[2011] NZCA 519   CA 217/2010
Dates
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
1 March 2012.
Case name
Christine Mary Herron and another v Westpac New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 121/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of a witness’s credibility – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its treatment of evidence that was allegedly of a hearsay character – Whether the respondent breached any of its obligations in relation to putting relevant evidence (allegedly in its possession) before the Court.[2011] NZCA 544  CA 505/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs $2,500 to  the respondent.
17 February 2012.
Case name
Station Properties Limited (in liquidation) v Shane Arthur Paget
Case number
SC 122/2011
Summary
[2011] NZCA 570  CA 36/2010
Dates
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the appeal for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
13 February 2012
Page 55 of 78