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.
19 June 2026
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 89 KB)
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 126 KB)
All years
Case name
Kim Dotcom v District Court at North Shore, Deputy Solicitor -General (Criminal) and Minister of Justice
Case number
SC 101/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the decision of the High Court to strike out the causes of action for judicial review.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the fourth respondent.
14 March 2019
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the fourth respondent.
14 March 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Mina Crichton v Carolyn Green, Jane Reidl-Moss and Steve Culpan
Case number
SC 103/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse to accept the applicant’s application for extension of time for filing her appeal to that Court.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no award of costs.
20 December 2018
B There is no award of costs.
20 December 2018
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Rangitira Developments Limited v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated
Case number
SC 105/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in quashing the declarations and orders made by the High Court
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc v Rangitira Developments Ltd [2018] NZCA 445).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was in error in setting aside the declarations made at [86] of the judgment of the High Court (Rangitira Developments Ltd v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Ltd [2018] NZHC 146, (2018) ELRNZ 312).
20 February 2019
________________________________________________________
A Leave to appeal is revoked.
B Costs of $6,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the respondent.
C Leave is reserved to apply again for leave to appeal if the proposed appeal is no longer moot.
26 July 2019
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was in error in setting aside the declarations made at [86] of the judgment of the High Court (Rangitira Developments Ltd v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Ltd [2018] NZHC 146, (2018) ELRNZ 312).
20 February 2019
________________________________________________________
A Leave to appeal is revoked.
B Costs of $6,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the respondent.
C Leave is reserved to apply again for leave to appeal if the proposed appeal is no longer moot.
26 July 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 July 2019 (PDF, 131 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 66 (PDF, 125 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Case name
Christian John Gillibrand and Mary Caecilia Gillibrand (as trustees of The Chris and Mary Gillibrand family trust) v George Peter Swanepoel
Case number
SC 106/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the admissibility of evidence under s 25 of the Evidence Act 2006.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
21 February 2019
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
21 February 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Gerardus Peter van Uden v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 108/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Income Tax Act 1994, s OE 1 – Meaning of “ permanent place of abode” –Taxation of income in New Zealand while working overseas – Whether the Court of Appeal was right to dismiss the applicant’s appeal against the High Court’s decision.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
19 March 2019
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
19 March 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Commercial Factors Limited v Jeffrey Philip Meltzer, Lloyd James Hayward and Arron Leslie Heath
Case number
SC 111/2018
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the appellant funder was not entitled to payment according to the terms of its litigation funding agreement with the respondents as liquidators of Blue Chip New Zealand Ltd.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay to the respondents costs of $2,500.
27 February 2019
B The applicant must pay to the respondents costs of $2,500.
27 February 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Lodge Real Estate Limited, Monarch Real Estate Limited, Brian King and Jeremy O'Rourke v Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 116/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Commerce Act 1986, s 30 – Whether there must be a moral obligation for the purposes of price fixing – Whether there was an agreement to vendor fund – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the respondent’s appeal against the High Court’s decision.
Result
A An extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal is granted.
B Leave to appeal is granted (Commerce Commission v Lodge Real Estate Ltd [2018] NZCA 523) on the question whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the respondent’s appeal to that Court except as set out at C below.
C To the extent the application for leave seeks to argue that the respondent had not adequately pleaded and to appeal from the dismissal of the applicants’ cross appeal the application is dismissed.
19 March 2019
___________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements to the respondent.
2 April 2020
B Leave to appeal is granted (Commerce Commission v Lodge Real Estate Ltd [2018] NZCA 523) on the question whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the respondent’s appeal to that Court except as set out at C below.
C To the extent the application for leave seeks to argue that the respondent had not adequately pleaded and to appeal from the dismissal of the applicants’ cross appeal the application is dismissed.
19 March 2019
___________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements to the respondent.
2 April 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 21-22 August 2019 (PDF, 839 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 25 (PDF, 68 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Linda Gallagher, Malcolm Edward Rabson as Trustee of the Malcolm Rabson Family Trust and Wayne Seymour Chapman as Trustee of the Gallagher-Rabson Family Trust
Case number
SC 3/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to decline the application for clarification of the orders in Rabson v Gallagher [2011] NZCA 669.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to each of the first and third respondents. 5 April 2017 ________________ The application for recall is dismissed. 4 May 2017
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to each of the first and third respondents. 5 April 2017 ________________ The application for recall is dismissed. 4 May 2017
Recall judgment
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner
Case number
SC 4/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court erred in striking out the applicant’s application for judicial review of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner’ s decision that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the applicant’ s complaint.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
27 March 2017
________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
9 May 2017
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
27 March 2017
________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
9 May 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
HC judgment appealed from
Case name
Gary Owen Burgess v Malley & Co
Case number
SC 5/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by declining to remove the respondent’s legal representatives
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500. 27 March 2017
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500. 27 March 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 53 of 107