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
Peter Gerard Stockman v NZ Asscoiation of Counsellors Incorporated
Case number
SC 2/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal should have recalled its judgment ordering standard rather than indemnity costs – Whether judgments must directly refer to all submissions made by parties. [2015] NZCA 542 CA 669/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
There is no order for costs.
29 February 2016
_____
A The application for recall of the Court’s judgment in Stockman v New Zealand Association of Counsellors Inc [2016] NZSC 18 is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
7 April 2016
There is no order for costs.
29 February 2016
_____
A The application for recall of the Court’s judgment in Stockman v New Zealand Association of Counsellors Inc [2016] NZSC 18 is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
7 April 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
NZCA judgment appealed from
Case name
Garry Albert Muir and Peter Arnold Maude v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 6/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the applicants’ claims for tax deductions under sub-pt EH of the Income Tax Act 1994 are arguable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in awarding indemnity costs. [2015] NZCA 591 CA276/2016
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Muir v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2015] NZCA 591).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i) to find that the appellant could not arguably pursue claims for the 1999 and following tax years in reliance on sub-pt EH of the Income Tax Act 1994; and
(ii) to award costs on an indemnity basis against the appellant.
20 July 2016
______________
A The appellant’s application for leave to amend the grounds of appeal is dismissed.
B Leave to appeal is revoked.
C The appellant is to pay costs of $6,000 to the respondent, plus reasonable disbursements.
26 August 2016
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i) to find that the appellant could not arguably pursue claims for the 1999 and following tax years in reliance on sub-pt EH of the Income Tax Act 1994; and
(ii) to award costs on an indemnity basis against the appellant.
20 July 2016
______________
A The appellant’s application for leave to amend the grounds of appeal is dismissed.
B Leave to appeal is revoked.
C The appellant is to pay costs of $6,000 to the respondent, plus reasonable disbursements.
26 August 2016
Date of hearing
22 August 2016
Judges
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJ
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Case name
Edward Thomas Booth v The Queen
Case number
SC 10/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against sentence. [2015] NZCA 603 CA 101/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Booth v R [2015] NZCA 603).B The approved question is whether the sentencing Judge was correct to structure the appellant’ s sentence in the way that he did, particularly as that sentence structure means that the time that the appellant spent on remand does not count towards his total period of imprisonment served or for parole eligibility purposes.
27 April 2016
__________________
A Mr Marino’s appeal is allowed. Costs are reserved.
B Mr Booth’s appeal is dismissed.
22 September 2016
27 April 2016
__________________
A Mr Marino’s appeal is allowed. Costs are reserved.
B Mr Booth’s appeal is dismissed.
22 September 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 July 2016 (PDF, 294 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 127 (PDF, 255 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
BOOTH v R [2016] NZSC 43 [27 April 2016] (PDF, 56 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
Robert Erwood v The Official Assignee
Case number
SC 13/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal overlooked material points and therefore erred in dismissing the application for extension of time and awarding costs against the applicant.[2015] NZCA 620 CA 168/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
16 May 2016
16 May 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
HC recall judgment
Case name
Auckland Council v Wendco (NZ) Limited and Wiri Licensing Trust
Case number
SC 14/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991, s 95E – Whether the Court of Appeal interpreted the phrase “related to” in s 95E too broadly – Whether the first respondent is an affected person in terms of the second respondent’s application for resource consent. [2015] NZCA 617 CA 379/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Wendco (NZ) Ltd v Auckland Council [2015] NZCA 617).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the Auckland Council was required to give Wendco (NZ) Ltd notification of the resource consent application made by the Wiri Licensing Trust.
16 June 2016
_____________________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the judgment of Peters J reinstated.
B Costs in the High Court are to be fixed in that Court.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal are to be fixed by that Court.
D In this Court, the first respondent is to pay the appellant costs of $10,000 and the second respondent costs of $5,000 along with, in both instances, reasonable disbursements.
17 July 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the Auckland Council was required to give Wendco (NZ) Ltd notification of the resource consent application made by the Wiri Licensing Trust.
16 June 2016
_____________________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the judgment of Peters J reinstated.
B Costs in the High Court are to be fixed in that Court.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal are to be fixed by that Court.
D In this Court, the first respondent is to pay the appellant costs of $10,000 and the second respondent costs of $5,000 along with, in both instances, reasonable disbursements.
17 July 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 November 2016 (PDF, 575 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 113 (PDF, 262 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Mangawhai Ratepayers’ and Residents’ Association Inc v Kaipara District Council
Case number
SC 15/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of ss 117–120 of the Local Government Act 2002 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the scope of the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Act 2013 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in awarding costs against the Association.[2015] NZCA 612 CA 331/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
3 May 2016
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
3 May 2016
High Court decision
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Janine Davina Sax v Luke Andrew Simpson and Luke Andrew Simpson and Janine Davina Sax as Trustees of the Luke and Janine Simpsons Family Trust
Case number
SC 16/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Registrar of that Court to refuse to dispense with security for costs in relation to an appeal to that Court. [2016] NZCA 3 CA 388/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are to be paid by the applicant to the first respondent.
17 February 2017
B Costs of $2,500 are to be paid by the applicant to the first respondent.
17 February 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
[2016] NZCA 3 Janine Davina Sax v Luke Andrew Simpson and Luke Andrew Simpson and Janine Davina Sax as Trustees of the Luke and Janine Simpsons Family Trust 27 January 2016 : not electronically available.
Case name
Ivan Vladimir Joseph Erceg v Lynette Therese Erceg and Darryl Edward Gregory as Trustees of Acorn Foundation Trust and Lynette Therese Erceg and Darryl Edward Gregory as Trustees of Independent Group Trust
Case number
SC 17/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal applied the correct test for requests by beneficiaries for access to trust documents – Whether the Court of Appeal applied the correct test for review of a trustee’ s decision – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court decision not to order disclosure of trust documents. [2016] NZCA 7 CA217/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZCA 7, [2016] 2 NZLR 622).
B The approved question is: Should the conclusion that disclosure not be made/required be set-aside?
17 June 2016
____________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay to the respondents costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar in the absence of agreement between the parties). We certify for two counsel.
8 March 2017
B The approved question is: Should the conclusion that disclosure not be made/required be set-aside?
17 June 2016
____________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay to the respondents costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar in the absence of agreement between the parties). We certify for two counsel.
8 March 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 1 September 2016 (PDF, 709 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 28 (PDF, 266 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
ERCEG v ERCEG [2017] NZSC 28 [8 March 2017] (PDF, 368 KB)
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Wayne Seymour Chapman
Case number
SC 18/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ordering costs against the applicant. [2016] NZCA 45 CA 855/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
29 April 2016
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
29 April 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
High Court decision
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Graham D’Arcy-Smith v Natural Habitats Limited
Case number
SC 19/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Employment Court erred in determining that the applicant was not an employee – Whether the Employment Court erred in not addressing a matter argued by the applicant.[2015] NZEmpC 123 ARC 57/14
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay costs of $500 to the respondent.
28 April 2016
The applicant must pay costs of $500 to the respondent.
28 April 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 60 of 107