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
Auckland Council and James Hardie New Zealand v Weathertight Homes Tribunal, and The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, and Body Corporate 19500, and Gefei Liang and Others
Case number
SC 72/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the effect of s 141(4) of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 is that the multi-unit complex claim does not need to independently meet the s 16(a) eligibility criterion for resolution – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the effect of s 141(4) of the 2006 Act is that all of the claimants represented in the multi-unit complex claim receive the benefit of the date the withdrawn claim was brought under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 for the purposes of s 37 of the 2006 Act.[2016] NZCA 256 CA552/2015, CA564/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants to the second respondent.
C Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants to the third and fourth respondents.
16 September 2016
B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants to the second respondent.
C Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants to the third and fourth respondents.
16 September 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Peter Anthony Williams v Trevor Nelson Cameron and Robin Whalley and Richards Woodhouse
Case number
SC 78/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining an application for extension of time to appeal, on the basis that the applicant alleges that the respondents’ lawyers have acted in breach of Rules of Conduct and Client Care. [2016] NZCA 317 CA136/2016
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed
B The applicant must pay the respondents costs of $2,500
5 September 2016
B The applicant must pay the respondents costs of $2,500
5 September 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Jeffrey Francis McClintock v The Attorney-General and Red Beach Board of Trustees
Case number
SC 79/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its decision to reinstate but stay the proceedings until satisfaction of specified conditions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to make an order for costs. [2016] NZCA 274 CA175/2016
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B We award costs of $1,000 to the second respondent.
4 October 2016
B We award costs of $1,000 to the second respondent.
4 October 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Green Growth No. 2 Limited v Queen Elizabeth The Second National Trust
Case number
SC 84/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the respondent was entitled to rectification of the covenant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the covenant was not invalid – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the respondent’s notification of the covenant was not wrongful in terms of s 81 of the Land Transfer Act 1952. [2016] NZCA 308 CA47/2015
Result
A The appeal is allowed to the extent only that the order for rectification is set aside.
B There is a declaration that for the purposes of cls 2 and 7 of the second schedule of the open space covenant references to “protected area” mean the whole block of land subject to the covenant.
C The appellant is to pay the respondent costs of $25,000 and usual disbursements.
17 August 2018
_______________________
A The application for partial recall of this Court’s judgment of 17 August 2018 (Green Growth No 2 Ltd v Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust [2018] NZSC 75) is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
26 November 2018
B There is a declaration that for the purposes of cls 2 and 7 of the second schedule of the open space covenant references to “protected area” mean the whole block of land subject to the covenant.
C The appellant is to pay the respondent costs of $25,000 and usual disbursements.
17 August 2018
_______________________
A The application for partial recall of this Court’s judgment of 17 August 2018 (Green Growth No 2 Ltd v Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust [2018] NZSC 75) is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
26 November 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 13 February 2018 (PDF, 547 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 75 (PDF, 68 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Case name
Yao Wei He v Zhixiong Chen
Case number
SC 88/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to grant an application for leave to adduce further evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal of the decision of the High Court. [2016] NZCA 340 CA435/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal and the application to adduce further evidence are dismissed.
B Costs of $7,500 are payable to the respondent.
21 November 2016
B Costs of $7,500 are payable to the respondent.
21 November 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Judgment appealed from
Case name
PricewaterhouseCoopers v Robert Bruce Walker and Ors
Case number
SC 89/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding an assignment of debt and security impermissible – Whether Court of Appeal erred in not finding proceedings to be an abuse of process.[2016] NZCA 338 CA475/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (PricewaterhouseCoopers v Walker [2016] NZCA 338)
B The approved question is: Did the Court of Appeal err in upholding the High Court’s refusal to stay the proceeding?
13 December 2016
_____________________________
A Leave is granted to the respondents and the intervener to adduce new evidence.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C We make no award of costs.
6 October 2017
B The approved question is: Did the Court of Appeal err in upholding the High Court’s refusal to stay the proceeding?
13 December 2016
_____________________________
A Leave is granted to the respondents and the intervener to adduce new evidence.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C We make no award of costs.
6 October 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 March 2017 (PDF, 360 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 151 (PDF, 272 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Alexander Pieter van Heeren v Michael David Kidd
Case number
SC 94/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the decision of the High Court finding that an issue estoppel can arise in New Zealand proceedings based on findings made by a foreign court –Whether the Court of Appeal then erred in upholding the direction of the High Court for a summary account. [2016] NZCA 401 CA 247/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
9 December 2016
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
9 December 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Scott v Williams
Case number
SC 95/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether value of legal practice properly set by High Court ¬– Whether Court of Appeal erred in value of award made under s 15 PRA – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding decision of the High Court to order sale of property. [2016] NZCA 356 CA 58/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal and leave to cross appeal are granted (Scott v Williams [2016] NZCA 356).
B The approved questions are:
(i) Was the approach taken in the lower courts to the valuation of the respondent’s practice correct?
(ii) Was the amount awarded to the applicant under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 correct?
(iii) Should the order that the Remuera properties be sold, rather than vested in the applicant, have been made?
9 November 2016
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed to the extent set out below.
B The cross-appeal is dismissed.
C The vesting order made by the Family Court is restored.
D The valuation by the Family Court of the respondent’s law practice is restored. The appellant’s share is $225,000.
E An order in the appellant’s favour of $520,000 is made under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. If not able to be agreed, the parties may file submissions on interest on or before 1 February 2018.
F Costs of $25,000 are awarded to the appellant, plus usual disbursements to be set by the Registrar if not agreed. The Court allows for two counsel.
11 December 2017
B The approved questions are:
(i) Was the approach taken in the lower courts to the valuation of the respondent’s practice correct?
(ii) Was the amount awarded to the applicant under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 correct?
(iii) Should the order that the Remuera properties be sold, rather than vested in the applicant, have been made?
9 November 2016
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed to the extent set out below.
B The cross-appeal is dismissed.
C The vesting order made by the Family Court is restored.
D The valuation by the Family Court of the respondent’s law practice is restored. The appellant’s share is $225,000.
E An order in the appellant’s favour of $520,000 is made under s 15 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. If not able to be agreed, the parties may file submissions on interest on or before 1 February 2018.
F Costs of $25,000 are awarded to the appellant, plus usual disbursements to be set by the Registrar if not agreed. The Court allows for two counsel.
11 December 2017
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 185 (PDF, 275 KB)
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
SCOTT v WILLIAMS [2016] NZSC 149 [9 November 2016] (PDF, 114 KB)
Substantive judgment
SCOTT v WILLIAMS [2017] NZSC 185 [11 December 2017] (PDF, 1.3 MB)
Supreme court decision
Case name
Janet Elsie Lowe v Director General of Health, Ministry of Health and Chief Executive, Capital and Coast District Health Board
Case number
SC 97/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000, s 5 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the term “engaged” in the definition of “homeworker” in s 5 – Whether the Court of Appeal acted outside its jurisdiction. [2016] NZCA 369 CA169/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved question is whether the applicant was a “homeworker” within the meaning of s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and deemed to be an employee of the first and second respondents when she undertook support care pursuant to the Carer Support scheme.
2 November 2016
_____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no award of costs.
7 August 2017
________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 7 August 2017 (Lowe v Director-General of Health [2017] NZSC 115) is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
18 December 2017
B The approved question is whether the applicant was a “homeworker” within the meaning of s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and deemed to be an employee of the first and second respondents when she undertook support care pursuant to the Carer Support scheme.
2 November 2016
_____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no award of costs.
7 August 2017
________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 7 August 2017 (Lowe v Director-General of Health [2017] NZSC 115) is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
18 December 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 February 2017 (PDF, 510 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 115 (PDF, 263 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Transcription hearing date 23 November 2017 (PDF, 183 KB)
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Case name
Janferie Maeve Almond v Bruce James Read and Others, Ethne Glays Read, and Christopher John Read
Case number
SC 98/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to grant the applicant an extension of time to bring her appeal. [2016] NZCA 147 CA730/2015
Result
A The amended application for leave to appeal is granted (Almond v Read [2016] NZCA 147).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to refuse the appellant’s application for an extension of time to appeal.
2 November 2016
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The application for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal is granted.
C The stay will remain in effect until the determination of the appellant’s appeal in the Court of Appeal.
D The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $13,000 to the appellant, plus reasonable disbursements.
30 May 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to refuse the appellant’s application for an extension of time to appeal.
2 November 2016
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The application for an extension of time to appeal to the Court of Appeal is granted.
C The stay will remain in effect until the determination of the appellant’s appeal in the Court of Appeal.
D The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $13,000 to the appellant, plus reasonable disbursements.
30 May 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 December 2016 (PDF, 335 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 80 (PDF, 262 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 63 of 107