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
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court and Ministry of Justice
Case number
SC 12/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing an application for review of decisions of the Deputy Registrar – Whether the decision to dismiss the application was affected by apparent bias or a breach of the principles of natural justice.[2015] NZCA 5 CA 550/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the respondents. 12 May 2015.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Proprietors of Wakatū and Rore Pat Stafford and others v Attorney-General and Ngāti Rārua Iwi Trust and Ngāti Kōata Trust
Case number
SC 13/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Crown breached legally enforceable obligations in respect of land acquired for the New Zealand Company’s Nelson Settlement – Whether lapse of time provides the Crown a defence – Whether the first and third appellants have standing.[2014] NZCA 628 CA 436/2012
Result
A The application by the first, second and third applicants for leave to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 19 December 2014 in Proprietors of Wakatū v Attorney-General [2014] NZCA 628, [2015] 2 NZLR 298 is granted.
B The cross-application by the respondent for leave to appeal against the finding of the Court of Appeal that the second applicant, Rore Pat Stafford, had standing to bring the proceeding is granted.
C The approved grounds are: Is the Crown in breach of duties arising out of the terms of the reservations from the land granted to the New Zealand Company in respect of its Nelson settlement and Western Te Tau Ihu? If so, are rights to seek relief for breach of such duties subject to defences available to the Crown through lapse of time? If not, do the three applicants each have standing to bring civil proceedings for breach of such duties against the Crown? If so, what relief is appropriate? Is relief barred by the terms of s 25 of the Ngā ti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Atiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Act 2014? D The appeal is set down for hearing in the Supreme Court for the four days beginning 12 October 2015.
8 May 2015
_____________________________
A The appeal by the second appellant is allowed in part and a declaration is made that the Crown owed fiduciary duties to reserve 15,100 acres for the benefit of the customary owners and, in addition, to exclude their pa, urupa and cultivations from the land obtained by the Crown following the 1845 Spain award.
B The appeals by the first appellant and the third appellant are dismissed.
C The cross-appeal by the respondent is dismissed.
D The claim by the second appellant is remitted to the High Court for determination of all remaining questions as to liability, loss and remedy to be determined in accordance with the reasons given in this Court.
E The respondent must pay the second appellant costs of $55,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. We certify for second counsel. All costs orders in the High Court and Court of Appeal are quashed. If costs are sought by the second appellant in respect of the lower Court hearings, application must be made to those Courts if the parties are unable to agree.
28 February 2017
B The cross-application by the respondent for leave to appeal against the finding of the Court of Appeal that the second applicant, Rore Pat Stafford, had standing to bring the proceeding is granted.
C The approved grounds are: Is the Crown in breach of duties arising out of the terms of the reservations from the land granted to the New Zealand Company in respect of its Nelson settlement and Western Te Tau Ihu? If so, are rights to seek relief for breach of such duties subject to defences available to the Crown through lapse of time? If not, do the three applicants each have standing to bring civil proceedings for breach of such duties against the Crown? If so, what relief is appropriate? Is relief barred by the terms of s 25 of the Ngā ti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Atiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Act 2014? D The appeal is set down for hearing in the Supreme Court for the four days beginning 12 October 2015.
8 May 2015
_____________________________
A The appeal by the second appellant is allowed in part and a declaration is made that the Crown owed fiduciary duties to reserve 15,100 acres for the benefit of the customary owners and, in addition, to exclude their pa, urupa and cultivations from the land obtained by the Crown following the 1845 Spain award.
B The appeals by the first appellant and the third appellant are dismissed.
C The cross-appeal by the respondent is dismissed.
D The claim by the second appellant is remitted to the High Court for determination of all remaining questions as to liability, loss and remedy to be determined in accordance with the reasons given in this Court.
E The respondent must pay the second appellant costs of $55,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. We certify for second counsel. All costs orders in the High Court and Court of Appeal are quashed. If costs are sought by the second appellant in respect of the lower Court hearings, application must be made to those Courts if the parties are unable to agree.
28 February 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 12 - 15 October 2015 (PDF, 2.2 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 17 (PDF, 291 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Razdan Rafiq v Commissioner of New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 15/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs.[2015] NZCA 8 CA 669/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500. 23 April 2015
The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500. 23 April 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Taylor Jade Schmidt v Noel Robert Hair
Case number
SC 17/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that no cause of action for knowing receipt and unjust enrichment was open to the applicant – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to evidential questions.[2015] NZCA 6 CA 794/2011
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed. Costs to the respondent of $2,500.00
17 April 2015
17 April 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Francisc Catalin Deliu v The New Zealand Law Society
Case number
SC 19/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court was correct to adjourn the applicant’s judicial review application pending the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings against him under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act.[2015] NZCA 12 CA 121/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs to the respondent $2,500.
2 June 2015
______________________
Application for recall dismissed.
14 July 2015
2 June 2015
______________________
Application for recall dismissed.
14 July 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court and Ministry of Justice
Case number
SC 20/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – whether High Court erred in dismissing the applicant’ s application for judicial review and a stay of proceedings.[2015] NZCA 68 CA 550/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the respondents. 12 May 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson and Richard John Creser v Transparency International (New Zealand) Inc
Case number
SC 22/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court erred in striking out the applicant’s application for judicial review. [2015] NZHC 334 CIV 2014-485-10920
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are payable to the respondent.
8 May 2015
B Costs of $2,500 are payable to the respondent.
8 May 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Mark Arnold Clayton and others v Melanie Ann Clayton
Case number
SC 23/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a power of appointment could be relationship property under the Property (Relationships) Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there had been a disposition with intent to defeat rights in terms of s 44 of the Act in relation to various trusts – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relation to valuation.[2015] NZCA 30 CA 473/2013; CA 474/2014
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are granted in respect of the questions identified in B and C below (Clayton v Clayton [2015] NZCA 30). In all other respects, the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B In relation to the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT):Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there is no distinction between a sham trust and what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the VRPT was neither a sham trust nor what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?If so:
Was the bundle of rights and powers held by Mr and/or Mrs Clayton under the VRPT Trust Deed “property” for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA)?Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the power of appointment under clause 7.1 of the VRPT Trust Deed was “relationship property” for the purposes of the PRA?If so, did the Court of Appeal err in its approach to the valuation of the power?
C In relation to the Claymark Trust, was the Court of appeal correct in its interpretation and application of:
Section 44C of the PRA?
Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980?
18 June 2015
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B We set aside the findings of the Court of Appeal that cl 7.1 of the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT) trust deed (the VRPT deed) is a general power of appointment and that the power is both property and relationship property, having a value equal to that of the net assets of the VRPT.
C We substitute a finding that the powers of Mr Clayton as Principal Family Member and Trustee under cls 6.1, 7.1, 8.1 and 10.1 of the VRPT deed (read in light of cls 11.1, 14.1 and 19.1(c) of that deed) are property and relationship property having a value equal to that of the net assets of the VRPT.
D We set aside the finding of the Court of Appeal that the VRPT is not an illusory trust (i.e. that it is a valid trust). We decline to make a ruling on that issue.
E We uphold the finding of the Court of Appeal that the VRPT is not a sham.
F We make no award of costs
23 March 2016
B In relation to the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT):Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there is no distinction between a sham trust and what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the VRPT was neither a sham trust nor what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?If so:
Was the bundle of rights and powers held by Mr and/or Mrs Clayton under the VRPT Trust Deed “property” for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA)?Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the power of appointment under clause 7.1 of the VRPT Trust Deed was “relationship property” for the purposes of the PRA?If so, did the Court of Appeal err in its approach to the valuation of the power?
C In relation to the Claymark Trust, was the Court of appeal correct in its interpretation and application of:
Section 44C of the PRA?
Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980?
18 June 2015
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B We set aside the findings of the Court of Appeal that cl 7.1 of the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT) trust deed (the VRPT deed) is a general power of appointment and that the power is both property and relationship property, having a value equal to that of the net assets of the VRPT.
C We substitute a finding that the powers of Mr Clayton as Principal Family Member and Trustee under cls 6.1, 7.1, 8.1 and 10.1 of the VRPT deed (read in light of cls 11.1, 14.1 and 19.1(c) of that deed) are property and relationship property having a value equal to that of the net assets of the VRPT.
D We set aside the finding of the Court of Appeal that the VRPT is not an illusory trust (i.e. that it is a valid trust). We decline to make a ruling on that issue.
E We uphold the finding of the Court of Appeal that the VRPT is not a sham.
F We make no award of costs
23 March 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 1, 2 and 8 September 2015 (PDF, 1.6 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 29 (PDF, 250 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Clare O’Brien and Attorney-General
Case number
SC 24/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial Review – Whether Judge correct to find imposition of security for costs lawful – Whether Judge correct to find ground of appeal on grant of standing to be hopeless and vexatious – Whether Judge correct to order security for costs.[2015] NZCA 86 CA 693/2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIEMER v O'BRIEN & ANOR [2015] NZSC 63 [15 May 2015] (PDF, 106 KB)
Recall judgment
SIEMER v O'BRIEN & ANOR [2015] NZSC 92 26 June 2015 (PDF, 194 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Kensington Developments Limited (in receivership) v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 25/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s decision to transfer taxation challenge proceedings from the Taxation Review Authority to the High Court.[2015] NZCA 60 CA 64/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 to the respondent.
4 June 2015
Costs $2,500 to the respondent.
4 June 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 67 of 107