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
John Gilbert and QSM Trustee Ltd (in receivership and in liquidation) v Body Corporate 162791
Case number
SC 59/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Gilbert was personally liable to pay certain body corporate levies under s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Gilbert’s liability was not limited or excused under s 32(7) of the Act.[2015] NZCA 185 CA 213/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert [2015] NZCA 185).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i) to hold that the first applicant was personally liable under s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 to pay body corporate levies to the respondent in relation to the second applicant’s units; and
(ii) to find that the first applicant had no arguable claim for relief from personal liability under s 32(7) of the Act.
4 September 2015
_______________
A The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.
B There is no order for costs.
2 June 2016
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i) to hold that the first applicant was personally liable under s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 to pay body corporate levies to the respondent in relation to the second applicant’s units; and
(ii) to find that the first applicant had no arguable claim for relief from personal liability under s 32(7) of the Act.
4 September 2015
_______________
A The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.
B There is no order for costs.
2 June 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 December 2015 (PDF, 393 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 61 (PDF, 250 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Rapata Leef and others as the mandated representatives of the Hapū of Ngāti Taka v Colin Bidois and others as the mandated representatives of the Hapū of Pirirakau
Case number
SC 62/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Arbitration Act 1996 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding waiver of conflict – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding there was no process breach by the Arbitration Panel. [2015] NZCA 176 CA 441/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
24 August 2015
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
24 August 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Nicholas Paul Alfred Reekie v Attorney-General and others
Case number
SC 64/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application for extension of time to appeal.[2015] NZCA 198
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
29 October 2015
___
The application for recall is dismissed
15 February 2016
B There is no order as to costs.
29 October 2015
___
The application for recall is dismissed
15 February 2016
Recall judgment
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Trustpower Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 74/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Income Tax Act 2004, s DA 2 – Whether Court of Appeal correct to consider ground of reassessment irrelevant – Whether Court of Appeal made unsupported findings of fact – Whether Court of Appeal correct to find that Feasibility Expenditure was incurred on capital account.[2015] NZCA 253 CA830/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (CIR v Trustpower [2015] NZCA 253).
B The approved questions are:(a) was the Court of Appeal wrong to consider the ground of reassessment set out in the Reassessment letter as irrelevant, or was the Court otherwise acting outside its jurisdiction in determining the appeal? If not, was the Court of Appeal correct in its conclusions on s DA 1?(b) Despite stating that it proceeded on the basis of accepting the High Court’s findings of fact, were any aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgment based on findings for which there was no evidence before the Court and/or that was contradicted by the evidence before the Court? If so, what is the significance of this?(c ) What is the correct approach to determining whether the expenditure of the type at issue in this proceeding has been incurred on revenue or capital account, for the purposes of s DA 2(1) of the Act?(d) Was the Commissioner correct, or at least not in error, to select the date by which the applicant had decided to apply for a resource consent as the point at which its expenditure was sufficiently connected to the capital purpose of obtaining a resource consent to be on capital account?
11 September 2015
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Trustpower is to pay the Commissioner costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
27 July 2016
B The approved questions are:(a) was the Court of Appeal wrong to consider the ground of reassessment set out in the Reassessment letter as irrelevant, or was the Court otherwise acting outside its jurisdiction in determining the appeal? If not, was the Court of Appeal correct in its conclusions on s DA 1?(b) Despite stating that it proceeded on the basis of accepting the High Court’s findings of fact, were any aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgment based on findings for which there was no evidence before the Court and/or that was contradicted by the evidence before the Court? If so, what is the significance of this?(c ) What is the correct approach to determining whether the expenditure of the type at issue in this proceeding has been incurred on revenue or capital account, for the purposes of s DA 2(1) of the Act?(d) Was the Commissioner correct, or at least not in error, to select the date by which the applicant had decided to apply for a resource consent as the point at which its expenditure was sufficiently connected to the capital purpose of obtaining a resource consent to be on capital account?
11 September 2015
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Trustpower is to pay the Commissioner costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
27 July 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 - 10 March 2016 (PDF, 1.4 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 91 (PDF, 246 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer and Jane Dinsdale Siemer v Kevin Stanley Brown and others
Case number
SC 76/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by upholding the Registrar’s decision refusing to accept for filing an application for review. [2015] NZCA 276 CA 31/15
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants (jointly and severally) to the respondents (collectively).
28 October 2015
_____________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
13 November 2015
_____________________________
2nd recall application: No new matters raised. Application dismissed.
17 November 2015
_____________________________
Application by Jane Siemer to recall judgment dismissed. No new matters raised.
19 November 2015
B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants (jointly and severally) to the respondents (collectively).
28 October 2015
_____________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
13 November 2015
_____________________________
2nd recall application: No new matters raised. Application dismissed.
17 November 2015
_____________________________
Application by Jane Siemer to recall judgment dismissed. No new matters raised.
19 November 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Kyburn Investments Limited v Beca Corporate Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 77/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of the applicant’s application to have an arbitral award set aside. [2015] NZCA 290 CA 130/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
21 October 2015
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
21 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Heartland Bank Limited (formerly Marac Finance Limited ) v Vero Liability Insurance Limited
Case number
SC 82/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Insurance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “clear intent” in crime risk insurance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the policy when assessing coverable loss. [2015] NZCA 288 CA 712/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicant to the respondent.
3 November 2015
3 November 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
B v C
Case number
SC 84/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Application for leave for a direct appeal from High Court – Whether the High Court erred in not declaring the proceedings as null and void due to the applicant’s diplomatic immunity – Whether the High Court erred in holding that the New Zealand Family Court is the appropriate forum in which to decide issues concerning the care and welfare of the applicant and the respondent’s children.[2015] NZHC 1595 CIV 2014 485 11245
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The application for interim relief is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
16 September 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Transparency International New Zealand Incorporated
Case number
SC 85/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 43(2) – Whether the Court of Appeal should have granted the application for an extension of time. CA 156/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
16 October 2015
___________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
22 October 2015
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
16 October 2015
___________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
22 October 2015
Recall judgment
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Carl James Peterson v Attorney-General
Case number
SC 87/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether an extension of time should be granted – Whether leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court should be granted to allow the applicant to challenge the decision in Attorney-General v Chapman [2011] NZSC 110, [2012] 1 NZLR 462 – Whether Associate Judge Christiansen’ s judgment should be set aside. [2015] NZHC 1336 CIV 2015 463 22
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
23 October 2015
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
23 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 70 of 107