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
Michael Kinlim Yan v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 111/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Employment Court failed to adopt the correct test for bias in respect of dismissal from the Public Service.[2015] NZEmpC 36 ARC 11/14
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500. 9 November 2015
Employment Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Douglas Banks and Christine Sandra Banks v Grey District Council
Case number
SC 114/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a document sought to be discovered by the applicants was legally privileged – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the leases – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicants had failed to discharge the evidential burden as to fraudulent misrepresentation. [2015] NZCA 417 CA 460/2013; CA 667/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B Costs of $2,500 are payable to the respondent.
28 October 2015
______________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
11 November 2015
28 October 2015
______________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
11 November 2015
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Recall judgment
Case name
Jetstar Airways Limited v Richard Greenslade
Case number
SC 116/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000, s 69ZH(2) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the requirement for rest periods under the Australian Civil Aviation Order 48 was not a requirement for a rest break for the purposes of the Employment Relations Act.[2015] NZCA 432 CA 125/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
4 December 2015
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
4 December 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Employment Court decision
Judgment appealed from
Case name
N v M and others
Case number
SC 118/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the High Court judgment was invalid for want of jurisdiction –Whether the High Court Judge should have recused himself.[2015] NZHC 1496 Civ 2013 – 404 -75
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondent.
3 December 2015
3 December 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
N v M [2015] NZSC 185 3 December 2015 (PDF, 80 KB)
Judgment appealed from
N v M [2015] NZHC 1496 not available
Case name
M Hayes v Family Court and Judith Guerin
Case number
SC 122/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial Review – Family Protection Act 1955, s 3A – Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the claim that the Family Court had no jurisdiction under s 3A(2) Family Protection Act – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no proceeding in the High Court – Whether High Court erred in allowing further respondents to join proceedings.[2015] NZCA 470 CA 604/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. No order as to costs. 21 December 2015
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Charles William Williams, Jean Elizabeth Morley, Inez Beverly Flavell, Lesley Anne Hensleigh, The Royal Foundation of the Blind, Donald Alexander Mackintosh, Lynda Anne Ryan, Janice Aileen Robertson, Gilliam Madge Clarke, Rosalie Hilda Mailand, Donald
Case number
SC 124/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – Public Works Act 1981 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “successor” in s 40(5) of the Public Works Act 1981 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to exercise the residual discretion to grant declaratory relief.[2015] NZCA 479 CA 251/2014
Result
A. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B. The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
11 March 2016
_______________________________
A. The application to recall the judgment in Williams v Auckland Council [2016] NZSC 20 is dismissed.
B. The applicants must pay costs of $1,000 to the respondent.
30 September 2016
B. The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
11 March 2016
_______________________________
A. The application to recall the judgment in Williams v Auckland Council [2016] NZSC 20 is dismissed.
B. The applicants must pay costs of $1,000 to the respondent.
30 September 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Yoon Lee v District Court at Auckland; Zhi Hong Gao and Lin Ge; John Carter and Brent O’Callaghan and The Official Assignee
Case number
SC 127/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the High Court was entitled to make an award of indemnity costs against the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the applicant’s appeal seeking a stay of enforcement was moot, the debts at issue having been discharged.[2015] NZCA 498 CA 262/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The applicant must pay each of the second and third respondents costs of $2,500. 17 February 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Simon John Moffatt Hampton v Canterbury Regional Council (Environment Canterbury)
Case number
SC 128/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in their approach to the priority of resource consent applications – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that there had been no derogation of the applicant’s rights – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the applicant had no legitimate expectation that a resource consent would be granted.[2015] NZCA 509 CA 745/2013
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
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Transparency International New Zealand Incorporated
Case number
SC 129/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in resurrecting an appeal deemed abandoned – Whether the Court of Appeal acted without jurisdiction in awarding costs to the respondent. [2015] NZCA 543 CA 156/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500. 16 February 2016 The recall application is dismissed.
15 March 2016
15 March 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Thomas Frederick Mazlin King and Judith Ruth King v PFL Finance Limited and Craig Becroft
Case number
SC 130/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – Receivership – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 18 of the Receivership Act 1993 and s 121 of the Property Law Act 2007 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its findings on causation of loss – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of compellability under the hearsay provisions of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether there was oppressive enforcement of a credit contract under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003.[2015] NZCA 517 CA 74/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. If the applicants are not legally aided, costs of $2,500 are payable to the respondents. If the applicants are legally aided, we make an order under s 45(5) of the Legal Services Act 2011 that, had the applicants not been legally aided, they would have been liable for costs of $2,500. 17 February 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 72 of 107