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
Christine Hamilton Thompson v Michael Leith Thompson
Case number
SC 50/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a sum received for a restraint of trade covenant against Mr Thompson personally was not relationship property under ss 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(l) of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a sum received for a restraint of trade covenant against Mr Thompson personally should not be treated, in the Court’s discretion, as relationship property, either in whole or in part, under s 9(4) of the Act. [2014] NZCA 117 CA 701/2013; CA 711/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Thompson v Thompson [2014] NZCA 117).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the sum received by the respondent for giving the restraint of trade covenant:
(a) was not relationship property under s 8(1)(e) or s 8(1)(l) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976; and, in the alternative,
(b) should not be treated
5 August 2014
_________________________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside.
B The $8 million restraint of trade payment received by Mr Thompson is declared to be relationship property.
C The case is remitted to the Family Court for the making of such orders as may be necessary to give effect to the declaration.
D The appellant is awarded costs of $25,000 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar in respect of the appeal to this Court and costs and disbursements in respect of the proceedings in the Family Court, High Court and Court of Appeal to be fixed by those Courts.
13 March 2015
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the sum received by the respondent for giving the restraint of trade covenant:
(a) was not relationship property under s 8(1)(e) or s 8(1)(l) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976; and, in the alternative,
(b) should not be treated
5 August 2014
_________________________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside.
B The $8 million restraint of trade payment received by Mr Thompson is declared to be relationship property.
C The case is remitted to the Family Court for the making of such orders as may be necessary to give effect to the declaration.
D The appellant is awarded costs of $25,000 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar in respect of the appeal to this Court and costs and disbursements in respect of the proceedings in the Family Court, High Court and Court of Appeal to be fixed by those Courts.
13 March 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 4 December 2014 (PDF, 551 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 26 (PDF, 245 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Forivermor Limited v ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 51/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that clauses 1.2 (b)(iv) and 5.1 of the Code of Banking Practice were not each incorporated into the finance contract – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the respondent did not breach the said clauses, in particular by the advance of funds on or about 9 September 2008 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicant suffered no loss as a result of the action and/or inaction of the respondent.[2014] NZCA 129 CA 790/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs to respondent $2,500.00 10 July 2014
Costs to respondent $2,500.00 10 July 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Wayne Seymour Chapman
Case number
SC 52/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in awarding costs to the respondent¬. [2014] NZCA 158 CA 855/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
15 August 2014
___________________________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
25 February 2016
15 August 2014
___________________________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
25 February 2016
Supreme court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Yoon Lee v District Court at Auckland. Zhi Hong Gao and Lin Ge, John Carter, Timothy Upton Slack and Brent O’Callahan
Case number
SC 56/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by making plain errors in the findings of fact – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to recognise that there was a loss of chance to take steps to recover the Gao’s deposits – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court upheld the finding of negligence but reduced the damages – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to make the finding that the District Court Judge went beyond the court’s jurisdiction in hearing the claim because the amount claimed exceeded the statutory limit – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by overlooking that the High Court had set aside the substantive judgment between the appellant and the 2nd respondents – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to address the error of law made by the lower courts on the issue of assignment and consequential unconscionable conduct by the 3rd respondents – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in awarding full indemnity costs against the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by overlooking relevant authorities.[2014] NZCA 169 CA 362/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay the second and third respondents costs on an indemnity basis, plus reasonable disbursements.
24 September 2014
The applicant must pay the second and third respondents costs on an indemnity basis, plus reasonable disbursements.
24 September 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
New Zealand Fire Service Commission v Insurance Brokers Association of New Zealand Incorporated and Vero Insurance Limited
Case number
SC 57/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (New Zealand Fire Service Commission v Insurance Brokers Association of New Zealand Inc [2014] NZCA 179).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to affirm the declarations made by the High Court.
18 August 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A The appeal is allowed.
B The declaration made in the High Court and upheld with amendments by the Court of Appeal in relation to split tier policies is set aside.
C The declaration made in the High Court and upheld in the Court of Appeal in relation to the New Zealand Ports Collective policy is also set aside.
D We make no order for costs.
13 May 2015
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to affirm the declarations made by the High Court.
18 August 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A The appeal is allowed.
B The declaration made in the High Court and upheld with amendments by the Court of Appeal in relation to split tier policies is set aside.
C The declaration made in the High Court and upheld in the Court of Appeal in relation to the New Zealand Ports Collective policy is also set aside.
D We make no order for costs.
13 May 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 15 December 2014 (PDF, 666 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 59 (PDF, 251 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Malcolm James Beattie, Anthony Joseph Regan, CT group Limited, Cartan Global LLP v Premier Events Group Limited
Case number
SC 58/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse to strike out the proceedings.[2014] NZCA 184 CA 773/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the respondent costs of $2,500 together with any disbursements authorised by the Registrar.
13 August 2014
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the respondent costs of $2,500 together with any disbursements authorised by the Registrar.
13 August 2014
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Douglas and Christine Banks v Grey District Council
Case number
SC 60/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – civil procedure – whether the Court of Appeal erred in directing that both appeals be heard together and in one day – whether the Court of Appeal erred in directing that the appeals be conducted using the case on appeal filed by the respondent – whether the Court of Appeal erred in directing that questions of costs be determined as part of the appeals. CA 460/2013; CA 667/2013 Stevens J
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
5 August 2014
5 August 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Todd Aaron Marteley v The Legal Services Commissioner
Case number
SC 61/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Legal aid – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 8 of the Legal Services Act 2011 – Whether costs should have been awarded to the applicant in the courts below. [2014] NZCA 185 CA 735/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (The Legal Services Commissioner v Marteley [2014] NZCA 185).
B The approved questions are:
Was the interpretation of s 8 of the Legal Services Act 2011 by the majority of the Court of Appeal correct?
Should costs have been awarded to the applicant in the courts below?
22 July 2014
_______________
A The appeal is allowed, the Court of Appeal judgment is set-aside and the order that the appellant receive legal aid for his conviction appeal is restored.
B In this Court the appellant is awarded costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
C The appellant is also entitled to costs and disbursements in the High Court and Court of Appeal to be fixed by those Courts.
21 August 2015
B The approved questions are:
Was the interpretation of s 8 of the Legal Services Act 2011 by the majority of the Court of Appeal correct?
Should costs have been awarded to the applicant in the courts below?
22 July 2014
_______________
A The appeal is allowed, the Court of Appeal judgment is set-aside and the order that the appellant receive legal aid for his conviction appeal is restored.
B In this Court the appellant is awarded costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
C The appellant is also entitled to costs and disbursements in the High Court and Court of Appeal to be fixed by those Courts.
21 August 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 May 2015 (PDF, 644 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 127 (PDF, 249 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Evgeny Orlov v The National Standards Committee No 1
Case number
SC 65/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the decision of the High Court to debar the applicant’s counsel – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a judge who had subsequently recused himself could exercise the jurisdiction to debar counsel – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to allow the applicant to record the hearing – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in making directions as to how the amicus should perform their duties.[2014] NZCA 242 CA 127/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to the respondent.
26 September 2014
The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to the respondent.
26 September 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Jet Trustees Limited v Robert Mark Patrick Dunphy, Greymouth Holdings Limited and others
Case number
SC 70/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993, s 174 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the order of the High Court that the appellant sell its shares – Whether the Court of Appeal acted disproportionately by not limiting the relief granted to the minimum extent necessary to address the proven oppression.[2014] NZCA 266 CA 366/2013;
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the first, second, seventh and eighth respondents collectively, plus reasonable disbursements.
9 October 2014
9 October 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 76 of 107