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
Jeremy James McGuire v The Ministry of Justice
Case number
SC 139/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 43 – Whether the Notice of Abandonment issued by the Court of Appeal was wrong and a nullity – Whether the Court of Appeal’s Minute dated 31 July 2014 inviting the applicant to apply for an extension of time to appeal was wrong on the facts and in law.[2014] NZCA 556 CA 314/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
10 March 2015
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
10 March 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Ngāti Wāhiao v Ngāti Hurungaterangi, Ngāti Taeotu Me Ngāti Te Kahu O Ngāti Whakaue
Case number
SC 141/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Arbitration Act 1996, Whether there was any credible basis for the Court of Appeal to find, if it did so find, that the arbitral tribunal misunderstood its task – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the leave requirements of cl 5 of the Second Schedule to the Arbitration Act.[2014] NZCA 592 CA 592/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B We make no award of costs.
15 May 2015
B We make no award of costs.
15 May 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date : 1 April 2015 (PDF, 433 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassney and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 2/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the registrar’s refusal to dispense with security for costs on the basis that it relied on incorrect evidence, was based on the Judge’s predeterminations regarding the merits of the case, and unjustly restricts the applicant’ s access to the court.CA 362/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs to the respondent $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements,
7 March 2013
_________________________________________
Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
26 March 2013
_________________________________________
Second application for recall of judgment dismissed.
11 April 2013
Costs to the respondent $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements,
7 March 2013
_________________________________________
Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
26 March 2013
_________________________________________
Second application for recall of judgment dismissed.
11 April 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIEMER v STIASSNY SC 2/2013 [7 March 2013] (PDF, 52 KB)
Case name
Taylor Jade Schmidt v Pepper New Zealand (Custodians) Limited and others
Case number
SC 3/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Extension of time – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and/or law – Whether the Court of Appeal displayed pre-determination and bias – Whether the Court of Appeal acted on wrong principle – Whether the Court of Appeal took irrelevant matters into account – Whether the Court of Appeal was plainly wrong.[2012] NZCA 565 CA 763/2011; CA 764/2011; CA 765/2011
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicants must pay costs of $2,000 to the second and third respondents and $750 to the first respondent, in each case together with reasonable disbursements to be determined, if necessary, by the Registrar. The liability of the applicants is joint and several.
12 April 2013
The applicants must pay costs of $2,000 to the second and third respondents and $750 to the first respondent, in each case together with reasonable disbursements to be determined, if necessary, by the Registrar. The liability of the applicants is joint and several.
12 April 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
George Charles Kain, George Michael Kain, George Thomas Kain, George Harry Kain & Georgina Kain v Wynn Williams & Co
Case number
SC 4/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether conditional fee agreement between a solicitor and client is champertous only where there is proof of unjustified interference in the client’s affairs by solicitor – Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, ss 6, 11(1)(d)(ii) and 13 – Meaning of consumer credit contract – Whether conditional fee agreement constituted a consumer credit contract. [2012] NZCA 563 CA 635/2011
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs to the respondent $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements.
8 April 2013
Costs to the respondent $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements.
8 April 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
KAIN v WYNN WILLIAMS & CO SC 4/2013 [8 April 2013] (PDF, 51 KB)
Case name
Terminals (NZ) Limited v The Comptroller of Customs
Case number
SC 6/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Customs and Excise Act 1996 – definition of “manufacture” – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the addition of small quantities of butane on which excise duty had previously been paid to imported motor spirit on which excise-equivalent duty had previously been paid constituted “manufacture”.[2012] NZCA 598 CA 366/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the activity conducted by the applicant constituted or involved the manufacture of motor spirit.
19March 2013 __________________ The appeal is dismissed. Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (to be determined by the Registrar if necessary) are to be paid to the respondent. We certify for two counsel. 6 December 2013
19March 2013 __________________ The appeal is dismissed. Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (to be determined by the Registrar if necessary) are to be paid to the respondent. We certify for two counsel. 6 December 2013
Transcript
Hearing dates : 5 and 6 August 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Gault JJ.
Case name
Roderick Bryan Turner v Allister John Davis, Clark Boyce and James Rapley
Case number
SC 7/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Summary judgment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s summary judgment order against the appellant as there exists a genuine dispute as to the material facts of the case – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the summary judgment order as there are outstanding matters of law. [2012] NZCA 576 CA 360/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the first and second respondents and $2,500 to the third respondent, in each case plus reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
12 April 2013.
12 April 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TURNER v DAVIS SC 7/2013 [12 April 2013] (PDF, 57 KB)
Case name
John Anthony Osborne and Helen Osborne v The Auckland Council and the Weathertight Homes Tribunal
Case number
SC 9/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006, s 14(a) – Interpretation of “built” – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to hold that a dwellinghouse is “built” at the time it passes its final building inspection. [2012] NZCA 609 CA 650/2011
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved questions are:
(a) Is the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of s 14(a) of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 correct?
(b) Given the dismissal by the High Court of the appeal against the removal order, does s 95(2) of that Act preclude the granting of any remedy to the applicants?
1 May 2013
______________________
A The appeal is allowed with the result that the eligibility decision of the Tribunal chair is set aside and there is a declaration that the appellants’ claim is eligible.
B Leave is reserved to apply for further relief should that be necessary.
C In relation to this appeal, the appellants are awarded costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements against the first respondent. They are also awarded costs on the judicial review proceedings in the High Court and on the appeal to the Court of Appeal, in sums to be fixed by those courts.
10 June 2014
___________________
Application for further relief declined.
No order for costs.
29 September 2014
B The approved questions are:
(a) Is the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of s 14(a) of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 correct?
(b) Given the dismissal by the High Court of the appeal against the removal order, does s 95(2) of that Act preclude the granting of any remedy to the applicants?
1 May 2013
______________________
A The appeal is allowed with the result that the eligibility decision of the Tribunal chair is set aside and there is a declaration that the appellants’ claim is eligible.
B Leave is reserved to apply for further relief should that be necessary.
C In relation to this appeal, the appellants are awarded costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements against the first respondent. They are also awarded costs on the judicial review proceedings in the High Court and on the appeal to the Court of Appeal, in sums to be fixed by those courts.
10 June 2014
___________________
Application for further relief declined.
No order for costs.
29 September 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 November 2013 SC 9 2013 (PDF, 516 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 67 (PDF, 92 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
OSBORNE v AUCKLAND COUNCIL SC 9/2013 [1 May 2013] (PDF, 33 KB)
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
BFSL 32007 Limited and others v Peter David Steigrad
Case number
SC 19/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Law Reform Act 1936, s 9 – Charge on insurance monies in favour of third parties paid to indemnify an insured in respect of insured’s liability to third party – Priority between a s 9 charge in favour of third party claimants and an uncharged claim to defence costs by directors of a company – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that a s 9 charge only attaches to the balance of the insurance money available to meet third party claims after any defence cost liability has been met – Whether question of priorities under s 9 is subject to contract of insurance.[2012] NZCA 604 CA 674/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is:
Did the Court of Appeal interpret s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 correctly?
15 April 2013
________________
The appeal is allowed.
The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants in SC 19/2013 plus usual disbursements (to be set by the Registrar, if necessary). We certify for two counsel.
23 December 2013
The approved ground is:
Did the Court of Appeal interpret s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 correctly?
15 April 2013
________________
The appeal is allowed.
The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants in SC 19/2013 plus usual disbursements (to be set by the Registrar, if necessary). We certify for two counsel.
23 December 2013
Media Releases
- MR [2013] NZSC 156 (PDF, 74 KB)
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Hearing date : 17 October 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, Glazebrook, Gault, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Chuan Wu v Body Corporate 366611 and Theta Management Limited
Case number
SC 20/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Damages – Whether the Court of Appeal, after upholding the High Court’s decision on liability in favour of the appellant, ought not to have remitted the calculation of damages payable to the appellant back to the High Court.[2012] NZCA 614 CA 402/2011
Result
Leave to appeal and cross appeal is granted. The approved questions are:
(a) Are the Body Corporate and Theta liable in nuisance and if so on what basis?
(b) What, if any orders, are appropriate as to damages?
3 May 2013
____________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of Asher J on the first cause of action is reinstated.
B The cross appeal is dismissed.
C The respondents are to pay to the appellant costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary).
9 October 2014
_______________
tc
(a) Are the Body Corporate and Theta liable in nuisance and if so on what basis?
(b) What, if any orders, are appropriate as to damages?
3 May 2013
____________________
A The appeal is allowed and the judgment of Asher J on the first cause of action is reinstated.
B The cross appeal is dismissed.
C The respondents are to pay to the appellant costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary).
9 October 2014
_______________
tc
Transcripts
- Hearing date 7 November 2013 (PDF, 504 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 137 (PDF, 86 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Page 81 of 107