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
Vikram Kumar and Nirupama Kumar, Robert James Selwyn, Michael Donaldson and Patricia Bronwyn Donaldson v Station Properties Limited (in receivership and liquidation)
Case number
SC 39/2013
Summary
Contract interpretation – Essentiality of terms – Whether respondents breached essential terms of the contract – Repudiation of contract – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the respondents were entitled to cancel the contract with the applicants for repudiation and claim damages. [2013] NZCA 90 CA 715/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved question is whether Station Properties Ltd was entitled to cancel the agreements for sale and purchase.
21 August 2013
_____________________
The appeal is allowed. The orders of Toogood J are reinstated.
The respondent must pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants collectively, together with reasonable disbursements.
The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is quashed. Costs in that Court are to be fixed in light of this judgment.
15 October 2014
_________________
A The application for recall is dismissed.
B Costs of $10,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellants.
C The judgment of this Court of 15 October 2014 (Kumar v Station Properties [2014] NZSC 146) is reissued with the corrections and additions noted in the Appendix to this judgment.
1 April 2015
21 August 2013
_____________________
The appeal is allowed. The orders of Toogood J are reinstated.
The respondent must pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants collectively, together with reasonable disbursements.
The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is quashed. Costs in that Court are to be fixed in light of this judgment.
15 October 2014
_________________
A The application for recall is dismissed.
B Costs of $10,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellants.
C The judgment of this Court of 15 October 2014 (Kumar v Station Properties [2014] NZSC 146) is reissued with the corrections and additions noted in the Appendix to this judgment.
1 April 2015
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 146 (PDF, 266 KB)
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Transcripts
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Savvy Vineyards 3552 Limited and Savvy Vineyards 4334 Limited v Kakara Estate Limited and Weta Estate Limited
Case number
SC 44/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Contract Interpretation – Whether transfer of agreements to appellants by original contracting parties constituted an assignment or novation – Whether respondents’ actions were indicative of consent to novation by conduct – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the notices of termination issued by the respondents’ in respect of agreements were valid. [2013] NZCA 101 CA 178/2013
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the applicants had not, by novation, been substituted for Goldridge Estate Ltd in respect of the management and supply agreements in issue in the proceedings.
17 July 2013
_______________________________
A The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the judgment of Andrews J is restored.
B In this Court, the appellants are entitled to costs of $25,000 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
C In the Court of Appeal, the appellants are entitled to costs and disbursements to be fixed by that Court.
5 September 2014
The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the applicants had not, by novation, been substituted for Goldridge Estate Ltd in respect of the management and supply agreements in issue in the proceedings.
17 July 2013
_______________________________
A The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the judgment of Andrews J is restored.
B In this Court, the appellants are entitled to costs of $25,000 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
C In the Court of Appeal, the appellants are entitled to costs and disbursements to be fixed by that Court.
5 September 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 13 February 2014 (PDF, 392 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 121 (PDF, 91 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Napier Tool & Die Limited v Oraka Technologies Limited and others
Case number
SC 46/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Intellectual Property – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in equating respondents’ effort in devising their product with level of protection available under copyright law for respondents’ copyright works – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the test for breach of copyright by divorcing the substantiality enquiry from enquiries into objective similarity and causation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in remitting proceeding to High Court for enquiry into damages and should have directed determination of respondents’ loss based on quantum evidence led at trial.[2013] NZCA 171 CA 271/2011
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.The applicant must pay the respondents (collectively) costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.
12 September 2013
12 September 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Nicholas Paul Alfred Reekie v The Attorney-General and others
Case number
SC 47/2013
Summary
Security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application to review the Registrar’s decision refusing to dispense with security for costs.[2013] NZCA 131 CA 532/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is:
Whether a waiver of security for costs should have been granted? 25 July 2013
_________
Appeal dismissed.
29 May 2014
___________
Application for recall dismissed.
30 July 2014
The approved ground is:
Whether a waiver of security for costs should have been granted? 25 July 2013
_________
Appeal dismissed.
29 May 2014
___________
Application for recall dismissed.
30 July 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 November 2013 - resumes 5 December 2013 (PDF, 466 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 63 (PDF, 83 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Worldwide NZ LCC v New Zealand Venue and Event Management Limited
Case number
SC 50/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908, s 87 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that under s 87 a court may award interest on a debt only from the date on which the debt is ascertained or becomes immediately ascertainable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the price payable for the “B” units and shares, being their fair market value, was not an ascertainable debt under s 87 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that a cause of action for recovery of the unascertained debt did not arise until after determination of the value of the units and shares – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting “debt or damages” – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by concluding, in effect, that the equitable principle requiring a purchaser in possession to pay interest to an unpaid vendor did not come within s 87 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by concluding, in effect, that the applicant’s pleaded claim asserting rights pursuant to a vendor’ s lien was disentitling conduct preventing it from receiving interest for the period during which the respondent enjoyed the benefits of owning the units and shares.[2013] NZCA 130 CA 834/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was in error in not awarding interest on the value fixed in respect of the “B” units and shares
11 October 2013
__________________
A The appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court relating to interest is re-instated.
B The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellant, plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
B The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is set aside. If costs cannot be agreed in the Court of Appeal they should be set by that Court in light of this judgment.
11 August 2014
11 October 2013
__________________
A The appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court relating to interest is re-instated.
B The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellant, plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
B The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is set aside. If costs cannot be agreed in the Court of Appeal they should be set by that Court in light of this judgment.
11 August 2014
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 108 (PDF, 93 KB)
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Allied Concrete Limited v Jeffrey Philip Meltzer and Lloyd James Hayward as liquidators of Window Holdings Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 51/2013
Summary
Companies Act 1993, s 296 – Whether the High Court erred in finding that the giving of value in terms of s 296(3)(c) of the Companies Act 1993 does not include value given at the time the antecedent debt is created – Whether the giving of time to pay was “giving value” for the purposes of the Act – Whether release or discharge of a liability for prior indebtedness is “value” for the purpose of s 296(3)(c). [2013] NZHC 977 Civ 2012 404 3170
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved question is whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal (as the case may be) was correct to conclude that the payments made to Allied Concrete Ltd, Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Ltd and Fences and Kerbs Ltd should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them accordingly.
24 October 2013
____________________
A The appeals are allowed.
B The applications of the liquidators for the transactions to be voided are dismissed.
C The respondents in each appeal must pay costs of $10,000 to the appellant in the relevant appeal, plus the appellant’s reasonable disbursements.
D Absent agreement between the parties, costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be fixed by those Courts in light of this judgment.
18 February 2015
The approved question is whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal (as the case may be) was correct to conclude that the payments made to Allied Concrete Ltd, Hiway Stabilizers New Zealand Ltd and Fences and Kerbs Ltd should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them accordingly.
24 October 2013
____________________
A The appeals are allowed.
B The applications of the liquidators for the transactions to be voided are dismissed.
C The respondents in each appeal must pay costs of $10,000 to the appellant in the relevant appeal, plus the appellant’s reasonable disbursements.
D Absent agreement between the parties, costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be fixed by those Courts in light of this judgment.
18 February 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 18 March 2014 (PDF, 387 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 7 (PDF, 255 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Richard Heron and others
Case number
SC 54/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Security for costs – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss application to review decision of the – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss an application to review that decision.[2013] NZCA 204
Dates
A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B Any further applications to this Court that relate to the underlying High Court appeal at issue in these applications should not be accepted for filing.
C Costs of $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary) are to be paid to the first and second respondents.
14 October 2013.
Case name
Douglas Arthur Montrose Graham v The QueenMichael Howard Reeves v The QueenWilliam Patrick Jeffries v The QueenLawrence Roland Valpy Bryant v The Queen
Case number
SC 59/2013 ; SC 60/2013; SC 61/2013; SC 62/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Conviction and Sentence – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to uphold trial Judge’s conclusion that statements in amended prospectus were untrue – Materiality of omissions – Notional investor test – Securities Act 1978, ss 55 and 58(1) – Whether Court of Appeal correct uphold trial Judge’s conclusion that directors did not have reasonable grounds for their honest belief that the statements in the amended prospectus were true – Securities Act 1978, s 58(2)(4) – Whether directors were permitted to place reliance on external expert advice – Companies Act 1993, s 138 – Whether Court of Appeal correct to rule that sentences imposed by trial Judge were manifestly inadequate – Sentencing Act 2002.
Result
A The appeals are allowed.
B The sentences imposed by the Court of Appeal are set aside and the sentences imposed by Dobson J are restored.
7 May 2014
____________
Application for recall dismissed.
Costs are reserved.
22 July 2015
B The sentences imposed by the Court of Appeal are set aside and the sentences imposed by Dobson J are restored.
7 May 2014
____________
Application for recall dismissed.
Costs are reserved.
22 July 2015
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 55 (PDF, 83 KB)
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Supreme court decision
Transcript
Hearing date : 11 February 2014
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, Blanchard JJ. Decision reserved.
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, Blanchard JJ. Decision reserved.
Case name
GPM v JHM
Case number
SC 67/2013
Summary
Civil – Relationship Property – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the lower court’s relationship property division – whether the Court of Appeal failed to appropriately accommodate the applicant’ s disability – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to identify breaches of natural justice in the courts below – whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing the applicant’s application for recall. [2013] NZCA 166 CA 553/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 payable to the respondent.
27 August 2013.
______________________________
Application for recall of the court’s judgment is dismissed.
12 September 2013.
27 August 2013.
______________________________
Application for recall of the court’s judgment is dismissed.
12 September 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GPM v JHM [2013] NZSC 84 [27 August 2013] (PDF, 51 KB)
Recall judgment
GPM v JHM [2013] NZSC 85 [12 September 2013] (PDF, 71 KB)
Case name
Evgeny Orlov v New Zealand Law Society, Auckland Lawyers Standards Committee, Auckland Lawyers Standards Committee No 1, National Standards Committee.
Case number
SC 68/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a lawyer could be proceeded against before the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal or struck off for making a complaint against a Judge pursuant to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there is no legal or evidential threshold for referring matters to a Disciplinary Tribunal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that reasons need not be given for a decision by a Standards Committee to refer a matter to a Disciplinary Tribunal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the appellant was responsible for delay in the disciplinary process –Whether the Court of Appeal denied the appellant a fair and impartial hearing.[2013] NZCA 230 CA 554/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
8 October 2013.
8 October 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 83 of 107