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 Kenneth Slavich v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 94/2013
Summary
Civil – Security for costs – Whether it is in the interests of justice to waive payment – Whether Court of Appeal correctly declined to review the Registrar’s decision to require security for costs – Whether Court of Appeal correctly concluded that applicant’s appeals had no merit – Whether Court of Appeal Judge had a conflict of interest.[2013] NZCA 356 CA 165/2013 CA 197/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs to the respondent $2,5000 plus reasonable disbursements.
26 November 2013.
_________________________________________________________
The applications for an amendment of the judgment of 26 November 2013 and its recall are declined.
19 March 2014. The application for recall is dismissed.
1 May 2014.
Costs to the respondent $2,5000 plus reasonable disbursements.
26 November 2013.
_________________________________________________________
The applications for an amendment of the judgment of 26 November 2013 and its recall are declined.
19 March 2014. The application for recall is dismissed.
1 May 2014.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Additional document
Recall judgment
Case name
Wiremu Kingi v Jillian Naera and others
Case number
SC 95/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Maori land law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of cl 3(a) of the Trust Order by finding that it empowered the trustees to enter into the Tikitere Project without reference to the owners of the land – Alternatively, if the interpretation of cl 3(a) given by the courts below is correct, whether it was within the power of the Maori Land Court to issue such a Trust Order under s 226(1) of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. NZCA 353 CA 542/2011
Result
A The application by Jillian Naera, Kereama Pene, Anaha Morehu, Warwick Morehu and Eric Hodge for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of 8 August 2013 is declined.
B The application by Pirihira Fenwick, Wiremu Kingi and Hiwinui Heke for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of 8 August 2013 is granted. The questions for determination on the appeal are:
1. Was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that the Tikitere Project Agreement was voidable because three of the trustees were beneficially interested in other trusts which were parties to the Agreement?
2. If so, was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that the remedy of rescission could be withheld only if third party interests were affected or should it have required general inquiry into whether rescission was in all the circumstances appropriate?
C No order for costs on the applications is made. 19 May 2014 __________________ A The appeal is allowed in part and the matter remitted to the Maori Land Court to decide on the conflicts and on the consequences of a breach of s 227A of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 in light of this judgment. B The reasonable costs and disbursements of the first respondents are to be paid by the Whakapoungakau 24 Ahu Whenua Trust (the Tikitere Trust). C The question of costs in the Maori Land Court, the Maori Appellate Court and the Court of Appeal should (if an application is made) be considered by those Courts in light of this judgment. 20 May 2015
B The application by Pirihira Fenwick, Wiremu Kingi and Hiwinui Heke for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of 8 August 2013 is granted. The questions for determination on the appeal are:
1. Was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that the Tikitere Project Agreement was voidable because three of the trustees were beneficially interested in other trusts which were parties to the Agreement?
2. If so, was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that the remedy of rescission could be withheld only if third party interests were affected or should it have required general inquiry into whether rescission was in all the circumstances appropriate?
C No order for costs on the applications is made. 19 May 2014 __________________ A The appeal is allowed in part and the matter remitted to the Maori Land Court to decide on the conflicts and on the consequences of a breach of s 227A of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 in light of this judgment. B The reasonable costs and disbursements of the first respondents are to be paid by the Whakapoungakau 24 Ahu Whenua Trust (the Tikitere Trust). C The question of costs in the Maori Land Court, the Maori Appellate Court and the Court of Appeal should (if an application is made) be considered by those Courts in light of this judgment. 20 May 2015
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 68 (PDF, 250 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Hearing date : 18 November 2014
McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, Blanchard JJ
Case name
LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Limited v Pacific Flight Catering Limited and PRI Flight Catering Limited
Case number
SC 103/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 69J of the Employment Relations Act 2000 had the effect of extinguishing the transferring employer’s accrued contractual obligations to a transferred employee – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 69J of the Employment Relations Act 2000 absolved the transferring employer from liability to the new employer for the accrued contractual entitlements of a transferred employee – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in using the Employment Relations Amendment Bill 2013 as an aid to interpretation of the Employment Relations Act 2000. [2013] NZCA 386 CA 758/2012
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The ground for appeal is whether, under Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act 2000, the respondents are liable to reimburse the applicant for the cost of accrued leave entitlements of the respondents’ former employees on their transfer to the applicant.
6 December 2013
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay the respondents costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
5 November 2014
B The ground for appeal is whether, under Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act 2000, the respondents are liable to reimburse the applicant for the cost of accrued leave entitlements of the respondents’ former employees on their transfer to the applicant.
6 December 2013
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay the respondents costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
5 November 2014
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 158 (PDF, 265 KB)
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Peter William Mawhinney v Nags Head Horse Hotel Limited
Case number
SC 105/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that knowledge of a priority agreement between mortgagees was binding on all parties with that knowledge notwithstanding that the priorities had not been registered – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that knowledge by an attorney amounts to knowledge on the part of a principal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court decision that the proceedings could be determined summarily – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to have proper regard to Westpac New Zealand Ltd v Clark [2008] NZCA 346 – Whether the Court of Appeal judgment is based on incorrect facts.[2013] NZCA 401 CA 28/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay to the respondent costs of $2,500.
14 November 2013.
B The applicant is to pay to the respondent costs of $2,500.
14 November 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Tauranga Law v John Appleton and Natalie Marie Ryan as trustees of the Appleton Family Trust and John Appleton.
Case number
SC 108/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Negligence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the issue of causation in particular whether, if properly advised, the applicant would nevertheless have entered the transaction.[2013] NZCA 420 CA 858/2011
Result
A. Leave to appeal is granted.
B. The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal’s judgment was correct on the issue of causation.
18 November 2013
________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The respondents are to pay the appellant costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary).
C The costs order made in the Court of Appeal are set aside and any costs order in the High Court is reinstated. If costs cannot be agreed for the Court of Appeal, costs should be set by that Court in the light of this judgment.
19 February 2015
B. The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal’s judgment was correct on the issue of causation.
18 November 2013
________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The respondents are to pay the appellant costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary).
C The costs order made in the Court of Appeal are set aside and any costs order in the High Court is reinstated. If costs cannot be agreed for the Court of Appeal, costs should be set by that Court in the light of this judgment.
19 February 2015
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 3 (PDF, 254 KB)
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Jennings Roadfreight Limited (in liquidation) and Boris van Delden and Roy Horrocks as liquidators v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 118/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Tax Administration Act 1994 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the trust created by s 167(1) of the Tax Administration Act 1994 did not come to an end upon liquidation.[2013] NZCA 455 CA 432/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground for appeal is whether:
(a) the trust arising under s 167(1) of the Tax Administration Act 1994 continues in existence upon the liquidation of a company, in respect of funds held in the company’s account; or
(b) the trust is extinguished upon the liquidation, so that the funds held are dealt with in accordance with Schedule 7 of the Companies Act 1993.
14 February 2014
_________________
The appeal is allowed. The respondent must repay $14,076.38 to the appellants.
Costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary) are awarded to the appellants.
7 November 2014
The approved ground for appeal is whether:
(a) the trust arising under s 167(1) of the Tax Administration Act 1994 continues in existence upon the liquidation of a company, in respect of funds held in the company’s account; or
(b) the trust is extinguished upon the liquidation, so that the funds held are dealt with in accordance with Schedule 7 of the Companies Act 1993.
14 February 2014
_________________
The appeal is allowed. The respondent must repay $14,076.38 to the appellants.
Costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary) are awarded to the appellants.
7 November 2014
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 160 (PDF, 189 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Rujing Jin v North Shore District Court, Yasuki Konishi and Makiki Konishi
Case number
SC 125/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Practice and procedure – Proceedings – District Court Rules 2009 –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the District Court Judge’s decision to alter the mode of trial – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the District Court Judge’ s direction that there would be no judicial settlement conference – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to adjourn the claim against the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its decision on costs.[2013] NZCA 475 CA 168/2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 to the respondent
12 February 2014.
Case name
Razdan Rafiq v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.
Case number
SC 134/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss application to review the Registrar’s decision refusing to waive security for costs – Whether waiver of security for costs is in the interests of justice. [2013] NZCA 586 CA 577/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
19 February 2014
19 February 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Attorney-General
Case number
SC 137/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the decision of the Registrar of that Court not to dispense with security for costs. [2013] NZCA 540 CA 309/2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,5000 to the respondent plus reasonable disbursements.
19 February 2014.
Case name
Firm PI 1 Limited v Zurich Australian Insurance Limited and Body Corporate 398983
Case number
SC 141/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Insurance – Earthquake Commission Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the clause in the insurance policy providing that the respondent’s liability would be limited to the amount of loss in excess of the cover under the Earthquake Commission Act limited the respondent’s liability for natural disaster damage from a single event to the difference between the maximum cover under the Act and the sum insured.[2013] NZCA 560 CA 3933/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The question is whether the sum insured for buildings under the material damage section of the contract of insurance is inclusive or exclusive of sums payable to the insured by the Earthquake Commission under the Earthquake Commission Act 1993 for natural disaster damage to the insured’s buildings from the 22 February 2011 earthquake.
17 March 2014
__________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
15 October 2014
The question is whether the sum insured for buildings under the material damage section of the contract of insurance is inclusive or exclusive of sums payable to the insured by the Earthquake Commission under the Earthquake Commission Act 1993 for natural disaster damage to the insured’s buildings from the 22 February 2011 earthquake.
17 March 2014
__________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
15 October 2014
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 147 (PDF, 186 KB)
Substantive judgment
Leave judgment - leave granted
Transcript
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Page 85 of 107