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.
17 August 2026
Case information summary (as at 17 August 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 17 August 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 128 KB)
All years
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.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Solicitor-General
Case number
SC 14/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Court of Appeal Rules (Civil) 2005, r 35 – Appeal against Court of Appeal decision to decline review of Acting Registrar’s decisions as to security for costs – Whether rule 35 violates the rule of law as it is neither fixed nor predictable – Whether Court of Appeal judgment amounts to an unlawful restriction to court access by imposing a financial barrier to court access and without providing an analysis of the merits of the appeal – Whether Court of Appeal judgment amounts to unlawful governmental protection by preventing appeal challenge to a Crown Judge’s decision to strike out a statutory claim against a Crown officer – Whether rule 35 as currently applied is inconsistent with s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and art 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. CA 545/2011 [2012] NZCA 68
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
15 May 2012.
15 May 2012.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v The Chief Justice and The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 15/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Court of Appeal Rules (Civil) 2005, r 35 – Appeal against Court of Appeal decision to decline review of Acting Registrar’s decisions as to security for costs – Whether rule 35 violates the rule of law as it is neither fixed nor predictable – Whether Court of Appeal judgment amounts to an unlawful restriction to court access by imposing a financial barrier to court access and without providing an analysis of the merits of the appeal – Whether Court of Appeal judgment amounts to unlawful governmental protection by preventing appeal challenge to a Crown Judge’s decision to strike out a statutory claim against a Crown officer – Whether rule 35 as currently applied is inconsistent with s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and art 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. CA 558/2011 [2012] NZCA68
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
15 May 2012.
15 May 2012.
Case name
Michael Peter Stiassny, Grant Robert Graham, Forestry Corporation of New Zealand Limited (in receivership), Citic New Zealand Limited (in receivership), CNI Forest Nominees Limited and Bank of New Zealand v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 21/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Goods and services tax – Restitution – Recovery of a GST payment paid by the first appellants to the respondent in the mistaken belief that they were personally liable for the debt – Whether secured creditors own the proceedings of sale of assets that are subject to registered fixed charges at the time of sale, if they are sold for less than the secured debts to which the charges relate – Whether the first appellants were entitled to apply the proceeds of sale of the Central North Island Forestry Partnership (CNIFP) assets to the payment of GST amount, in priority to the claims of the secured creditors – Whether the GST payment was “ debtor-initiated” in terms of s 95 of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 (PPSA) – Whether s 95 of the PPSA barred the recovery of the GST payment if it was made under a mistake – Whether the second and third appellants have a cause of action in restitution for the recovery of their mistaken payment – Whether the first appellants have a cause of action in restitution for the recovery of their mistaken payment – Whether the security trustees have a cause of action in restitution for the recovery of the mistaken payment made by the first appellants to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue – Whether “good faith” is a pre-requisite for a defence of the provision of good consideration to the payer to a claim for the recovery of a payment made under a mistake – Whether the first appellants are entitled to recover GST payment pursuant to their tax challenge cause of action pursuant to the Tax Administration Act 1994.SC 775/2010 [2012] NZCA 93
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds are:
(i) whether the GST payment was a “ debtor-initiated payment” in terms of s 95 of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 so as to confer priority to the Commissioner over any claim to those moneys by any respondent;
(ii) whether any of the appellants can recover the amount of GST so paid from the Commissioner on the basis that it was paid by the receivers under a mistaken belief that they were personally liable to pay it or on any other basis.
8 May 2012
_____________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellants are to pay the respondent’ s costs in this Court in the sum of $40,000 together with reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
28 November 2012
Transcript
Hearing dates : 27 and 28 September 2012
McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Gault, Blanchard JJ.
Page 85 of 108