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
Mark Arnold Clayton and others v Melanie Ann Clayton
Case number
SC 23/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a power of appointment could be relationship property under the Property (Relationships) Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there had been a disposition with intent to defeat rights in terms of s 44 of the Act in relation to various trusts – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relation to valuation.[2015] NZCA 30 CA 473/2013; CA 474/2014
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are granted in respect of the questions identified in B and C below (Clayton v Clayton [2015] NZCA 30). In all other respects, the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B In relation to the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT):Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there is no distinction between a sham trust and what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the VRPT was neither a sham trust nor what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?If so:
Was the bundle of rights and powers held by Mr and/or Mrs Clayton under the VRPT Trust Deed “property” for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA)?Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the power of appointment under clause 7.1 of the VRPT Trust Deed was “relationship property” for the purposes of the PRA?If so, did the Court of Appeal err in its approach to the valuation of the power?
C In relation to the Claymark Trust, was the Court of appeal correct in its interpretation and application of:
Section 44C of the PRA?
Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980?
18 June 2015
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B We set aside the findings of the Court of Appeal that cl 7.1 of the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT) trust deed (the VRPT deed) is a general power of appointment and that the power is both property and relationship property, having a value equal to that of the net assets of the VRPT.
C We substitute a finding that the powers of Mr Clayton as Principal Family Member and Trustee under cls 6.1, 7.1, 8.1 and 10.1 of the VRPT deed (read in light of cls 11.1, 14.1 and 19.1(c) of that deed) are property and relationship property having a value equal to that of the net assets of the VRPT.
D We set aside the finding of the Court of Appeal that the VRPT is not an illusory trust (i.e. that it is a valid trust). We decline to make a ruling on that issue.
E We uphold the finding of the Court of Appeal that the VRPT is not a sham.
F We make no award of costs
23 March 2016
B In relation to the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT):Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there is no distinction between a sham trust and what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the VRPT was neither a sham trust nor what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?If so:
Was the bundle of rights and powers held by Mr and/or Mrs Clayton under the VRPT Trust Deed “property” for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA)?Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the power of appointment under clause 7.1 of the VRPT Trust Deed was “relationship property” for the purposes of the PRA?If so, did the Court of Appeal err in its approach to the valuation of the power?
C In relation to the Claymark Trust, was the Court of appeal correct in its interpretation and application of:
Section 44C of the PRA?
Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980?
18 June 2015
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B We set aside the findings of the Court of Appeal that cl 7.1 of the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT) trust deed (the VRPT deed) is a general power of appointment and that the power is both property and relationship property, having a value equal to that of the net assets of the VRPT.
C We substitute a finding that the powers of Mr Clayton as Principal Family Member and Trustee under cls 6.1, 7.1, 8.1 and 10.1 of the VRPT deed (read in light of cls 11.1, 14.1 and 19.1(c) of that deed) are property and relationship property having a value equal to that of the net assets of the VRPT.
D We set aside the finding of the Court of Appeal that the VRPT is not an illusory trust (i.e. that it is a valid trust). We decline to make a ruling on that issue.
E We uphold the finding of the Court of Appeal that the VRPT is not a sham.
F We make no award of costs
23 March 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 1, 2 and 8 September 2015 (PDF, 1.6 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 29 (PDF, 250 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
SK v The Immigration and Protection Tribunal and Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment
Case number
SC 26/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Immigration Act 2009 – Convention relating to the Status of Refugees – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining the applicant’s application for leave to bring review proceedings in the High Court against the Immigration and Protection Tribunal’s refugee status determination.[2015] NZCA 26 CA 694/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are payable to the second respondent.
24 June 2015
B Costs of $2,500 are payable to the second respondent.
24 June 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Kyung Yup Kim v The Prison Manager, Mt Eden Corrections Facility
Case number
SC 27/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Application for Habeas Corpus – Extradition Act 1999 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the subject of a request for extradition, if found eligible to surrender, is to be detained in custody – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Extradition Act.[2015] NZCA 2 CA 17/2015
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 23 April 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Bruce Brendon van Essen and Jason Patterson v The Attorney-General and others
Case number
SC 28/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Unreasonable Search and Seizure under New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether Court of Appeal applied correct test for public law remedies – Whether Court of Appeal correctly applied principles in Taunoa v Attorney General – Whether Court of Appeal correct in reliance on Independent Police Conduct Authority reports as a basis for assessing NZBORA compensation – Whether Court of Appeal correct in finding there was a proper basis for obtaining and executing search warrants – Whether Court of Appeal correct in finding that s 27 Crimes Act 1961 conferred immunity on defendants.[2015] NZCA 22 CA 320/2013; CA 339/2013; CA 593/2013; CA 594/2013
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B The applicants are to pay costs of $2,500 to both:
the first respondent, and the second and third respondents jointly.
13 July 2015
_________________
Reissued 3 November 2015.
A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
________________________
We certify that, were it not for s 45(2) of the Legal Services Act 2011, the applicants would have been ordered to pay the second and third respondents jointly costs of $2,500.
15 March 2016
B The applicants are to pay costs of $2,500 to both:
the first respondent, and the second and third respondents jointly.
13 July 2015
_________________
Reissued 3 November 2015.
A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
________________________
We certify that, were it not for s 45(2) of the Legal Services Act 2011, the applicants would have been ordered to pay the second and third respondents jointly costs of $2,500.
15 March 2016
Supreme court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Derek Nicholas Blackwell and Charles Basil Blackwell as Executors and Trustees of the Estate of Ross Winston Blackwell v Leith Roger Chick and Rosemary Chick and Edmonds Judd
Case number
SC 30/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicants’ lack of mental capacity and unconscionable bargain defences in CA 481/2013 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the deceased had sufficient mental capacity in CA 476/2013 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding there was no causation as to the lawyer’ s negligent advice and the loss suffered by the deceased.[2015] NZCA 34 CA 481/2013; CA 476/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal in CA 481/2013 is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants to the first respondents.
C The application for leave to appeal in CA 476/2013 is granted.
D The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its conclusion that, on the findings in the High Court, the negligence of the second respondent caused no loss.
19 June 2015
________________
A The appeal is allowed. Judgment is given for the appellants in the sum of $1,000,000.
B Interest of five per cent is ordered from the date of settlement by Mr and Mrs Chick of the purchase of the farm.
C The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
D The costs order in the Court of Appeal (CA476/2013) is set aside. Costs in that Court and in the High Court should be set by those Courts in light of this judgment.
22 April 2016
B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants to the first respondents.
C The application for leave to appeal in CA 476/2013 is granted.
D The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its conclusion that, on the findings in the High Court, the negligence of the second respondent caused no loss.
19 June 2015
________________
A The appeal is allowed. Judgment is given for the appellants in the sum of $1,000,000.
B Interest of five per cent is ordered from the date of settlement by Mr and Mrs Chick of the purchase of the farm.
C The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
D The costs order in the Court of Appeal (CA476/2013) is set aside. Costs in that Court and in the High Court should be set by those Courts in light of this judgment.
22 April 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 2 February 2016 (PDF, 514 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 40 (PDF, 253 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Melanie Ann Clayton v Mark Arnold Clayton and others
Case number
SC 38/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether the Vaughan Road Property Trust was a sham trust or an illusory trust – Whether s 44 of the Property (Relationships) Act should apply to gifts and distributions made in relation to various trusts.[2015] NZCA 30 CA 473/2013; CA 474/2014
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are granted in respect of the questions identified in B and C below (Clayton v Clayton [2015] NZCA 30). In all other respects, the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B In relation to the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT):
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there is no distinction between a sham trust and what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the VRPT was neither a sham trust nor what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?
If so:
Was the bundle of rights and powers held by Mr and/or Mrs Clayton under the VRPT Trust Deed “property” for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA)?
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the power of appointment under clause 7.1 of the VRPT Trust Deed was “relationship property” for the purposes of the PRA?
If so, did the Court of Appeal err in its approach to the valuation of the power?
C In relation to the Claymark Trust, was the Court of appeal correct in its interpretation and application of:
Section 44C of the PRA?
Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980?
18 June 2015
______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B There is no order of costs.
23 March 2016
B In relation to the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT):
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there is no distinction between a sham trust and what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the VRPT was neither a sham trust nor what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?
If so:
Was the bundle of rights and powers held by Mr and/or Mrs Clayton under the VRPT Trust Deed “property” for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA)?
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the power of appointment under clause 7.1 of the VRPT Trust Deed was “relationship property” for the purposes of the PRA?
If so, did the Court of Appeal err in its approach to the valuation of the power?
C In relation to the Claymark Trust, was the Court of appeal correct in its interpretation and application of:
Section 44C of the PRA?
Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980?
18 June 2015
______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B There is no order of costs.
23 March 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 1, 2 and 8 September 2015 (PDF, 1.6 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 30 (PDF, 404 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Sportzone Motorcyles Limited (in liquidation) and Motor Trade Finances Limited v Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 40/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of ss 41, 42 and 44. [2015] NZCA 78 CA 727/2013; CA 593/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Sportzone Motorcycles Ltd (in liq) and Motor Trade Finances Ltd v Commerce Commission [2015] NZCA 78).
B The approved question is:Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the fees charged by the applicants were unreasonable for the purposes of s 41 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003?
2 July 2015
_______________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be determined by the Registrar in the absence of agreement between the parties).
We certify for two counsel.
12 May 2016
B The approved question is:Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the fees charged by the applicants were unreasonable for the purposes of s 41 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003?
2 July 2015
_______________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be determined by the Registrar in the absence of agreement between the parties).
We certify for two counsel.
12 May 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 - 11 November 2015 (PDF, 1.2 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 53 (PDF, 242 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Phillip Wiki Taha v The Queen
Case number
SC 43/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether new evidence not led at trial is “ fresh” and cogent.[2015] NZCA 107 CA 405/2014
Result
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
16 March 2016
16 March 2016
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Doug Andrews Heating and Ventilation Limited and Multi KC Limited v Wayne James Dil, Gary Roy Mitchell and G & W Imports Limited'
Case number
SC 45/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the applicant’s appeal against the High Court’s decision dismissing the applicant’s claim of patent infringement.[2015] NZCA 122 CA 5/2014
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed.
B The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $5,000 in respect of both applications.
8 October 2015
B The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $5,000 in respect of both applications.
8 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Mita Michael Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Limited and The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 47/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that Landcorp’s entry into an agreement to sell Whārere Farm was not tainted by bad faith – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that certain actions of the Office of Treaty Settlements were not justiciable – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusions as to shareholding ministers’ powers to direct Landcorp.[2015] NZCA 160 CA 336/2014; CA 337/2014; CA 29/2015
Result
An order is made that the first respondent, Landcorp Farming Ltd, not proceed with the sale of the Wharere Farm until further order of the Court.
14 May 2015
______________________
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (The Attorney-General v Ririnui [2015] NZCA 160).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse the relief sought by the applicant based on:
(a) the claimed bad faith on the part of Landcorp;
(b) the acknowledged error of law by the Office of Treaty Settlements in its advice to Landcorp;
(c) the failure of the shareholding Ministers of Landcorp to intervene.
C The first respondent is restrained until further order of the Court from settling the agreement for sale and purchase of Whārere Farm, with leave reserved to the parties or to the purchaser to apply for discharge or variation of this order.
D The Registrar is directed to serve a copy of this judgment on the purchaser.
27 May 2015
________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B The following declarations are made:
(i) The decision of Landcorp Farming Limited’s shareholding Ministers and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations not to intervene in the tender process on behalf of Ngāti Whakahemo as they did on behalf of Ngāti Mākino was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
(ii) The decision by Landcorp Farming Limited on 28 February 2014 to sell Whārere farm to Micro Farms Limited was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
C All other forms of relief claimed by the appellant are declined.
D The restraining order made by this Court in Order C of its judgment granting leave to appeal (Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Ltd [2015] NZSC 72) is discharged.
E Costs are reserved. The parties may file written submissions as to costs in this Court and in the Courts below if they are unable to reach agreement.
9 June 2016
___________
A The orders of the Court of Appeal as to costs are quashed.
B The parties are to bear their own costs in all Courts.
1 May 2017
14 May 2015
______________________
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (The Attorney-General v Ririnui [2015] NZCA 160).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse the relief sought by the applicant based on:
(a) the claimed bad faith on the part of Landcorp;
(b) the acknowledged error of law by the Office of Treaty Settlements in its advice to Landcorp;
(c) the failure of the shareholding Ministers of Landcorp to intervene.
C The first respondent is restrained until further order of the Court from settling the agreement for sale and purchase of Whārere Farm, with leave reserved to the parties or to the purchaser to apply for discharge or variation of this order.
D The Registrar is directed to serve a copy of this judgment on the purchaser.
27 May 2015
________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B The following declarations are made:
(i) The decision of Landcorp Farming Limited’s shareholding Ministers and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations not to intervene in the tender process on behalf of Ngāti Whakahemo as they did on behalf of Ngāti Mākino was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
(ii) The decision by Landcorp Farming Limited on 28 February 2014 to sell Whārere farm to Micro Farms Limited was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
C All other forms of relief claimed by the appellant are declined.
D The restraining order made by this Court in Order C of its judgment granting leave to appeal (Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Ltd [2015] NZSC 72) is discharged.
E Costs are reserved. The parties may file written submissions as to costs in this Court and in the Courts below if they are unable to reach agreement.
9 June 2016
___________
A The orders of the Court of Appeal as to costs are quashed.
B The parties are to bear their own costs in all Courts.
1 May 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 May 2015 (PDF, 308 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 62 (PDF, 265 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Supreme Court - order made
Additional document
Transcription hearing 17 - 18 August 2015 (PDF, 1.5 MB)
Page 48 of 137