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.

31 July 2026

Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 131 KB) 

All years

Case name
Kung We Chen v Dilworth Trust Board
Case number
SC 89/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to grant an application for an extension of time to appeal under r 29A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.[2014] NZCA 352 CA 79/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
21 October 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
KUNG WE CHAN v DILWORTH TRUST BOARD [2014] NZSC 149   21 October 2014 (PDF, 54 KB)
Judgment appealed from

 CHEN v DILWORTH TRUST BOARD CA79/2014 [2014] NZCA 352   28 July 2014
Case name
Mark Stephen Hotchin v The New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Limited and Perpetual Trust Limited
Case number
SC 92/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it is necessary for both tortfeasors to have a coordinate liability to the plaintiff on a claim for contribution against a co-tortfeasor under s 17(1)(c) of the Law Reform Act 1936 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the same contribution principles apply to both tort and equity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it was unarguable that the applicant and the respondents are potentially liable for the same damage suffered by investors – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant’s claim for equitable contribution is unarguable.[2014] NZCA 400 CA 494/2013
Result
A The application to appeal is granted (Hotchin v The New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Limited [2014] NZCA     400).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to uphold the striking out of Mr Hotchin’s third party claims against the respondents. 
30 October 2014
_________________
A. The appeal is allowed.
B. Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellant. We certify for second counsel.
C. The costs orders in the High Court and the Court of Appeal are set aside.15 March 2016
Transcripts
Media Releases
Court of Appeal decision
HOTCHIN V THE NEW ZEALAND GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY LIMITED CA494/2013 [2014] NZCA 400 [15 August 2014]
Leave judgment - leave granted
MARK STEPHEN HOTCHIN v THE NEW ZEALAND GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY LIMITED [2014] NZSC 156 [30 October 2014 (PDF, 35 KB)
Substantive judgment
MARK STEPHEN HOTCHIN v THE NEW ZEALAND GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY LIMITED [2016] NZSC 24 [15 March 2016] (PDF, 950 KB)
Case name
William Elliot Hamilton and W E H Trustee Limited v Jane Mare Murrell
Case number
SC 95/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Relationship Breakdown – Property – Constructive Trust – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that trust property could be impressed with a constructive trust as a result of the conduct of a trustee who had de facto responsibility for the day-to-day running of a trust, with the co-trustee’s agreement – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that allowing the respondents claim did not alienate trust property or deprive the beneficiaries of the trust of something to which they were entitled – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that in all the circumstances, the trustees should reasonably expect to yield an interest in the trust property to the respondent and, accordingly, that the fourth element of a constructive trust over asserted relationship property was established.  [2014] NZCA 377  CA 31/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay the respondent costs of $2,500, plus reasonable disbursements. 12 November 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
WILLIAM ELLIOT HAMILTON v JANE MAREE MURRELL [2014] NZSC 162   12 November 2014 (PDF, 50 KB)
Judgment appealed from

MURRELL V HAMILTON CA31/2014 [2014] NZCA 377    7 August 2014
Case name
John Douglas Tamati Te Hoko-Whitu-Atu Hauraki as trustee of the Ngawapurua and Rua Roa Trusts  v Richard Tatere
Case number
SC 134/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Maori land – Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in treating the trustees’ children as if they were income beneficiaries when there was irrefutable evidence that eight of the nine children had ceased to be and were not income beneficiaries for the purposes of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by ignoring the only condition of the consents of both sets of beneficiaries, that due and proper consideration be given to the claims relating to “tipuna whenua” , “whakapapa” and “taonga tuku iho” – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by declining to consider whakapapa which it had provisionally allowed to be adduced.[2014] NZCA 532  CA  451/2013
Result
Notice of abandonment being filed, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed. 20 February 2015
Judgment appealed from

THE TE AUTE TRUST BOARD v HAURAKI CA451/2013 [2014] NZCA 532   4 November 2014
Case name
Ewan Robert Carr and Brookside Farm Trust Limited v Gallaway Cook Allan
Case number
SC 27/2013
Summary
Arbitration agreements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the legal test for severance, and in particular, whether essentiality is a factor or whether policy and part performance are the determining factors.  [2013] NZCA 11   CA437/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is: 
Should the arbitral award have been set aside?
2 July 2013
__________________
A   The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court setting aside the award of 9 May 2011 is reinstated.
B   The respondent must pay to the appellants costs in this court of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements. 
C    The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is set aside and the respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs in that Court and the High Court to be fixed by those courts.
20 June 2014
Transcripts
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
EWAN ROBERT CARR and BROOKSIDE FARM TRUST LIMITED v GALLAWAY COOK ALLAN [2014] NZSC 75 [20 June 2014] (PDF, 312 KB)
Case name
Te Whanau O Rangiwhakaahu Hapu Charitable Trust Inc and Friends of Matapouri Inc v Chief Execuitve, Land Information New Zealand  and Attorney-General
Case number
SC 31/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Cadastral Survey Act 2002, s 52 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to decline to judicially review the Surveyor-General’ s refusal to exercise his power in s 52 of the Cadastral Survey Act to require correction of the cadastral survey data set – Costs – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its approach to costs. [2013] NZCA 33    CA67/2011
Result
Application for  leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements to the respondents.
9 July 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TE WHANAU O RANGIWHAKAAHU HAPU CHARITABLE TRUST v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, LAND INFORMATION NEW ZEALAND [2013] NZSC 67 [9 July 2013] (PDF, 38 KB)
Case name
Michael Victor Bourneville and Mark Graham Blewden v Christine Jill Marshall
Case number
SC 71/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in identifying the proceeding as an application to the High Court to remove a caveat – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not making reference to the rules of law concerning the ability of the Court to interfere with the exercise of discretion on appeal – Whether the initiation of proceedings to establish a constructive trust constituted an abuse of process – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Respondent had a reasonably based expectation of an interest in the property – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relying solely on a submission by counsel for the Respondent, rather than properly introduced evidence in the High Court or Court of Appeal, in finding that the first Applicant and the Respondent had accumulated substantial assets by their joint endeavours – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first Applicant “obviously would have had knowledge of the circumstances giving rise to the expectation”.[2013] NZCA 271  CA 676/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B  The applicants are to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements.   14 November 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MICHAEL VICTOR BOURNEVILLE AND MARK GRAHAM BLEWDEN v CHRISTINE JILL MARSHALL [2013] NZSC 107 [8 November 2013] (PDF, 46 KB)
Case name
Arcadia Homes Limited (in liquidation) v More To This Life Limited and Andrew George Clark as trustees of the Ultimate Lifestyle Trust.
Case number
SC 75/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Director’s approval clauses – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its determinations relating to the effect of a director’s approval clause in an agreement for sale and purchase that has been signed, and the nature and scope of a director’s duties under such a clause.[2012] NZCA 286   CA 149/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ARCADIA HOMES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v MORE TO THIS LIFE LIMITED AND ANDREW GEORGE CLARK AS TRUSTEES OF THE ULTIMATE LIFESTYLE TRUST [2013] NZSC 117 [11 November 2013] (PDF, 60 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal is refused.
Costs to the respondent $2,5000 plus reasonable disbursements.

11 November 2013.
Case name
The Great Christchurch Buildings Trust v Church Property Trustees and  Chief Executive Officer of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority.
Case number
SC 83/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Trust law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the terms of the trust arising from the public subscription of funds for the erection of Christchurch Cathedral were irrelevant to determining the current obligations of the trustees or terms of the trust, and that the terms of the Cathedral Trust are to be found exclusively in the Provincial Ordinances authorising transfer of the land for the establishment of Christchurch Cathedral – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the terms of the Cathedral Trust allow the trustees to decide to demolish or deconstruct Christchurch Cathedral and do not require the trustees to maintain the existence of the Cathedral or repair it in order that it can continue to operate – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first respondent was free to demolish or deconstruct Christchurch Cathedral notwithstanding the terms of the Anglican (Diocese of Christchurch) Church Property Trust Act 2003 and its preceding legislation. [2013] NZCA 331   CA 57/2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
THE GREAT CHRISTCHURCH BUILDINGS TRUST v CHURCH PROPERTY TRUSTEES [2013] NZSC 132 [2 December 2013] (PDF, 57 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Costs to the first respondent $2,500.

2 December

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
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
NAERA and OTHERS v FENWICK and OTHERS [2014] NZSC 58 [19 May 2014 (PDF, 80 KB)
Substantive judgment
PIRIHIRA FENWICK, WIREMU KINGI AND HIWINUI HEKE v JILLIAN NAERA, KEREAMA PENE, ANAHA MOREHU, WARWICK MOREHU AND ERIC HODGE [2015] NZSC 68 [20 May 2015] (PDF, 559 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 18  November 2014

McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, Blanchard JJ
Page 11 of 16