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
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
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Linda Gallagher and others.
Case number
SC 5/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – division of property - Property (Relationship) Act 1976 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to take into account relevant considerations regarding separate property owned by the applicant – whether the Court of Appeal erred in making factual findings – whether the Court of Appeal failed to apply basic legal principles – whether the Court of Appeal took into account irrelevant considerations in relation to the Family Trust– whether the Court of Appeal erred in treating the Applicant as having the same legal personality as the Third Respondent – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to afford separate legal representation to a minor.[2011] NZCA 669 CA 507/2010, CA 726/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed, with costs of $4,000 to the first respondent.
16 April 2012.
16 April 2012.
Case name
Dorchester Finance Limited v Deloitte & Perpetual Trust Limited
Case number
SC 47/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contract Law –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the “Limit on Action” clause at issue in this case did not have the effect of extinguishing the underlying debt to which it applies – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to apply the fundamental principles of the law of contract – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that a limit on action clause did not have substantive effect – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its construction of the subject limit on action clause.[2012]NZCA 226 CA 57/2011
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay costs of $5,000 to each respondent, plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
11 September 2012.
Case name
Tiroa E and Te Hapa B Trusts v Chief Executive of Land Information and others.
Case number
SC 58/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Overseas Investment Act 2005 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first, second and third respondents had applied the correct test under s 16(1)(a) of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first, second and third respondents had not taken into account irrelevant considerations – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first, second and third respondents had obtained reasonably adequate information to reach decision that s 16(1)(a) of the Act had been satisfied. [2012]NZCA 355 CA 88/2012, CA 284/2012
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to both Milk New Zealand Holdings Ltd and the Crown respondents.
17 October 2012.
The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to both Milk New Zealand Holdings Ltd and the Crown respondents.
17 October 2012.
Case name
The Proprietors of Wakatu Incorporated and others v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 68/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Maori land – Whether, in the circumstances in which Maori land was acquired for the New Zealand Company’s Nelson settlement, the Crown was in breach of legally enforceable obligations owed to the owners from whom title was acquired – Whether the High Court erred in holding that no trust existed – Whether the High Court erred in finding that the Crown did not owe a fiduciary duty – Whether, if such obligations were owed, those owners have lost their right to enforce such obligations by reason of defences available to the Crown through lapse of time – Whether the High Court erred in finding that the appellants did not have standing to bring the proceeding.[2012]NZHC 1461 Civ 2010 442 181
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 November 2012.
28 November 2012.
Case name
Kevin Tito v Aroha Tito and John Andrew
Case number
SC 92/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Trusts – Whether there was a breach of the Trust Order in relation to the election of trustees – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in accepting this breach of the Trust Order – Whether the Court of Appeal should have considered further the issue relating to a respondent’s receipt of trust monies – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the applicant was seeking the removal of the respondents as trustees – Whether the Trust has failed to act in the interests of the owners. [2012] NZCA 493 CA 856/2011
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
14 March 2013.
14 March 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TITO v TITO & ANOR SC 92/2012 [14 March 2013] (PDF, 59 KB)
Case name
The New Zealand Māori Council and Waikato Rivers and Dams Claims Trust v Her Majesty’s Attorney-General, The Minister of Finance and The Minister of State Owned Enterprises
Case number
SC 98/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Application for direct appeal – Whether the High Court was right to dismiss the New Zealand Māori Council’ s application for review. [2012] NZHC 3338 Civ 2012 485 2187
Result
Leave to appeal, and to appeal direct to this Court, is granted. The approved ground of appeal is whether the High Court was right to dismiss the application for review.
_____________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
27 February 2013
_____________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
27 February 2013
Media Releases
- MR [2013] NZSC 6 (PDF, 109 KB)
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Hearing date : 1 February 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.
Case name
Lisa Marie Colleen Mandic and Stephen Neil Dohnt
Case number
SC 4/2011
Summary
Civil – Interpretation of a Glasgow lease – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its approach and conclusions as to the interpretation of the lease’s particular rental review formula. [2010] NZCA 576 CA 787/2009 3 December 2010
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal conclusion as to the valuation methodology provided by cl 13(b) of the lease is correct.
18 March 2011
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellants are to pay the respondent costs of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements in connection with this appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
11 November 2011
18 March 2011
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellants are to pay the respondent costs of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements in connection with this appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
11 November 2011
Date of hearing
23 March 2011
Judges
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Transcripts
- sc 4 2011 mandic lisa marie anor v cornwall park (PDF, 634 KB)
Media Releases
- media release mandic dohnt (PDF, 90 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
B v B
Case number
SC 82/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Properties Relationship Act 1976, ss 10(1)(a) and (c) – The applicant obtained property by suing his father’s estate to perfect his entitlement under his father’s will, the trustees of two trusts of which he was a beneficiary, and his mother and two sisters under the Family Protection Act 1955 - Whether this property, acquired by litigation paid for by relationship property money, is his personal property under ss 10(1)(a) and (c) of the Act or relationship property. [2011] NZCA 292 CA 161/2010
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
29 September 2011.
Page 12 of 16