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
Peter William Mawhinney v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 32/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
11 August 2020
Case name
Commissioner of Inland Revenue v The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Trust Board and Paul Ross Coward
Case number
SC 38/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $4,500 plus usual disbursements.
30 September 2020
Date of hearing
15 September 2020
Judges
O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Case name
Glenn William Schaeffer v James Joseph Murren as Trustee of the James J Murren Spendthrift Trust and and Daniel Lee
Case number
SC 50/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondents costs of $2,500.
22 September 2020
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Case name
George Tama Nicholls v Mark Steven Nicholls, Airini Pirihiria Tukerangi, Delace William James, Kahutoroa Mataia Tukerangi, Viv Tama Nicholls, Anita Mari Norman and Sarah Jane Nicholls as trustees of the Ahu Whenua Trust known as The W T Nicholls Trust
Case number
SC 76/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
19 February 2021
Case name
Quentin Stobart Haines, BPE Trustees (No. 1) Limited and Quentin Haines Properties Limited v Harry Memelink and Cisca Forester as Trustees of the Link Trust No.1 and Roy Bassett-Burr
Case number
SC 93/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against the interim decision is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal against the interim and substantive decisions is dismissed.
C The applicants must pay the respondents costs of $2,500.
1 March 2021
Case name
Brook Valley Community Group Incorporated v Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust, Minister for the Environment and Nelson City Council
Case number
SC 7/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991, ss 13, 15 and 360(1)(h) – Whether the discharge of brodifacoum was unlawful – Whether the exempting regulations made under s 360(1)(h) of the Resource Management Act were unlawful – Whether the reduction in the costs award in the High Court was sufficient to reflect the public interest in the case – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $4,500 to the respondents (to be divided equally among them, unless they agree otherwise) as well as the respondents’ usual disbursements.
21 May 2019
Case name
Vivien Judith Madsen-Ries and Henry David Levin as liquidators of Debut Homes Limited and Debut Homes Limited (in liquidation) v Leonard Wayne Cooper and Leonard Wayne Cooper and Tracey Cooper as trustees of the L & T Cooper Family Trust
Case number
SC 29/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s 136 of the Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in considering the Respondent’s actions as a director under ss 131 and 135 of the Companies Act 1993.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Debut Homes Ltd (in liq) v Cooper [2019] NZCA 39)
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
21 June 2019
___________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The High Court orders outlined at [4(a)], (b) and (c) of this Court’s judgment are restored.
C The respondents must pay the appellants costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements. Costs in the Courts below are to be determined in accordance with this judgment.
24 September 2020
Case name
Vipassana Foundation Charitable Trust Board v Auckland Council, Raymond Myles O'Brien and Victoria Mei Sien Pichler and Auckland Shooting Club Incorporated
Case number
SC 37/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the respondent Council properly considered the noise effects of the proposed activity when issuing a certificate of compliance under s 139 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (even though the Court of Appeal set aside that certificate).
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
12 July 2019
Case name
ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited v Bushline Trustees Limited, Stephen Daniel Coomey as trustee of Bushline Trust One, and Sharon Louise Coomey as trustee of Bushline Trust Two
Case number
SC 64/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contract law – Interest rate swaps – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the bank made a particular representation despite a factual finding in the High Court to the contrary – Whether the Court erred in holding that various representations made by the bank were undertakings forming part of the contract between the parties – Whether the Court erred in holding that the bank breached its undertaking to monitor and advise Bushline – Whether the Court erred in holding that it was not fair and reasonable, per s 4 of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979, for various disclaimer clauses to preclude liability in relation to various representations and undertakings – Whether the Court erred in holding that various exclusion clauses do not preclude liability in relation to various representations and undertakings – Whether the Court erred in holding that two of Bushline’ s misrepresentation and breach of contract claims were not time barred under the Limitations Act 1950.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Bushline Trustees Ltd v ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd [2019] NZCA 245).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal from the judgment of the High Court (Bushline Trustees Ltd v ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd [2017] NZHC 2520, [2018] NZCCLR 19). 15 October 2019
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B We make no award of costs in this Court.
C We reserve leave for any party to apply for an order dealing with costs in the Courts below. Any such application should be made within 20 working days of the date of this judgment.
24 July 2020
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
[2020] NZSC 71 (PDF, 221 KB)
Date of Hearing

12 March 2020

Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Williams JJ

Case name
Robert Lee as Trustee of the Estate of JG Lee v Gergory Lee,  Gregory Lee and Jane Lois Lee as trustees of The Leeroy Family Trust
Case number
SC 81/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in requiring the appellant to pay security for costs under rule 5.45 of the High Court Rules 2016.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
8 November 2019