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
Harry Memelink and Lynx Trustees Limited as Trustees of Link Trust (No 1) and Harry Memelink v Collins and May Law
Case number
SC 87/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning a High Court judgment that the respondent law firm was negligent in a conveying transaction.
Result
A The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The first applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500. Given the position at [2], we make no costs award against the second applicant.
11 October 2019
B The first applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500. Given the position at [2], we make no costs award against the second applicant.
11 October 2019
Court of Appeal decision
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Barry Ross Laurence Castleton-Reid v Ross Ronayne Reid
Case number
SC 89/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondent did not intend to make a gift to the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the money transferred to the applicant was held on resulting trust for the respondent.
Result
A Notice of Abandonment having been filed the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
17 October 2019
17 October 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Case name
Bryce Brougham v Christine Anne Elizabeth Regan and Mark Jefferey Tuffin as trustees of the Winchester Trust and Racheal Christina Dey
Case number
SC 104/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a standard form loan agreement was a contract of guarantee under s 27 of the Property Law Act 2007 – Whether imposing guarantee obligations on one of two guarantors named in a contract of guarantee is contingent on both named guarantors signing.
Result
A An extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
B Leave to appeal is granted (Regan v Brougham [2019] NZCA 401).
C The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was right to allow the appeal to that Court.
12 December 2019
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The orders made in the Court of Appeal are set aside and judgment is entered for the appellant.
C The respondents must pay the appellant costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
D The award of costs and disbursements in the lower Courts in favour of the first respondents is set aside. Such costs and disbursements should be reassessed by the Court of Appeal in light of this judgment. The award of costs in favour of the second respondent stands.
E The first respondents’ interlocutory application to adduce further evidence is dismissed. 30 October 2020
B Leave to appeal is granted (Regan v Brougham [2019] NZCA 401).
C The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was right to allow the appeal to that Court.
12 December 2019
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The orders made in the Court of Appeal are set aside and judgment is entered for the appellant.
C The respondents must pay the appellant costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
D The award of costs and disbursements in the lower Courts in favour of the first respondents is set aside. Such costs and disbursements should be reassessed by the Court of Appeal in light of this judgment. The award of costs in favour of the second respondent stands.
E The first respondents’ interlocutory application to adduce further evidence is dismissed. 30 October 2020
Date of hearing
09 June 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 9 June 2020 (PDF, 409 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 118 (PDF, 189 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Allan David McLean v The Public Trust
Case number
SC 110/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of cl 5 of the deceased’s will
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay one set of costs of $2,500 to be divided equally between the respondent and Mr Flaus as trustee for the estate of Mrs Ruth McLean.
6 December 2019
B The applicant must pay one set of costs of $2,500 to be divided equally between the respondent and Mr Flaus as trustee for the estate of Mrs Ruth McLean.
6 December 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Lambie Trustee Limited v Prudence Anne Addleman
Case number
SC 118/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted on whether the Court of Appeal was correct to order the applicant to disclose to the respondent any legal opinions and other advice obtained by the trustees of the Lambie Trust and funded by the Trust (Addleman v Lambie Trustee Ltd [2019] NZCA 480, (2019) 5 NZTR 29-016).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to reject the applicant’s claims of legal advice privilege and litigation privilege respectively.
C In all other respects, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
4 March 2020
______________________
A With the clarification that the orders for disclosure made by the Court of Appeal do not extend to legal advice given from June 2015 in connection with this litigation and with leave reserved to Lambie Trustee Ltd to revert to this Court in relation to advice received after 7 November 2014 and before June 2015, the appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
1 June 2021
__________________________________
A Mrs Addleman is to receive out of the Lambie Trust her actual costs in relation to the appeal to this Court plus usual disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary). We allow for second counsel. Mrs Addleman is to provide a schedule of the costs incurred to Lambie Trustee Ltd within 10 working days of the date of delivery of this judgment. Any issue as to the reasonableness of the costs sought is to be determined by the Registrar.
B Lambie Trustee Ltd is not entitled to any indemnity for costs and expenses in connection with the appeal to this Court, including both its own legal fees and any solicitor client costs and disbursements due to Mrs Addleman.
C Lambie Trustee Ltd is to reimburse the Lambie Trust (from funds not sourced from the Trust) the costs awarded by this Court on the appeal.
D The orders of this Court at B and C, above, apply to the award of costs in the Court of Appeal.
E Mrs Addleman is entitled to costs on a 2B basis together with reasonable disbursements in relation to costs in the High Court. Orders B and C, above, apply to the award of costs in that Court.
17 February 2023
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to reject the applicant’s claims of legal advice privilege and litigation privilege respectively.
C In all other respects, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
4 March 2020
______________________
A With the clarification that the orders for disclosure made by the Court of Appeal do not extend to legal advice given from June 2015 in connection with this litigation and with leave reserved to Lambie Trustee Ltd to revert to this Court in relation to advice received after 7 November 2014 and before June 2015, the appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
1 June 2021
__________________________________
A Mrs Addleman is to receive out of the Lambie Trust her actual costs in relation to the appeal to this Court plus usual disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary). We allow for second counsel. Mrs Addleman is to provide a schedule of the costs incurred to Lambie Trustee Ltd within 10 working days of the date of delivery of this judgment. Any issue as to the reasonableness of the costs sought is to be determined by the Registrar.
B Lambie Trustee Ltd is not entitled to any indemnity for costs and expenses in connection with the appeal to this Court, including both its own legal fees and any solicitor client costs and disbursements due to Mrs Addleman.
C Lambie Trustee Ltd is to reimburse the Lambie Trust (from funds not sourced from the Trust) the costs awarded by this Court on the appeal.
D The orders of this Court at B and C, above, apply to the award of costs in the Court of Appeal.
E Mrs Addleman is entitled to costs on a 2B basis together with reasonable disbursements in relation to costs in the High Court. Orders B and C, above, apply to the award of costs in that Court.
17 February 2023
Date of hearing
02 December 2020
Judges
William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 2 December 2020 (PDF, 492 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 54 (PDF, 401 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Summary
Case name
Geoffrey James Bird v The New Zealand Guardian Trust Company, Philip Anthony Bird, David Andrew Bird and Allen Roger Bird
Case number
SC 1/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court erred in removing the applicant as executor and trustee – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing an application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs.
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the second, third and fourth respondents. 8 February 2018
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the second, third and fourth respondents. 8 February 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust v Minister of Conservation, Fullers Group Limited and Motutapu Island Restoration Trust
Case number
SC 11/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Conservation Act 1987 and Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that concessions to conduct guided tours over Rangitoto and Motutapu could be granted despite iwi objections.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust v Minister of Conservation [2017] NZCA 613).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal of the applicant to that Court.
8 May 2018
______________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B We direct that the second respondent’ s application for a concession be reconsidered by the first respondent’ s delegate in light of this judgment. The licence awarded to the second respondent on 31 August 2015 will remain in force until that reconsideration has occurred.
C The decision of the first respondent’s delegate granting a permit to the third respondent dated 15 October 2015 is quashed. We direct that the third respondent’s application for a concession be reconsidered by the first respondent’s delegate in light of this judgment.
D Costs are reserved.
14 December 2018
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal of the applicant to that Court.
8 May 2018
______________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B We direct that the second respondent’ s application for a concession be reconsidered by the first respondent’ s delegate in light of this judgment. The licence awarded to the second respondent on 31 August 2015 will remain in force until that reconsideration has occurred.
C The decision of the first respondent’s delegate granting a permit to the third respondent dated 15 October 2015 is quashed. We direct that the third respondent’s application for a concession be reconsidered by the first respondent’s delegate in light of this judgment.
D Costs are reserved.
14 December 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 14 August 2018 (PDF, 646 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 122 (PDF, 260 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Ruiren Xu and Diamantina Trust Limited v IAG New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 47/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether a replacement benefit payable under an insurance policy issued by the respondent was assignable.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Xu v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2018] NZCA 149).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal against the judgment of Nation J
2 August 2018
_________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are to pay costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements.
3 July 2019
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal against the judgment of Nation J
2 August 2018
_________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are to pay costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements.
3 July 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 13 November 2008 (PDF, 254 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 68 (PDF, 64 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
James John Duncan Macfarlane v Perpetual Trust Limited
Case number
SC 80/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s decision to remove a caveat over a property and grant vacant possession.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent
14 November 2018
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent
14 November 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Christian John Gillibrand and Mary Caecilia Gillibrand (as trustees of The Chris and Mary Gillibrand family trust) v George Peter Swanepoel
Case number
SC 106/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the admissibility of evidence under s 25 of the Evidence Act 2006.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
21 February 2019
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
21 February 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 8 of 16