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
Malcolm Edward Rabson as Trustee of the Malcolm Rabson Family Trust v Ian Bruce Shepherd and Christine Margaret Dunphy
Case number
SC 1/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 43(2) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining the application for an extension of time. [2016] NZCA 446 CA51/2016
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
23 June 2017
23 June 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Linda Gallagher, Malcolm Edward Rabson as Trustee of the Malcolm Rabson Family Trust and Wayne Seymour Chapman as Trustee of the Gallagher-Rabson Family Trust
Case number
SC 3/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to decline the application for clarification of the orders in Rabson v Gallagher [2011] NZCA 669.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to each of the first and third respondents. 5 April 2017 ________________ The application for recall is dismissed. 4 May 2017
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to each of the first and third respondents. 5 April 2017 ________________ The application for recall is dismissed. 4 May 2017
Recall judgment
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Stevenson Brown Limited v Montecillo Trust
Case number
SC 34/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a short form agreement limiting the liability of the applicant was not incorporated into the contract of engagement between the applicant and respondent.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
22 June 2017
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
22 June 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Charitable Trust v Invercargill City Council
Case number
SC 37/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no duty of care was owed by the Invercargill City Council to the Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Charitable Trust – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of limitation and contributory negligence principles
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Invercargill City Council v Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Charitable Trust
[2017] NZCA 68).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to reverse the judgment of Dunningham J.
30 May 2017
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B The finding made in the High Court upholding the appellant’s claim against the respondent is restored. The finding of the Court of Appeal that the appellant was contributorily negligent and that an award of damages should be reduced by 50 per cent is upheld. Judgment is entered accordingly. Leave is reserved to the parties to apply if any issues arise about the calculation of the judgment sum (including interest).
C The respondent must pay the appellant costs of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements to be determined by the Registrar if necessary. We allow for second counsel.
D The costs awards made in the Court of Appeal and in the High Court are set aside. If costs in those Courts cannot be agreed they should be set by the Court of Appeal and the High Court respectively in light of this judgment.
14 December 2017
[2017] NZCA 68).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to reverse the judgment of Dunningham J.
30 May 2017
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B The finding made in the High Court upholding the appellant’s claim against the respondent is restored. The finding of the Court of Appeal that the appellant was contributorily negligent and that an award of damages should be reduced by 50 per cent is upheld. Judgment is entered accordingly. Leave is reserved to the parties to apply if any issues arise about the calculation of the judgment sum (including interest).
C The respondent must pay the appellant costs of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements to be determined by the Registrar if necessary. We allow for second counsel.
D The costs awards made in the Court of Appeal and in the High Court are set aside. If costs in those Courts cannot be agreed they should be set by the Court of Appeal and the High Court respectively in light of this judgment.
14 December 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 - 11 August 2017 (PDF, 853 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 190 (PDF, 280 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand v Heli-logging Limited (in rec and liq). And Mark Wayne Ford in his capacity as Trustee of the Wessex Trust, and Mark Wayne Ford
Case number
SC 62/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Limitation Act 1950, s 28 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was an arguable case for a postponement of the limitation period under s 28 of the Limitation Act 1950.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
31 August 2017
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
31 August 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Case name
Angela Claire Shaw and Ian Alexander Shaw v Colin David Owens and David Stuart Vance as liquidators of Aluminium Plus Wellington Limited
Case number
SC 90/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the directors’ conduct amounted to breach of the duties imposed by ss 135 (reckless trading) and 137 (duty of care).
Result
A The application for an extension of time to appeal is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
20 October 2017
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
20 October 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust v Attorney General , Ngā ti Paoa Iwi Trust and Marutūāhu Rōpū Ltd
Case number
SC 135/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s decision to strike out the applicant’s claim for judicial review – Whether decisions made by the Minister of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations regarding land proposed to be applied to Treaty of Waitangi settlements are reviewable.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Ngᾱti Whᾱtua Ōrᾱkei Trust v Attorney General [2017] NZCA 554).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the applicant’s appeal to that Court.
23 March 2018
________________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part. The claim is reinstated apart from paragraphs (e) and (f) of the declaratory relief sought. The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for hearing.
B The first and third respondents must pay the appellant one set of costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
C The costs orders in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside. If costs in those Courts cannot be agreed they should be set by the Court of Appeal and High Court respectively in light of this judgment.
17 September 2018
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the applicant’s appeal to that Court.
23 March 2018
________________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part. The claim is reinstated apart from paragraphs (e) and (f) of the declaratory relief sought. The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for hearing.
B The first and third respondents must pay the appellant one set of costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
C The costs orders in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside. If costs in those Courts cannot be agreed they should be set by the Court of Appeal and High Court respectively in light of this judgment.
17 September 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 14 - 15 May 2018 (PDF, 1 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 84 (PDF, 263 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Substantive judgment
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Auckland Council v Wendco (NZ) Limited and Wiri Licensing Trust
Case number
SC 14/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991, s 95E – Whether the Court of Appeal interpreted the phrase “related to” in s 95E too broadly – Whether the first respondent is an affected person in terms of the second respondent’s application for resource consent. [2015] NZCA 617 CA 379/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Wendco (NZ) Ltd v Auckland Council [2015] NZCA 617).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the Auckland Council was required to give Wendco (NZ) Ltd notification of the resource consent application made by the Wiri Licensing Trust.
16 June 2016
_____________________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the judgment of Peters J reinstated.
B Costs in the High Court are to be fixed in that Court.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal are to be fixed by that Court.
D In this Court, the first respondent is to pay the appellant costs of $10,000 and the second respondent costs of $5,000 along with, in both instances, reasonable disbursements.
17 July 2017
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the Auckland Council was required to give Wendco (NZ) Ltd notification of the resource consent application made by the Wiri Licensing Trust.
16 June 2016
_____________________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the judgment of Peters J reinstated.
B Costs in the High Court are to be fixed in that Court.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal are to be fixed by that Court.
D In this Court, the first respondent is to pay the appellant costs of $10,000 and the second respondent costs of $5,000 along with, in both instances, reasonable disbursements.
17 July 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 November 2016 (PDF, 575 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 113 (PDF, 262 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Janine Davina Sax v Luke Andrew Simpson and Luke Andrew Simpson and Janine Davina Sax as Trustees of the Luke and Janine Simpsons Family Trust
Case number
SC 16/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing an application for review of a decision of the Registrar of that Court to refuse to dispense with security for costs in relation to an appeal to that Court. [2016] NZCA 3 CA 388/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are to be paid by the applicant to the first respondent.
17 February 2017
B Costs of $2,500 are to be paid by the applicant to the first respondent.
17 February 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
[2016] NZCA 3 Janine Davina Sax v Luke Andrew Simpson and Luke Andrew Simpson and Janine Davina Sax as Trustees of the Luke and Janine Simpsons Family Trust 27 January 2016 : not electronically available.
Case name
Ivan Vladimir Joseph Erceg v Lynette Therese Erceg and Darryl Edward Gregory as Trustees of Acorn Foundation Trust and Lynette Therese Erceg and Darryl Edward Gregory as Trustees of Independent Group Trust
Case number
SC 17/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal applied the correct test for requests by beneficiaries for access to trust documents – Whether the Court of Appeal applied the correct test for review of a trustee’ s decision – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court decision not to order disclosure of trust documents. [2016] NZCA 7 CA217/2015
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZCA 7, [2016] 2 NZLR 622).
B The approved question is: Should the conclusion that disclosure not be made/required be set-aside?
17 June 2016
____________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay to the respondents costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar in the absence of agreement between the parties). We certify for two counsel.
8 March 2017
B The approved question is: Should the conclusion that disclosure not be made/required be set-aside?
17 June 2016
____________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay to the respondents costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar in the absence of agreement between the parties). We certify for two counsel.
8 March 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 1 September 2016 (PDF, 709 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 28 (PDF, 266 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
ERCEG v ERCEG [2017] NZSC 28 [8 March 2017] (PDF, 368 KB)
Page 9 of 16