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
Yong Xin Chen v The Cornwall Park Trust Board
Case number
SC 34/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of a lease[2016] NZCA 65 CA 645/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Cornwall Park Trust Board Inc v Chen [2016] NZCA 65).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct:
(i) to hold that the applicant is liable under the lease to pay the upset rental from the date of expiry of the lease until she vacated the property; and
(ii) in interpreting and applying the applicant’s repair obligations under the lease.
4 July 2016 ____________ Notice of abandonment lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed. 26 September 2016
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct:
(i) to hold that the applicant is liable under the lease to pay the upset rental from the date of expiry of the lease until she vacated the property; and
(ii) in interpreting and applying the applicant’s repair obligations under the lease.
4 July 2016 ____________ Notice of abandonment lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed. 26 September 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Hearing
15 November 2016
William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O'Regan and Blanchard JJ.
Case name
Hilary Jane Calvert & HGW Trustees Ltd (as trustees of the Frongopoulos Trust & Anor) & Chris James v Grant Bruce REYNOLDS as liquidator of James Developments Ltd (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 51/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 28 of the Limitation Act 1950 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the breadth of the discretion under s 301 of the Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in following Mana Property Trustee Ltd v James Development Ltd [2010] NZSC 90. [2016] NZCA 151 CA173/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants (jointly and severally) must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
9 August 2016
B The applicants (jointly and severally) must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
9 August 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
John Edward Whitehead and others (as trustees of J and R Whitehead Trust) and Shiloh Charitable Trust v Watson & Son Limited and Denis Eric Watson and Meryl Joy Watson (as trustees of Salem Charitable Trust of Masterton)
Case number
SC 65/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in their finding that the rental owed had been assigned and discharged – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that amounts owed under sale and purchase agreement could be set-off by amounts owed under rental agreement. [2016] NZCA 241 CA750/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed
B The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $2,500
30 August 2016
B The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $2,500
30 August 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
HC judgments
Case name
Green Growth No. 2 Limited v Queen Elizabeth The Second National Trust
Case number
SC 84/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the respondent was entitled to rectification of the covenant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the covenant was not invalid – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the respondent’s notification of the covenant was not wrongful in terms of s 81 of the Land Transfer Act 1952. [2016] NZCA 308 CA47/2015
Result
A The appeal is allowed to the extent only that the order for rectification is set aside.
B There is a declaration that for the purposes of cls 2 and 7 of the second schedule of the open space covenant references to “protected area” mean the whole block of land subject to the covenant.
C The appellant is to pay the respondent costs of $25,000 and usual disbursements.
17 August 2018
_______________________
A The application for partial recall of this Court’s judgment of 17 August 2018 (Green Growth No 2 Ltd v Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust [2018] NZSC 75) is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
26 November 2018
B There is a declaration that for the purposes of cls 2 and 7 of the second schedule of the open space covenant references to “protected area” mean the whole block of land subject to the covenant.
C The appellant is to pay the respondent costs of $25,000 and usual disbursements.
17 August 2018
_______________________
A The application for partial recall of this Court’s judgment of 17 August 2018 (Green Growth No 2 Ltd v Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust [2018] NZSC 75) is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
26 November 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 13 February 2018 (PDF, 547 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 75 (PDF, 68 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Case name
Lewis Ata Turahui for and on behalf of Araukuku Hapu v The Waitangi Tribunal, and The Attorney-General, and Nga Hapu O Ngaruahine Iwi Incorporated and Te Runanga O Ngati Ruanui Trust
Case number
SC 100/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Taranaki Tribunal had found no breach of Treaty principles in relation to a Waitangi Tribunal claim– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a delay in seeking an urgent hearing is a relevant consideration for the Waitangi Tribunal when deciding whether to hold an urgent hearing. [2016] NZCA 387 CA448/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no award of costs.
1 December 2016
B There is no award of costs.
1 December 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Rae Beverly Adlam v John Tionga Savage, Lawrence Te Aokahari Niao, Patrick Mayne Savage, Samuel Kelvin Barnes and Tamati Drawbridge as Trustees of the Matata Parish 39A 2A Ahu Whenua Trust; and Helen Maria Savage and Raelyn Arihia Peita as Trustees of
Case number
SC 120/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reinstating the order of the Māori Land Court requiring the applicant to account to the Bath Trust in the amount of $11,200,000. [2016] NZCA 454 CA223/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the first respondents.
C The order for stay of the determination of the Court of Appeal made on 23 November 2016 is discharged.
17 February 2017
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the first respondents.
C The order for stay of the determination of the Court of Appeal made on 23 November 2016 is discharged.
17 February 2017
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Proprietors of Wakatū and Rore Pat Stafford and others v Attorney-General and Ngāti Rārua Iwi Trust and Ngāti Kōata Trust
Case number
SC 13/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Crown breached legally enforceable obligations in respect of land acquired for the New Zealand Company’s Nelson Settlement – Whether lapse of time provides the Crown a defence – Whether the first and third appellants have standing.[2014] NZCA 628 CA 436/2012
Result
A The application by the first, second and third applicants for leave to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 19 December 2014 in Proprietors of Wakatū v Attorney-General [2014] NZCA 628, [2015] 2 NZLR 298 is granted.
B The cross-application by the respondent for leave to appeal against the finding of the Court of Appeal that the second applicant, Rore Pat Stafford, had standing to bring the proceeding is granted.
C The approved grounds are: Is the Crown in breach of duties arising out of the terms of the reservations from the land granted to the New Zealand Company in respect of its Nelson settlement and Western Te Tau Ihu? If so, are rights to seek relief for breach of such duties subject to defences available to the Crown through lapse of time? If not, do the three applicants each have standing to bring civil proceedings for breach of such duties against the Crown? If so, what relief is appropriate? Is relief barred by the terms of s 25 of the Ngā ti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Atiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Act 2014? D The appeal is set down for hearing in the Supreme Court for the four days beginning 12 October 2015.
8 May 2015
_____________________________
A The appeal by the second appellant is allowed in part and a declaration is made that the Crown owed fiduciary duties to reserve 15,100 acres for the benefit of the customary owners and, in addition, to exclude their pa, urupa and cultivations from the land obtained by the Crown following the 1845 Spain award.
B The appeals by the first appellant and the third appellant are dismissed.
C The cross-appeal by the respondent is dismissed.
D The claim by the second appellant is remitted to the High Court for determination of all remaining questions as to liability, loss and remedy to be determined in accordance with the reasons given in this Court.
E The respondent must pay the second appellant costs of $55,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. We certify for second counsel. All costs orders in the High Court and Court of Appeal are quashed. If costs are sought by the second appellant in respect of the lower Court hearings, application must be made to those Courts if the parties are unable to agree.
28 February 2017
B The cross-application by the respondent for leave to appeal against the finding of the Court of Appeal that the second applicant, Rore Pat Stafford, had standing to bring the proceeding is granted.
C The approved grounds are: Is the Crown in breach of duties arising out of the terms of the reservations from the land granted to the New Zealand Company in respect of its Nelson settlement and Western Te Tau Ihu? If so, are rights to seek relief for breach of such duties subject to defences available to the Crown through lapse of time? If not, do the three applicants each have standing to bring civil proceedings for breach of such duties against the Crown? If so, what relief is appropriate? Is relief barred by the terms of s 25 of the Ngā ti Kōata, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Tama ki Te Tau Ihu, and Te Atiawa o Te Waka-a-Māui Claims Settlement Act 2014? D The appeal is set down for hearing in the Supreme Court for the four days beginning 12 October 2015.
8 May 2015
_____________________________
A The appeal by the second appellant is allowed in part and a declaration is made that the Crown owed fiduciary duties to reserve 15,100 acres for the benefit of the customary owners and, in addition, to exclude their pa, urupa and cultivations from the land obtained by the Crown following the 1845 Spain award.
B The appeals by the first appellant and the third appellant are dismissed.
C The cross-appeal by the respondent is dismissed.
D The claim by the second appellant is remitted to the High Court for determination of all remaining questions as to liability, loss and remedy to be determined in accordance with the reasons given in this Court.
E The respondent must pay the second appellant costs of $55,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. We certify for second counsel. All costs orders in the High Court and Court of Appeal are quashed. If costs are sought by the second appellant in respect of the lower Court hearings, application must be made to those Courts if the parties are unable to agree.
28 February 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 12 - 15 October 2015 (PDF, 2.2 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 17 (PDF, 291 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Mark Arnold Clayton and others v Melanie Ann Clayton
Case number
SC 23/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a power of appointment could be relationship property under the Property (Relationships) Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there had been a disposition with intent to defeat rights in terms of s 44 of the Act in relation to various trusts – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relation to valuation.[2015] NZCA 30 CA 473/2013; CA 474/2014
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are granted in respect of the questions identified in B and C below (Clayton v Clayton [2015] NZCA 30). In all other respects, the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B In relation to the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT):Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there is no distinction between a sham trust and what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the VRPT was neither a sham trust nor what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?If so:
Was the bundle of rights and powers held by Mr and/or Mrs Clayton under the VRPT Trust Deed “property” for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA)?Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the power of appointment under clause 7.1 of the VRPT Trust Deed was “relationship property” for the purposes of the PRA?If so, did the Court of Appeal err in its approach to the valuation of the power?
C In relation to the Claymark Trust, was the Court of appeal correct in its interpretation and application of:
Section 44C of the PRA?
Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980?
18 June 2015
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B We set aside the findings of the Court of Appeal that cl 7.1 of the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT) trust deed (the VRPT deed) is a general power of appointment and that the power is both property and relationship property, having a value equal to that of the net assets of the VRPT.
C We substitute a finding that the powers of Mr Clayton as Principal Family Member and Trustee under cls 6.1, 7.1, 8.1 and 10.1 of the VRPT deed (read in light of cls 11.1, 14.1 and 19.1(c) of that deed) are property and relationship property having a value equal to that of the net assets of the VRPT.
D We set aside the finding of the Court of Appeal that the VRPT is not an illusory trust (i.e. that it is a valid trust). We decline to make a ruling on that issue.
E We uphold the finding of the Court of Appeal that the VRPT is not a sham.
F We make no award of costs
23 March 2016
B In relation to the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT):Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there is no distinction between a sham trust and what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the VRPT was neither a sham trust nor what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?If so:
Was the bundle of rights and powers held by Mr and/or Mrs Clayton under the VRPT Trust Deed “property” for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA)?Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the power of appointment under clause 7.1 of the VRPT Trust Deed was “relationship property” for the purposes of the PRA?If so, did the Court of Appeal err in its approach to the valuation of the power?
C In relation to the Claymark Trust, was the Court of appeal correct in its interpretation and application of:
Section 44C of the PRA?
Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980?
18 June 2015
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B We set aside the findings of the Court of Appeal that cl 7.1 of the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT) trust deed (the VRPT deed) is a general power of appointment and that the power is both property and relationship property, having a value equal to that of the net assets of the VRPT.
C We substitute a finding that the powers of Mr Clayton as Principal Family Member and Trustee under cls 6.1, 7.1, 8.1 and 10.1 of the VRPT deed (read in light of cls 11.1, 14.1 and 19.1(c) of that deed) are property and relationship property having a value equal to that of the net assets of the VRPT.
D We set aside the finding of the Court of Appeal that the VRPT is not an illusory trust (i.e. that it is a valid trust). We decline to make a ruling on that issue.
E We uphold the finding of the Court of Appeal that the VRPT is not a sham.
F We make no award of costs
23 March 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 1, 2 and 8 September 2015 (PDF, 1.6 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 29 (PDF, 250 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Melanie Ann Clayton v Mark Arnold Clayton and others
Case number
SC 38/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether the Vaughan Road Property Trust was a sham trust or an illusory trust – Whether s 44 of the Property (Relationships) Act should apply to gifts and distributions made in relation to various trusts.[2015] NZCA 30 CA 473/2013; CA 474/2014
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are granted in respect of the questions identified in B and C below (Clayton v Clayton [2015] NZCA 30). In all other respects, the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B In relation to the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT):
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there is no distinction between a sham trust and what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the VRPT was neither a sham trust nor what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?
If so:
Was the bundle of rights and powers held by Mr and/or Mrs Clayton under the VRPT Trust Deed “property” for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA)?
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the power of appointment under clause 7.1 of the VRPT Trust Deed was “relationship property” for the purposes of the PRA?
If so, did the Court of Appeal err in its approach to the valuation of the power?
C In relation to the Claymark Trust, was the Court of appeal correct in its interpretation and application of:
Section 44C of the PRA?
Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980?
18 June 2015
______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B There is no order of costs.
23 March 2016
B In relation to the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT):
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there is no distinction between a sham trust and what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the VRPT was neither a sham trust nor what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?
If so:
Was the bundle of rights and powers held by Mr and/or Mrs Clayton under the VRPT Trust Deed “property” for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA)?
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the power of appointment under clause 7.1 of the VRPT Trust Deed was “relationship property” for the purposes of the PRA?
If so, did the Court of Appeal err in its approach to the valuation of the power?
C In relation to the Claymark Trust, was the Court of appeal correct in its interpretation and application of:
Section 44C of the PRA?
Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980?
18 June 2015
______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B There is no order of costs.
23 March 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 1, 2 and 8 September 2015 (PDF, 1.6 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 30 (PDF, 404 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Glover No 2 Limited v The Glover Trust Limited, Bailey Trustee Services Limited and Auckland West Legal Services Limited, and CIT Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 6/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the partie’s intention to create the bare trust was unmistakeable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trust structure was used to achieve the best result for the beneficiaries of the Glover No 2 Trust – Whether the Court of Appeal erred when it held that the deed of bare trust was not severable from the other bundle of documents executed on the same day due to its status as a “rogue” document – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to consider the argument that it was against public policy to enforce this document.[2013] NZCA 608 CA 194/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Cost to the respondents $2,500.00
7 May 2014
7 May 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 10 of 16