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.
19 June 2026
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 89 KB)
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 126 KB)
All years
Case name
Tui'imalo Matamu, Talaoali'I Naseri, Malielegaoi Aumua, Saeni Pita and Tofia Tofa v Va'aimalu Si'itia, Mary McEwing and Salapo Rapiti Tuia
Case number
SC 124/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that resolutions excluding a group of parishioners from further use of parish facilities were validly passed.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
14 February 2018
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
14 February 2018
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Steven Philip Mason and Katharine Mary Mason v Andrew Hamilton Magee and Sharon Lee Magee
Case number
SC 128/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contractual Remedies Act 1979, s 6 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no misrepresentation.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $2,500.
9th February 2018
B The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $2,500.
9th February 2018
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MASON v MAGEE [2018] NZSC 11 [9 February 2018] (PDF, 215 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Case name
Guirong Wen v Kok Ann Ngoi and Sunshine Estate Limited
Case number
SC 133/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contract Law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding a binding contract was formed.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
5 March 2018
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
5 March 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GUIRONG WEN v KOK ANN NGOI [2018] NZSC 18 [5 March 2018] (PDF, 105 KB)
Case name
Manchester Securities Limited v Body Corporate 172108
Case number
SC 134/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal from a decision of the High Court varying a remediation scheme settled under s 48 of the Unit Titles Act 1972 and ordering the applicant to make an interim payment to the Body Corporate.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent. 14 March 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
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
Peter Gerard Stockman v NZ Asscoiation of Counsellors Incorporated
Case number
SC 2/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal should have recalled its judgment ordering standard rather than indemnity costs – Whether judgments must directly refer to all submissions made by parties. [2015] NZCA 542 CA 669/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
There is no order for costs.
29 February 2016
_____
A The application for recall of the Court’s judgment in Stockman v New Zealand Association of Counsellors Inc [2016] NZSC 18 is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
7 April 2016
There is no order for costs.
29 February 2016
_____
A The application for recall of the Court’s judgment in Stockman v New Zealand Association of Counsellors Inc [2016] NZSC 18 is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
7 April 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
NZCA judgment appealed from
Case name
Garry Albert Muir and Peter Arnold Maude v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 6/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the applicants’ claims for tax deductions under sub-pt EH of the Income Tax Act 1994 are arguable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in awarding indemnity costs. [2015] NZCA 591 CA276/2016
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Muir v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2015] NZCA 591).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i) to find that the appellant could not arguably pursue claims for the 1999 and following tax years in reliance on sub-pt EH of the Income Tax Act 1994; and
(ii) to award costs on an indemnity basis against the appellant.
20 July 2016
______________
A The appellant’s application for leave to amend the grounds of appeal is dismissed.
B Leave to appeal is revoked.
C The appellant is to pay costs of $6,000 to the respondent, plus reasonable disbursements.
26 August 2016
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i) to find that the appellant could not arguably pursue claims for the 1999 and following tax years in reliance on sub-pt EH of the Income Tax Act 1994; and
(ii) to award costs on an indemnity basis against the appellant.
20 July 2016
______________
A The appellant’s application for leave to amend the grounds of appeal is dismissed.
B Leave to appeal is revoked.
C The appellant is to pay costs of $6,000 to the respondent, plus reasonable disbursements.
26 August 2016
Date of hearing
22 August 2016
Judges
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold and O'Regan JJ
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Case name
Edward Thomas Booth v The Queen
Case number
SC 10/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against sentence. [2015] NZCA 603 CA 101/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Booth v R [2015] NZCA 603).B The approved question is whether the sentencing Judge was correct to structure the appellant’ s sentence in the way that he did, particularly as that sentence structure means that the time that the appellant spent on remand does not count towards his total period of imprisonment served or for parole eligibility purposes.
27 April 2016
__________________
A Mr Marino’s appeal is allowed. Costs are reserved.
B Mr Booth’s appeal is dismissed.
22 September 2016
27 April 2016
__________________
A Mr Marino’s appeal is allowed. Costs are reserved.
B Mr Booth’s appeal is dismissed.
22 September 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 July 2016 (PDF, 294 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 127 (PDF, 255 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
BOOTH v R [2016] NZSC 43 [27 April 2016] (PDF, 56 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
Robert Erwood v The Official Assignee
Case number
SC 13/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal overlooked material points and therefore erred in dismissing the application for extension of time and awarding costs against the applicant.[2015] NZCA 620 CA 168/2015
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
16 May 2016
16 May 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
HC recall judgment
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
Page 60 of 110