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
Antony Thomas Gough, Tracy Owen Gough and Harcourt David Gough v Gough Holdings Limited and Gina Louise Satherthwaite and others
Case number
SC 50/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Interpretation of clause in company constitution – Whether Court of Appeal correct in interpretation – Whether Court of Appeal correctly used extrinsic aids to interpretation.[2015] NZCA 130 CA 380/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondents.
29 July 2015
29 July 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Transparency International New Zealand Incorporated
Case number
SC 51/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Deputy Registrar making an assessment of the merits of the relevant appeal when deciding whether to dispense with security for costs was consistent with Reekie [2014] NZSC 63, [2014] 1 NZLR 737.[2015] NZCA 188 CA 156/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
24 July 2015
_____________________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
4 August 2015
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
24 July 2015
_____________________________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
4 August 2015
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court, Ministry of Justice
Case number
SC 52/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal decision was in breach of s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. [2015] NZCA 186 CA 118/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
24 July 2015
________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
4 August 2015
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
24 July 2015
________________
The application for recall is dismissed.
4 August 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Rapata Te Haa Rangitukunoa v John Pieter Koning and Hiria Rewti
Case number
SC 54/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal. [2015] NZCA 24 CA 212/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondent. 31 July 2015
The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondent. 31 July 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Kenneth Angus Holmes and others v Kiriwai Consultants Limited
Case number
SC 56/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 2003, s 149 – Whether Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to make a finding on fact-based fiduciary duty – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding existence of fact-based fiduciary duty – Whether Court of Appeal erred in determining the fair value of shares.[2015] NZCA 149 CA 201/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent. The liability of the applicants is joint and several.
4 August 2015
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent. The liability of the applicants is joint and several.
4 August 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court, Ministry of Justice
Case number
SC 58/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal decision was inconsistent with Reekie v Attorney General [2014] NZSC 63. [2015] NZCA 129 CA 550/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
24 July 2015
___
The application for recall is dismissed.
4 August 2015
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
24 July 2015
___
The application for recall is dismissed.
4 August 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
John Gilbert and QSM Trustee Ltd (in receivership and in liquidation) v Body Corporate 162791
Case number
SC 59/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Gilbert was personally liable to pay certain body corporate levies under s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Mr Gilbert’s liability was not limited or excused under s 32(7) of the Act.[2015] NZCA 185 CA 213/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Body Corporate 162791 v Gilbert [2015] NZCA 185).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i) to hold that the first applicant was personally liable under s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 to pay body corporate levies to the respondent in relation to the second applicant’s units; and
(ii) to find that the first applicant had no arguable claim for relief from personal liability under s 32(7) of the Act.
4 September 2015
_______________
A The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.
B There is no order for costs.
2 June 2016
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was right:
(i) to hold that the first applicant was personally liable under s 32(5) of the Receiverships Act 1993 to pay body corporate levies to the respondent in relation to the second applicant’s units; and
(ii) to find that the first applicant had no arguable claim for relief from personal liability under s 32(7) of the Act.
4 September 2015
_______________
A The judgment of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.
B There is no order for costs.
2 June 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 December 2015 (PDF, 393 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 61 (PDF, 250 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Rapata Leef and others as the mandated representatives of the Hapū of Ngāti Taka v Colin Bidois and others as the mandated representatives of the Hapū of Pirirakau
Case number
SC 62/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Arbitration Act 1996 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding waiver of conflict – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding there was no process breach by the Arbitration Panel. [2015] NZCA 176 CA 441/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
24 August 2015
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
24 August 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Nicholas Paul Alfred Reekie v Attorney-General and others
Case number
SC 64/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application for extension of time to appeal.[2015] NZCA 198
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
29 October 2015
___
The application for recall is dismissed
15 February 2016
B There is no order as to costs.
29 October 2015
___
The application for recall is dismissed
15 February 2016
Recall judgment
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Trustpower Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 74/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Income Tax Act 2004, s DA 2 – Whether Court of Appeal correct to consider ground of reassessment irrelevant – Whether Court of Appeal made unsupported findings of fact – Whether Court of Appeal correct to find that Feasibility Expenditure was incurred on capital account.[2015] NZCA 253 CA830/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (CIR v Trustpower [2015] NZCA 253).
B The approved questions are:(a) was the Court of Appeal wrong to consider the ground of reassessment set out in the Reassessment letter as irrelevant, or was the Court otherwise acting outside its jurisdiction in determining the appeal? If not, was the Court of Appeal correct in its conclusions on s DA 1?(b) Despite stating that it proceeded on the basis of accepting the High Court’s findings of fact, were any aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgment based on findings for which there was no evidence before the Court and/or that was contradicted by the evidence before the Court? If so, what is the significance of this?(c ) What is the correct approach to determining whether the expenditure of the type at issue in this proceeding has been incurred on revenue or capital account, for the purposes of s DA 2(1) of the Act?(d) Was the Commissioner correct, or at least not in error, to select the date by which the applicant had decided to apply for a resource consent as the point at which its expenditure was sufficiently connected to the capital purpose of obtaining a resource consent to be on capital account?
11 September 2015
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Trustpower is to pay the Commissioner costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
27 July 2016
B The approved questions are:(a) was the Court of Appeal wrong to consider the ground of reassessment set out in the Reassessment letter as irrelevant, or was the Court otherwise acting outside its jurisdiction in determining the appeal? If not, was the Court of Appeal correct in its conclusions on s DA 1?(b) Despite stating that it proceeded on the basis of accepting the High Court’s findings of fact, were any aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgment based on findings for which there was no evidence before the Court and/or that was contradicted by the evidence before the Court? If so, what is the significance of this?(c ) What is the correct approach to determining whether the expenditure of the type at issue in this proceeding has been incurred on revenue or capital account, for the purposes of s DA 2(1) of the Act?(d) Was the Commissioner correct, or at least not in error, to select the date by which the applicant had decided to apply for a resource consent as the point at which its expenditure was sufficiently connected to the capital purpose of obtaining a resource consent to be on capital account?
11 September 2015
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Trustpower is to pay the Commissioner costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
27 July 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 - 10 March 2016 (PDF, 1.4 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 91 (PDF, 246 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 70 of 110