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
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
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer and Jane Dinsdale Siemer v Kevin Stanley Brown and others
Case number
SC 76/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by upholding the Registrar’s decision refusing to accept for filing an application for review. [2015] NZCA 276 CA 31/15
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants (jointly and severally) to the respondents (collectively).
28 October 2015
_____________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
13 November 2015
_____________________________
2nd recall application: No new matters raised. Application dismissed.
17 November 2015
_____________________________
Application by Jane Siemer to recall judgment dismissed. No new matters raised.
19 November 2015
B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants (jointly and severally) to the respondents (collectively).
28 October 2015
_____________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
13 November 2015
_____________________________
2nd recall application: No new matters raised. Application dismissed.
17 November 2015
_____________________________
Application by Jane Siemer to recall judgment dismissed. No new matters raised.
19 November 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Kyburn Investments Limited v Beca Corporate Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 77/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of the applicant’s application to have an arbitral award set aside. [2015] NZCA 290 CA 130/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
21 October 2015
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
21 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Heartland Bank Limited (formerly Marac Finance Limited ) v Vero Liability Insurance Limited
Case number
SC 82/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Insurance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “clear intent” in crime risk insurance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the policy when assessing coverable loss. [2015] NZCA 288 CA 712/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicant to the respondent.
3 November 2015
3 November 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
B v C
Case number
SC 84/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Application for leave for a direct appeal from High Court – Whether the High Court erred in not declaring the proceedings as null and void due to the applicant’s diplomatic immunity – Whether the High Court erred in holding that the New Zealand Family Court is the appropriate forum in which to decide issues concerning the care and welfare of the applicant and the respondent’s children.[2015] NZHC 1595 CIV 2014 485 11245
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The application for interim relief is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
16 September 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Transparency International New Zealand Incorporated
Case number
SC 85/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 43(2) – Whether the Court of Appeal should have granted the application for an extension of time. 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.
16 October 2015
___________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
22 October 2015
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
16 October 2015
___________________________
Application for recall dismissed.
22 October 2015
Recall judgment
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Carl James Peterson v Attorney-General
Case number
SC 87/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether an extension of time should be granted – Whether leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court should be granted to allow the applicant to challenge the decision in Attorney-General v Chapman [2011] NZSC 110, [2012] 1 NZLR 462 – Whether Associate Judge Christiansen’ s judgment should be set aside. [2015] NZHC 1336 CIV 2015 463 22
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
23 October 2015
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
23 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Anthony Paul Mount and Kaye Pamela Mount v Eleanor Margaretta Hannay and others
Case number
SC 89/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – breach of fiduciary duty – whether the Court of Appeal erred to the extent to which it upheld judgment entered into against the applicant in the High Court.[2014] NZCA 600 CA 34/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants are to pay the respondents (collectively) costs of $2,500.
30 October 2015
B The applicants are to pay the respondents (collectively) costs of $2,500.
30 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Janine Davina Sax v Luke Andrew Simpson
Case number
SC 90/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 43 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s application for an extension of time to file the case on appeal. [2015] NZCA 362 CA 112/2015
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
15 October 2015
____________________
Application for recall dismissed
22 October 2015
15 October 2015
____________________
Application for recall dismissed
22 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Carter Holt Harvey Limited v Minister of Education, Secretary for Education, Ministry for Education, and Board of Trustees of Orewa Primary School
Case number
SC 93/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Negligence – Building Act 2004, s 392(2) limitation period – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the longstop limitation provision under s 393(2) of the Building Act does not apply to claims made in this proceeding – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding not to strike out the respondents’ claims in negligence against Carter Holt Harvey.[2015] NZCA 321 CA 238/2014
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal are granted (Carter Holt Harvey Ltd v Minister of Education [2015] NZCA 321, (2015) 14 TCLR 106).
B The approved grounds are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that:
(i) The claims in negligence are arguable;
(ii) The claims for negligent misstatement are not arguable; and(iii) Section 393 of the Building Act 2004 does not apply to the claims.
30 November 2015
____________________
A The appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
B The respondents’ cross-appeal is allowed.
C The order striking out the negligent misstatement cause of action is quashed.D The appellant must pay to the respondents (collectively) costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
29 July 2016
B The approved grounds are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that:
(i) The claims in negligence are arguable;
(ii) The claims for negligent misstatement are not arguable; and(iii) Section 393 of the Building Act 2004 does not apply to the claims.
30 November 2015
____________________
A The appellant’s appeal is dismissed.
B The respondents’ cross-appeal is allowed.
C The order striking out the negligent misstatement cause of action is quashed.D The appellant must pay to the respondents (collectively) costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
29 July 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 13 - 15 April 2016 (PDF, 1.5 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] 95 (PDF, 248 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 71 of 110