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
Kathryn Frances Boswell v Owen Ross Millar
Case number
SC 79/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in taking into account improper evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the trial Judge’s finding that there was no evidence of a failure to cooperate.[2014] NZCA 314 CA 293/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements.
7 October 2014
The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements.
7 October 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Gary Owen Burgess v TSB Bank Limited
Case number
SC 81/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 35 – Whether the Court of Appeal, on an application to review a Court of Appeal Registrar’s decision on security for costs, must provide a notice of hearing and the opportunity to provide evidence and submissions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not granting an extension of time for the Registrar to consider the appropriate quantum of costs on consolidation.[2014] NZCA 334 CA 47/2014; CA 126/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay to the respondent costs on the application of $1,000 together with disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
10 October 2014
The applicant must pay to the respondent costs on the application of $1,000 together with disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
10 October 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Tatsuhiko Koyama v New Zealand Law Society
Case number
SC 83/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether there was a procedural defect or lack of jurisdiction in relation to the High Court judgment.[2014] NZHC 1146
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay the first respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements determined if necessary by the Registrar.
10 October 2014
The applicant must pay the first respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements determined if necessary by the Registrar.
10 October 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Clive Richard Bradbury and Gregory Alan Peebles v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 87/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to set aside a decision which has been the subject of an appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to indemnity costs – Whether the proceeding involves substantial relitigation of issues already determined by the courts.[2014] NZCA 350 CA 623/103
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. Costs are reserved. If the respondents wish to obtain orders for costs they should apply within 14 days setting out in detail the orders sought. If such applications are made, the applicants may respond within a further 14 days.
2 December 2014
_________
Leave is granted under s 76(2) of the Insolvency Act 2006 to permit continuation of the applications for costs in respect of SC 87/2014 and SC 103/2014. We fix costs and disbursements in favour of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in the sum of $10,653.99.
8 June 2015
2 December 2014
_________
Leave is granted under s 76(2) of the Insolvency Act 2006 to permit continuation of the applications for costs in respect of SC 87/2014 and SC 103/2014. We fix costs and disbursements in favour of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in the sum of $10,653.99.
8 June 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Supreme court decision
Case name
Kung We Chen v Dilworth Trust Board
Case number
SC 89/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to grant an application for an extension of time to appeal under r 29A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005.[2014] NZCA 352 CA 79/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
21 October 2014
The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
21 October 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Accent Management Limited v Attorney-General and Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 90/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Income Tax Act 1994 - Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to provide a remedy if a Judge attempting to calculate tax overlooks the direction in s EH 8(1) of the Income Tax Act 1994 that subpart EG and s DL 1(3) of that Act are not to apply, where failure to comply with them engages the Constitution Act 1986 and the Bill of Rights 1688 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court has jurisdiction to overlook the direction in s EH 8(1), whether in demanding tax or reviewing such a demand - Whether the proceeding involves substantial relitigation of issues already determined by the courts.[2014] NZCA 351 CA 541/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Costs are reserved. If the respondents wish to obtain orders for costs they should apply within 14 days setting out in detail the orders sought. If such applications are made, the applicants may respond within a further 14 days.
2 December 2014
_____________
We fix costs and disbursements in favour of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in the sum of $3,659.67.
8 June 2015
Costs are reserved. If the respondents wish to obtain orders for costs they should apply within 14 days setting out in detail the orders sought. If such applications are made, the applicants may respond within a further 14 days.
2 December 2014
_____________
We fix costs and disbursements in favour of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in the sum of $3,659.67.
8 June 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Supreme court decision
Case name
Mark Stephen Hotchin v The New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Limited and Perpetual Trust Limited
Case number
SC 92/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it is necessary for both tortfeasors to have a coordinate liability to the plaintiff on a claim for contribution against a co-tortfeasor under s 17(1)(c) of the Law Reform Act 1936 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the same contribution principles apply to both tort and equity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it was unarguable that the applicant and the respondents are potentially liable for the same damage suffered by investors – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant’s claim for equitable contribution is unarguable.[2014] NZCA 400 CA 494/2013
Result
A The application to appeal is granted (Hotchin v The New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Limited [2014] NZCA 400).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to uphold the striking out of Mr Hotchin’s third party claims against the respondents.
30 October 2014
_________________
A. The appeal is allowed.
B. Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellant. We certify for second counsel.
C. The costs orders in the High Court and the Court of Appeal are set aside.15 March 2016
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to uphold the striking out of Mr Hotchin’s third party claims against the respondents.
30 October 2014
_________________
A. The appeal is allowed.
B. Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellant. We certify for second counsel.
C. The costs orders in the High Court and the Court of Appeal are set aside.15 March 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 March 2015 (PDF, 561 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 24 (PDF, 405 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
William Elliot Hamilton and W E H Trustee Limited v Jane Mare Murrell
Case number
SC 95/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Relationship Breakdown – Property – Constructive Trust – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that trust property could be impressed with a constructive trust as a result of the conduct of a trustee who had de facto responsibility for the day-to-day running of a trust, with the co-trustee’s agreement – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that allowing the respondents claim did not alienate trust property or deprive the beneficiaries of the trust of something to which they were entitled – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that in all the circumstances, the trustees should reasonably expect to yield an interest in the trust property to the respondent and, accordingly, that the fourth element of a constructive trust over asserted relationship property was established. [2014] NZCA 377 CA 31/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay the respondent costs of $2,500, plus reasonable disbursements. 12 November 2014
The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay the respondent costs of $2,500, plus reasonable disbursements. 12 November 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Nicholas Paul Alfred Reekie v Attorney-General and others.
Case number
SC 96/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in affirming the Registrar’s decision that refused to dispense with security for costs.[2014] NZCA 374 CA 763/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 11 November 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Wilson Parking New Zealand Limited v Fanshawe 136 Limited, 136 Fanshawe Limited and Fanshawe Capital Limited
Case number
SC 98/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the approach adopted by Court of Appeal in determining the appropriate remedy in cases where an equitable estoppel was wrong in law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining the appropriate remedy in this case.[2014] NZCA 407 CA 24/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
1 December 2014
The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
1 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 78 of 110