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
George Charles Kain, George Michael Kain, George Thomas Kain, George Harry Kain & Georgina Kain v Wynn Williams & Co
Case number
SC 4/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether conditional fee agreement between a solicitor and client is champertous only where there is proof of unjustified interference in the client’s affairs by solicitor – Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, ss 6, 11(1)(d)(ii) and 13 – Meaning of consumer credit contract – Whether conditional fee agreement constituted a consumer credit contract. [2012] NZCA 563  CA 635/2011
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs to the respondent $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements.
8 April 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
KAIN v WYNN WILLIAMS & CO SC 4/2013 [8 April 2013] (PDF, 51 KB)
Case name
Terminals (NZ) Limited v The Comptroller of Customs
Case number
SC 6/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Customs and Excise Act 1996 – definition of “manufacture” – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the addition of small quantities of butane on which excise duty had previously been paid to imported motor spirit on which excise-equivalent duty had previously been paid constituted “manufacture”.[2012] NZCA 598 CA 366/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the activity conducted by the applicant constituted or involved the manufacture of motor spirit.
19March 2013 __________________ The appeal is dismissed. Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (to be determined by the Registrar if necessary) are to be paid to the respondent.  We certify for two counsel. 6 December 2013
Transcript

Hearing dates : 5 and 6 August 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Gault JJ.
Case name
Roderick Bryan Turner v Allister John Davis, Clark Boyce and James Rapley
Case number
SC 7/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Summary judgment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s summary judgment order against the appellant as there exists a genuine dispute as to the material facts of the case – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the summary judgment order as there are outstanding matters of law.  [2012] NZCA 576  CA 360/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the first and second respondents and $2,500 to the third respondent, in each case plus reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
12 April 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TURNER v DAVIS SC 7/2013 [12 April 2013] (PDF, 57 KB)
Case name
John Anthony Osborne and Helen Osborne v The Auckland Council and the Weathertight Homes Tribunal
Case number
SC 9/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006, s 14(a) – Interpretation of “built” – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to hold that a dwellinghouse is “built” at the time it passes its final building inspection.   [2012] NZCA 609  CA 650/2011
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved questions are:
(a) Is the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of s 14(a) of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 correct?
(b)  Given the dismissal by the High Court of the appeal against the removal order, does s 95(2) of that Act preclude the granting of any remedy to the applicants?
1 May 2013
______________________
A The appeal is allowed with the result that the eligibility decision of the Tribunal chair is set aside and there is a declaration that the appellants’ claim is eligible.
B Leave is reserved to apply for further relief should that be necessary.
C In relation to this appeal, the appellants are awarded costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements against the first respondent.  They are also awarded costs on the judicial review proceedings in the High Court and on the appeal to the Court of Appeal, in sums to be fixed by those courts.
10 June 2014
___________________

Application for further relief declined.
No order for costs.

29 September 2014
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
OSBORNE v AUCKLAND COUNCIL SC 9/2013 [1 May 2013] (PDF, 33 KB)
Substantive judgment
JOHN ANTHONY OSBORNE AND HELEN OSBORNE v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2014] NZSC 67 [10 June 2014] (PDF, 220 KB)
Supreme court decision
JOHN ANTHONY OSBORNE AND HELEN OSBORNE v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2014] NZSC 134 [29 September 2014] (PDF, 14 KB)
Case name
BFSL 32007 Limited and others  v Peter David Steigrad
Case number
SC 19/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Law Reform Act 1936, s 9 – Charge on insurance monies in favour of third parties paid to indemnify an insured in respect of insured’s liability to third party – Priority between a s 9 charge in favour of third party claimants and an uncharged claim to defence costs by directors of a company – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that a s 9 charge only attaches to the balance of the insurance money available to meet third party claims after any defence cost liability has been met – Whether question of priorities under s 9 is subject to contract of insurance.[2012] NZCA 604  CA 674/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is: 
Did the Court of Appeal interpret s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 correctly?  
15 April 2013
________________
The appeal is allowed.

The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants in SC 19/2013 plus usual disbursements (to be set by the Registrar, if necessary). We certify for two counsel.

23 December 2013
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
BFSL 2007 LIMITED & ORS (IN LIQUIDATION) v STEIGRAD [2013] NZSC 156 [23 December 2013] (PDF, 482 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 17 October 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, Glazebrook, Gault, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Chuan Wu v Body Corporate 366611 and Theta Management Limited
Case number
SC 20/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Damages – Whether the Court of Appeal, after upholding the High Court’s decision on liability in favour of the appellant, ought not to have remitted the calculation of damages payable to the appellant back to the High Court.[2012] NZCA 614  CA 402/2011
Result
Leave to appeal and cross appeal is granted.  The approved questions are:
(a) Are the Body Corporate and Theta liable in nuisance and if so on what basis?
(b) What, if any orders, are appropriate as to damages?
3 May 2013
____________________
A  The appeal is allowed and the judgment of Asher J on the first cause of action is reinstated.
B  The cross appeal is dismissed.
C  The respondents are to pay to the appellant costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary).
9 October 2014 
_______________
tc
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
WU v BODY CORPORATE 366611 SC 20/2013 [3 May 2013] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
CHUAN WU v BODY CORPORATE 366611 [2014] NZSC 137 [9 October 2014] (PDF, 330 KB)
Recall judgment
CHUAN WU v BODY CORPORATE 366611 [2014] NZSC 178 [5 December 2014] (PDF, 86 KB)
Case name
Eric Meserve Houghton v AIG Insurance Limited and TEC Saunders and others 
Case number
SC 21/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Law Reform Act 1936, s 9 – Charge on insurance monies in favour of third parties paid to indemnify an insured in respect of insured’s liability to third party – Priority between a s 9 charge in favour of third party claimants and an uncharged claim to defence costs by directors of a company – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that a s 9 charge only attaches to the balance of the insurance money available to meet third party claims after any defence cost liability has been met – Whether question of priorities under s 9 is subject to contract of insurance ¬– Whether Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the outcome of the Steigrad appeal (on appeal SC 19/2013) would dictate the outcome of this appeal.   [2012] NZCA 604  CA 841/2011
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is:  Did the Court of Appeal interpret s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 correctly?
15 April 2013.
____________________________________________

The appeal is allowed. The Court of Appeal’ s declaration in SC 21/2013 is set aside.

The respondents are to pay, jointly and severally, costs of $25,000 to the appellants in SC 21/2013 (to be set by the Registrar, if necessary). We certify for two counsel.

23 December 2013.
Date of hearing
17 October 2013
Judges
Elias CJ, McGrath, Glazebrook, Gault, Anderson JJ.
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
BFSL 2007 LIMITED & ORS (IN LIQUIDATION) v STEIGRAD [2013] NZSC 156 [23 December 2013] (PDF, 482 KB)
Supreme court decision
costs: E M HOUGHTON v AIG INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (formerly Chartis Insurance New Zealand Limited) [2014] NZSC 20 [18 March 2014] (PDF, 65 KB)
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Wayne Seymour Chapman
Case number
SC 22/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 35(6) – Judicature Act 1908, s 61A(2) and s 61A(3) – Security for costs – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs – whether the Court of Appeal erred in not reviewing the decision made by a single judge in that Court.[2013] NZCA 5  CA 855/2012
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
2 July 2013.
Case name
Pauline Janice Harrison and Angela Janice Harrison v Auckland District Health Board and others
Case number
SC 23/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 27 – Medical malpractice – Whether the Associate Judge had jurisdiction to strike out the claim or acted ultra vires in doing so – Whether the Associate Judge was correct to hold that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action against the defendants – Whether the Associate Judge was correct to hold that the statement of claim was vexatious and an abuse of process – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to dispense with security for costs.CA 723/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
15 October 2013.
Recall judgment
HARRISON v AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2013] NZSC 150 [18 December 2013] (PDF, 37 KB)
Case name
Susan Margaret Angelina Seager-Buckle v Eric Clyde Hurrell and Vivienne Mary Hurrell, Chief Executive of Ministry of Social Developmemt, Paul Maurice Buckle
Case number
SC 24/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Security for costs – Whether Court of Appeal correct to affirm Registrar’s decision not to waive security for costs ¬– Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 35(6)(c) –– Whether the making of Court of Appeal decision on the papers was in breach of natural justice.CA 673/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
10 June 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
S (SC24/2013) v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2013] NZSC 54 [10 June 2013] (PDF, 48 KB)
Page 82 of 110