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.
28 November 2025
Case information summary 2025 (as at 28 November 2025) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary 2025 (as at 28 November 2025) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 120 KB)
All years
Case name
Derek Nicholas Blackwell and Charles Basil Blackwell as Executors and Trustees of the Estate of Ross Winston Blackwell v Leith Roger Chick and Rosemary Chick and Edmonds Judd
Case number
SC 30/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicants’ lack of mental capacity and unconscionable bargain defences in CA 481/2013 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the deceased had sufficient mental capacity in CA 476/2013 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding there was no causation as to the lawyer’ s negligent advice and the loss suffered by the deceased.[2015] NZCA 34 CA 481/2013; CA 476/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal in CA 481/2013 is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants to the first respondents.
C The application for leave to appeal in CA 476/2013 is granted.
D The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its conclusion that, on the findings in the High Court, the negligence of the second respondent caused no loss.
19 June 2015
________________
A The appeal is allowed. Judgment is given for the appellants in the sum of $1,000,000.
B Interest of five per cent is ordered from the date of settlement by Mr and Mrs Chick of the purchase of the farm.
C The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
D The costs order in the Court of Appeal (CA476/2013) is set aside. Costs in that Court and in the High Court should be set by those Courts in light of this judgment.
22 April 2016
B Costs of $2,500 are payable by the applicants to the first respondents.
C The application for leave to appeal in CA 476/2013 is granted.
D The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its conclusion that, on the findings in the High Court, the negligence of the second respondent caused no loss.
19 June 2015
________________
A The appeal is allowed. Judgment is given for the appellants in the sum of $1,000,000.
B Interest of five per cent is ordered from the date of settlement by Mr and Mrs Chick of the purchase of the farm.
C The respondent is to pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
D The costs order in the Court of Appeal (CA476/2013) is set aside. Costs in that Court and in the High Court should be set by those Courts in light of this judgment.
22 April 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 2 February 2016 (PDF, 514 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 40 (PDF, 253 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 31/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Review by a Judge of the Court of Appeal of a decision of the Registrar of that Court to refuse to dispense with security for costs in relation to an appeal to that Court.[2015] NZCA 69 CA 31/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay costs to the first to fourteenth respondents (collectively) of $1,500 and costs of $1,500 to the fifteenth respondent. Their liability is joint and several.
15 May 2015
B The applicants must pay costs to the first to fourteenth respondents (collectively) of $1,500 and costs of $1,500 to the fifteenth respondent. Their liability is joint and several.
15 May 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Clare O’Brien and Attorney-General
Case number
SC 32/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Review by a Judge of the Court of Appeal of a decision of the Deputy Registrar of that Court to refuse to dispense with security for costs for an appeal to that Court.Minute 26 March 2015 CA 693/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B We make no award of costs.
15 May 2015
__
The application for recall of the Court’s judgment in Siemer v O’ Brien & Anor [2015] NZSC 64 is dismissed.
26 June 2015
B We make no award of costs.
15 May 2015
__
The application for recall of the Court’s judgment in Siemer v O’ Brien & Anor [2015] NZSC 64 is dismissed.
26 June 2015
Recall judgment
SIEMER v O'BRIEN & ANOR [2015] NZSC 93 26 June 2015 (PDF, 195 KB)
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIEMER v O'BRIEN & ANOR [2015] NZSC 64 15 May 2015 (PDF, 109 KB)
Case name
Jolene Keane v The Queen
Case number
SC 33/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction and sentence. [2015] NZCA 31 CA 446/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
22 June 2015
22 June 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JOLENE KEANE v R [2015] NZSC 87 22 June 2015 (PDF, 73 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Suisse International Limited v Beverley Jean Monk
Case number
SC 34/2015
Summary
[2015] NZCA 46 CA 279/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are to be paid to the respondent. The applicant and Mr Reginald Watt are jointly and severally liable for these costs.
10 June 2015
B Costs of $2,500 are to be paid to the respondent. The applicant and Mr Reginald Watt are jointly and severally liable for these costs.
10 June 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
R v The Queen
Case number
SC 35/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction.[2013] NZCA 542 CA 151/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
24 February 2016
24 February 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
R (SC 35/2015) v R [2016] NZSC 16 24 February 2016 (PDF, 74 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Peter Bonfert v The Queen
Case number
SC 36/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Appeal against sentence – Whether factual findings by Court of Appeal correct. [2012] NZCA 313 CA 26/2012: CA 124/2012
Result
The application for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
25 May 2015
25 May 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
PETER BONFERT v R [2015] NZSC 69 25 May 2015 (PDF, 85 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
RSS v The Queen
Case number
SC 37/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to acquit the applicant. [2015] NZCA 4 CA 573/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of retrial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
14 July 2015
B Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of retrial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
14 July 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Not publicly available
Judgment appealed from
not available online
Case name
Melanie Ann Clayton v Mark Arnold Clayton and others
Case number
SC 38/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether the Vaughan Road Property Trust was a sham trust or an illusory trust – Whether s 44 of the Property (Relationships) Act should apply to gifts and distributions made in relation to various trusts.[2015] NZCA 30 CA 473/2013; CA 474/2014
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are granted in respect of the questions identified in B and C below (Clayton v Clayton [2015] NZCA 30). In all other respects, the applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B In relation to the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT):
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there is no distinction between a sham trust and what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the VRPT was neither a sham trust nor what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?
If so:
Was the bundle of rights and powers held by Mr and/or Mrs Clayton under the VRPT Trust Deed “property” for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA)?
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the power of appointment under clause 7.1 of the VRPT Trust Deed was “relationship property” for the purposes of the PRA?
If so, did the Court of Appeal err in its approach to the valuation of the power?
C In relation to the Claymark Trust, was the Court of appeal correct in its interpretation and application of:
Section 44C of the PRA?
Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980?
18 June 2015
______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B There is no order of costs.
23 March 2016
B In relation to the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT):
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there is no distinction between a sham trust and what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the VRPT was neither a sham trust nor what the Family Court and the High Court described as an illusory trust?
If so:
Was the bundle of rights and powers held by Mr and/or Mrs Clayton under the VRPT Trust Deed “property” for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA)?
Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the power of appointment under clause 7.1 of the VRPT Trust Deed was “relationship property” for the purposes of the PRA?
If so, did the Court of Appeal err in its approach to the valuation of the power?
C In relation to the Claymark Trust, was the Court of appeal correct in its interpretation and application of:
Section 44C of the PRA?
Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980?
18 June 2015
______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B There is no order of costs.
23 March 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 1, 2 and 8 September 2015 (PDF, 1.6 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 30 (PDF, 404 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Ronald Peter Rosenberg v The Queen
Case number
SC 39/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the sentencing Judge properly considered the amends made by the applicant since conviction, whether a reparation order of $400,000 was justified and whether there was a significant inconsistency between the sentence of the applicant and the co-offender. [2015] NZCA 97 CA 345/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 20 July 2015.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 143 of 269