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.
12 December 2025
Case information summary 2025 (as at 18 December 2025) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary 2025 (as at 18 December 2025) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 121 KB)
All years
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
Case name
Sportzone Motorcyles Limited (in liquidation) and Motor Trade Finances Limited v Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 40/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of ss 41, 42 and 44. [2015] NZCA 78 CA 727/2013; CA 593/2014
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Sportzone Motorcycles Ltd (in liq) and Motor Trade Finances Ltd v Commerce Commission [2015] NZCA 78).
B The approved question is:Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the fees charged by the applicants were unreasonable for the purposes of s 41 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003?
2 July 2015
_______________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be determined by the Registrar in the absence of agreement between the parties).
We certify for two counsel.
12 May 2016
B The approved question is:Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the fees charged by the applicants were unreasonable for the purposes of s 41 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003?
2 July 2015
_______________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements (to be determined by the Registrar in the absence of agreement between the parties).
We certify for two counsel.
12 May 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 - 11 November 2015 (PDF, 1.2 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 53 (PDF, 242 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Ailsa Duffy
Case number
SC 41/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – whether Brown J erred in striking out the applicant’ s application for judicial review.[2015] NZHC 714 CIV 2014 485 11404
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay the first respondent costs of $2,500.
1 July 2015
B The applicant is to pay the first respondent costs of $2,500.
1 July 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
P v The Queen
Case number
SC 42/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the conduct of the trial prosecutor did not amount to a miscarriage of justice[2015] NZCA 96 CA 672/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
24 June 2015
24 June 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
P v The Queen [2015] NZSC 90 24 June 2015 (PDF, 82 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Phillip Wiki Taha v The Queen
Case number
SC 43/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether new evidence not led at trial is “ fresh” and cogent.[2015] NZCA 107 CA 405/2014
Result
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
16 March 2016
16 March 2016
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Registrar of the Supreme Court, Ministry of Justice
Case number
SC 44/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Special leave to appeal – Judicial Review – Review of Registrar’s decision not to provide copies of applications for leave to appeal – Whether High Court correct to strike out application.[2015] NZHC 709 CIV 2015-485-60
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondent.
13 July 2015
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondent.
13 July 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Doug Andrews Heating and Ventilation Limited and Multi KC Limited v Wayne James Dil, Gary Roy Mitchell and G & W Imports Limited'
Case number
SC 45/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the applicant’s appeal against the High Court’s decision dismissing the applicant’s claim of patent infringement.[2015] NZCA 122 CA 5/2014
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed.
B The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $5,000 in respect of both applications.
8 October 2015
B The applicants are to pay the respondents costs of $5,000 in respect of both applications.
8 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Richard John Creser v Janine Michelle Creser and The Official Assignee
Case number
SC 46/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether Cooper J erred in dismissing the application under appeal without a hearing.[2015] NZHC 709 CIV 2015-485-60
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
16 July 2015
___
Application for recall is dismissed.
21 July 2015.
___
Second application for recall is dismissed.
22 July 2015.
___
A The application for recall is dismissed.
B The Registrar is directed not to accept for filing any further applications for recall. 29 July 2015 ___ The application for review of Glazebrook J’ s decision is dismissed.
19 October 2015
B There is no order for costs.
16 July 2015
___
Application for recall is dismissed.
21 July 2015.
___
Second application for recall is dismissed.
22 July 2015.
___
A The application for recall is dismissed.
B The Registrar is directed not to accept for filing any further applications for recall. 29 July 2015 ___ The application for review of Glazebrook J’ s decision is dismissed.
19 October 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Recall judgment
Supreme court decision
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Mita Michael Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Limited and The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 47/2015
Summary
Civil appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that Landcorp’s entry into an agreement to sell Whārere Farm was not tainted by bad faith – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that certain actions of the Office of Treaty Settlements were not justiciable – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusions as to shareholding ministers’ powers to direct Landcorp.[2015] NZCA 160 CA 336/2014; CA 337/2014; CA 29/2015
Result
An order is made that the first respondent, Landcorp Farming Ltd, not proceed with the sale of the Wharere Farm until further order of the Court.
14 May 2015
______________________
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (The Attorney-General v Ririnui [2015] NZCA 160).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse the relief sought by the applicant based on:
(a) the claimed bad faith on the part of Landcorp;
(b) the acknowledged error of law by the Office of Treaty Settlements in its advice to Landcorp;
(c) the failure of the shareholding Ministers of Landcorp to intervene.
C The first respondent is restrained until further order of the Court from settling the agreement for sale and purchase of Whārere Farm, with leave reserved to the parties or to the purchaser to apply for discharge or variation of this order.
D The Registrar is directed to serve a copy of this judgment on the purchaser.
27 May 2015
________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B The following declarations are made:
(i) The decision of Landcorp Farming Limited’s shareholding Ministers and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations not to intervene in the tender process on behalf of Ngāti Whakahemo as they did on behalf of Ngāti Mākino was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
(ii) The decision by Landcorp Farming Limited on 28 February 2014 to sell Whārere farm to Micro Farms Limited was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
C All other forms of relief claimed by the appellant are declined.
D The restraining order made by this Court in Order C of its judgment granting leave to appeal (Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Ltd [2015] NZSC 72) is discharged.
E Costs are reserved. The parties may file written submissions as to costs in this Court and in the Courts below if they are unable to reach agreement.
9 June 2016
___________
A The orders of the Court of Appeal as to costs are quashed.
B The parties are to bear their own costs in all Courts.
1 May 2017
14 May 2015
______________________
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (The Attorney-General v Ririnui [2015] NZCA 160).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse the relief sought by the applicant based on:
(a) the claimed bad faith on the part of Landcorp;
(b) the acknowledged error of law by the Office of Treaty Settlements in its advice to Landcorp;
(c) the failure of the shareholding Ministers of Landcorp to intervene.
C The first respondent is restrained until further order of the Court from settling the agreement for sale and purchase of Whārere Farm, with leave reserved to the parties or to the purchaser to apply for discharge or variation of this order.
D The Registrar is directed to serve a copy of this judgment on the purchaser.
27 May 2015
________________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B The following declarations are made:
(i) The decision of Landcorp Farming Limited’s shareholding Ministers and the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations not to intervene in the tender process on behalf of Ngāti Whakahemo as they did on behalf of Ngāti Mākino was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
(ii) The decision by Landcorp Farming Limited on 28 February 2014 to sell Whārere farm to Micro Farms Limited was a wrongful exercise of a public power because it was made under a material mistake.
C All other forms of relief claimed by the appellant are declined.
D The restraining order made by this Court in Order C of its judgment granting leave to appeal (Ririnui v Landcorp Farming Ltd [2015] NZSC 72) is discharged.
E Costs are reserved. The parties may file written submissions as to costs in this Court and in the Courts below if they are unable to reach agreement.
9 June 2016
___________
A The orders of the Court of Appeal as to costs are quashed.
B The parties are to bear their own costs in all Courts.
1 May 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 May 2015 (PDF, 308 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 62 (PDF, 265 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Supreme Court - order made
Additional document
Transcription hearing 17 - 18 August 2015 (PDF, 1.5 MB)
Page 144 of 269