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
Slawomir Ryszard Bujak v Solicitor-General
Case number
SC 64/2008
Summary
Civil – Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that an order for the seizure of property in Poland could be registered in New Zealand under s 55 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal matters Act 1992.[2008] NZCA 334 CA 679/2008 11 September 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
11 November 2008
_____________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
15 May 2009
11 November 2008
_____________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
15 May 2009
Media Releases
- MR [2009] NZSC 42 (PDF, 90 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Case name
Vector Gas Limited v Bay of Plenty Electricity Limited
Case number
SC 65/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – contract interpretation – interpretation of an Interim agreement to preserve gas supply until decision made as to the validity of a termination of gas distribution agreement between the Vector Gas Limited (“NGC”) and Bay of Plenty Energy Limited (“BoPE” )– whether the Court of Appeal erroneously interpreted the terms of the interim agreement as meaning that the repeated phrase “6.50 per GJ” referred to a bundled price for not only the quantities of gas supplied but also transmission and network costs associated with delivery of such gas, rather than to a gas only price – whether the parties had given their own meaning to the phrase “6.50 per GJ” in prior correspondence – whether the Court of Appeal artificially excluded from consideration the bulk of relevant prior correspondence – whether the Court of Appeal disregarded the context of the agreement negotiations that the only other options for BoPE were cessation of gas supply or the giving of an undertaking as to market related damages – whether the Court of Appeal gave weight to unsupported and inherently implausible “reputational” speculation that NGC might not have pressed for a market comparable price in the interim agreement – whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to reach a decision whereby NGC was worse off than if BoPE had given an undertaking as to damages – whether the Court of Appeal’s decision is contrary business common sense and fundamental principles of contractual interpretation. [2008] NZCA 338 CA 679/2008 1 September 2008
Result
The appeal is allowed. The respondent is to pay to the appellant costs of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar. Costs in the lower Courts are to be fixed by those Courts in the light of this Court’ s judgment.
10 February 2010
10 February 2010
Media Releases
- sc 65 2008 vector gas ltd v bope ltd media (PDF, 53 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Dates
Application for leave to appeal granted. Respondents application for leave to cross appeal refused. 11 December 2008.
Case name
Westpac New Zealand Limited v Alan John Clark
Case number
SC 67/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property – Mortgages – Security – Fraud – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding, in effect, that Appellant’ s mortgage secured nothing – Whether Court of Appeal erred in rejecting Appellant’s submission that upon registration of a mortgage, charged property is rendered liable for the mortgage debt (monies advanced in terms of or in reliance upon the mortgage or monies secured by the mortgage) whatever the mortgage debt is established to be by the lender – Whether Court of Appeal erred in rejecting Appellant’s submission that for purposes of determining what monies are secured by a mortgage, there is no difference between an acknowledgment contained in a mortgage of a particular sum lent with a covenant to repay that sum and an acknowledgment of an unparticularised sum (“all monies”) with a covenant to repay those monies – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that a personal covenant to pay contained in a mortgage is independent of the charged created by the mortgage and does not attract indefeasibility on registration – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that the terms of the loan agreement between the Appellant and a fraudster were not incorporated into the registered mortgage – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding Appellant suffered no loss as a result of the Respondent’s breach of undertaking to register the Appellant’ s mortgage “promptly”.[2008] NZCA 346 CA 172/06 5 September 2008
Media Releases
- sc 67 2008 westpac v alan john clark press release (PDF, 88 KB)
Substantive judgment
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is granted.
27 November 2008
Transcript
Case name
APN New Zealand Limited v Simunovich Fisheries Limited and others
Case number
SC 69/2008
Summary
Civil – Defamation – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the obligation in s 38 of the Defamation Act 1992 applies to the pleading of a stand alone defence of truth – whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that the “repetition rule” and the “ conduct rule” apply to pleadings of truth - whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the change in approach to admissibility of hearsay evidence in the Evidence Act 2006 does not affect the applicability of the “repetition rule” to a pleading of truth – was the Court of Appeal wrong to hold that it is not open to a defendant to plead the opinions and statements of third parties in support of a truth defence, or in support of an honest opinion defence.[2008] NZCA 350 CA 447/07 CA 584/07 8 September 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted
1 December 2008
________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs $15,000 to the respondent jointly with one half of their disbursements.
26 August 2009
1 December 2008
________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs $15,000 to the respondent jointly with one half of their disbursements.
26 August 2009
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Case name
Television New Zealand Limited v Simunovich Fisheries Limited and others
Case number
SC 70/2008
Summary
Civil – Defamation – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the repetition and conduct rules of pleading apply to a defence of truth – whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that a defendant may not seek to prove the truth of imputations by reference to the opinions or assertions of others – did the Court of Appeal err in holding that s 38 does not permit third party assertions and opinion to be pleaded for the defence of truth – was the Court of Appeal wrong to find that a defendant is not entitled to rely on third party assertions as publication facts on which a defence of honest opinion is based, but must identify true statements of facts in the publication which may not include the fact that others made allegations or expressed opinions.[2008] NZCA 350 CA 447/07 CA 584/07 8 September 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
1 December 2008
________________________
Appeal dismissed.
Costs $15,000 to the respondent jointly with one half of their disbursements.
26 August 2009
Transcript
Case name
B and others v Crown Health Financing Agency
Case number
SC 72/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – Mental Health – Treatment – Statutory Interpretation – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding all informal patients in psychiatric hospitals were within leave and immunity provisions contained in s 6 of the Mental Health Act 1935 and s 124 of the Mental Health Act 1969 (“leave and immunity provisions”) – Whether, alternatively, Court of Appeal erred in holding leave and immunity provisions apply to all informal patients after 1 April 1972.[2008] NZCA 362 CA 173/07 16 September 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
1 December 2008
___________________________
Appeal allowed. Proceedings that were before the Court of Appeal referred back to High Court. Costs $15,000 to appellant, together with reasonable disbursements.
17 September 2009
1 December 2008
___________________________
Appeal allowed. Proceedings that were before the Court of Appeal referred back to High Court. Costs $15,000 to appellant, together with reasonable disbursements.
17 September 2009
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
sc 72 2008 p and b v crown healthfinancing agency (PDF, 12 KB)
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Case name
Xiao Qiong Huang and others v The Minister of Immigration and The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 74/2008
Summary
Civil – Immigration – whether when interpreting domestic law the Court of Appeal failed to take into account relevant considerations, such as international conventions on the Rights of the Child, on Civil and Political Rights and on the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment – whether the Court of Appeal applied the incorrect test of judicial review to a human rights case – whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the facts to the law under the Wednesbury test.[2008] NZCA 377 CA 262/06 19 September 2008
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Dates
Application for leave to appeal granted
4 December 2008
Case name
Eric Barry Stewart v The Queen
Case number
SC 81/2008
Summary
Criminal Appeal – fraudulent use of medical certificates on ACC forms appeal against conviction – motive to lie – whether the prosecutor’ s comments to the jury about the applicant’s motive to lie amounted to a miscarriage of justice – whether the trial judge should be required to correct these comments in summing up – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the prosecutor’s questioning of defence expert witness did not amount to a miscarriage of justice because the witness did not provide the applicant with a defence – whether this questioning was without foundation, an error of law and unfair [2008] NZCA 341 CA 231/07 2 September 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted
5 February 2009
_________________________
Appeal allowed, convictions quashed. No order for retrial.
28 May 2009
5 February 2009
_________________________
Appeal allowed, convictions quashed. No order for retrial.
28 May 2009
Transcripts
- Hearing date 7 May 2009 (PDF, 180 KB)
Media Releases
- stewart v the queen media release (PDF, 87 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
STEWART v R SC 81/2008 [5 February 2009] (PDF, 12 KB)
Substantive judgment
STEWART v R SC 81/2008 [28 May 2009] (PDF, 56 KB)
Case name
William Patrick Jeffries v The Attorney--General
Case number
SC 84/2008
Summary
Civil – Administrative law – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to observe principles of natural justice by deciding an application for indemnity costs and making findings on the motive of the Appellant ‘on the papers’ – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in taking into account the Appellant’ s standing on the judicial review proceedings when that was already under appeal separately to the Court.[2008] NZCA 426 CA 150/2008 20 October 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
4 February 2009
4 February 2009
Transcripts
- Hearing date 7 July 2009 (PDF, 122 KB)
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Property Ventures Investments Limited v Regalwood Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 85/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – property – validity of settlement notice and notice of cancellation of an agreement for sale and purchase – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondent had validly cancelled the agreement for sale and purchase when the Court had held that essentiality of time under the respondent’s earlier settlement notice had been waived – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that cl 5.4 of the standard ADLS/REINZ form (7th ed, July 1999) applies only to misdescription about the property at the time of the agreement and not to a breach of warranty under cl 6.2 – accordingly, whether the respondent’s settlement notice under cl 6.5 requiring the purchaser to settle for the full price was valid.[2008] NZCA 422 CA 43/2008 16 October 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
4 February 2009
_______________________
Appeal allowed. Orders made in the High Court set aside. Summary Judgment application dismissed. Proceeding remitted to the High Court. Costs of $15,000 to the appellant.
28 April 2010
4 February 2009
_______________________
Appeal allowed. Orders made in the High Court set aside. Summary Judgment application dismissed. Proceeding remitted to the High Court. Costs of $15,000 to the appellant.
28 April 2010
Transcripts
- Hearing date 25 June 2009 SC 85/2008 (PDF, 345 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2010] NZSC 47 (PDF, 37 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 63 of 75