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
Symphony Group Limited v Vero Liability Insurance Ltd
Case number
SC 89/2008
Summary
Civil – whether an insured defendant may join its insurer to a proceeding as a third party pursuant to Rule 75 of the High Court Rules and resist an application for strike out - whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that Rule 75 does not apply where the plaintiff’s claim against the insured does not include a claim for which the insured is indemnified, but the plaintiff has notified the Court of its intention to add such a claim – whether the principle in Couch v Attorney General [2008] NZSC 45, that if a saving amendment can be made to a claim it should not be struck out, should apply by analogy where a saving amendment is to be made to a plaintiff’ s claim, that will give the defendant a right to indemnity from its insurers.[2008] NZCA 419 CA 132/08 23 October 2008
Result
Notice of Abandonment of Appeal lodged. Appeal deemed to be dismissed.
9 July 2009
9 July 2009
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Dates
Application for leave to appeal granted.
1 April 2009
Case name
Astrazeneca Limited v Commerce Commission and Pharmaceutical Management Agency
Case number
SC 91/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – Respondent gave notice under s 98 of the Commerce Act 1986 of an investigation into allegations that the applicant acted contrary to section 36 of the Act in negotiations with PHARMAC – whether exemption to Part 2 of the Commerce Act in s 53 of the Public Health and Disability Act 2000 applied so that the respondent should not have issued a notice – whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding it did not have sufficient factual information to determine whether s 53 applied – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that there might be some other purpose of s 53 which would become evident when it was considered in light of the full facts.[2008] NZCA 479 CA 241/2008 11 November 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted
25 February 2009
________________________
Appeal allowed. It is declared that the notice under s 98 of the Commerce Act 1986 given by the Commerce Commission on 31 October 2007 was ultra vires and invalid. It is ordered that the notice is quashed. The Commerce Commission is ordered to pay the appellant costs in this Court of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar. Costs in the Court of Appeal and the High Court should now be fixed respectively by those Courts in light of this Court’s judgment.
26 August 2009
25 February 2009
________________________
Appeal allowed. It is declared that the notice under s 98 of the Commerce Act 1986 given by the Commerce Commission on 31 October 2007 was ultra vires and invalid. It is ordered that the notice is quashed. The Commerce Commission is ordered to pay the appellant costs in this Court of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar. Costs in the Court of Appeal and the High Court should now be fixed respectively by those Courts in light of this Court’s judgment.
26 August 2009
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Case name
Deryck Joseph Morgan v The Queen
Case number
SC 92/2008
Summary
Criminal Appeal – aggravated robbery – appeal against conviction – miscarriage of justice – previous inconsistent statement of hostile witness – actual statement not produced until re-examination because of oversight – whether Court of Appeal was correct to hold that this statement was admissible as evidence of the truth of its contents.[2008] NZCA 537 CA 481 /2008 5 December 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
25 March 2009
_________________________
Appeal dismissed.
16 March 2010
25 March 2009
_________________________
Appeal dismissed.
16 March 2010
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 July 2009 (PDF, 294 KB)
Media Releases
- press release morgan v the queen (PDF, 31 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
MORGAN v R SC 92/2008 [25 March 2009] (PDF, 12 KB)
Substantive judgment
MORGAN v R SC 92/2008 [16 March 2010] (PDF, 87 KB)
Case name
Peter William Russel v The Queen
Case number
SC 3/2007
Summary
Criminal – Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 – trial Judge awarded costs to defendants acquitted on charges of conspiracy to defraud and money laundering brought by Serious Fraud Office – Court of Appeal majority held that High Court Judge had erred in failing to take account of risk of a substantial award inhibiting the exercise of proper prosecutorial function – whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the cost award because it was “disproportionate” – whether Court of Appeal wrongly interpreted s 5(1) of the Act. CA 475/2005 6 December 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
29 May 2007
_____________________
Appeal allowed, Costs order in the High Court reinstated.
Costs to appellant in Court of Appeal, $12,000 together with reasonable expenses.
Costs to appellant in Supreme Court, $20,000 together with reasonable expenes.
29 May 2007
_____________________
Appeal allowed, Costs order in the High Court reinstated.
Costs to appellant in Court of Appeal, $12,000 together with reasonable expenses.
Costs to appellant in Supreme Court, $20,000 together with reasonable expenes.
Leave judgment - leave granted
REID And Ors V R SC 95/2006 [29 May 2007] (PDF, 17 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Substantive judgment / Media release
Case name
Peter Michael Connolly v The Queen
Case number
SC 4/2007
Summary
Criminal – Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 – trial Judge awarded costs to defendants acquitted on charges of conspiracy to defraud and money laundering brought by Serious Fraud Office – Court of Appeal majority held that High Court Judge had erred in failing to take account of risk of a substantial award inhibiting the exercise of proper prosecutorial function – whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the cost award because it was “disproportionate” – whether Court of Appeal wrongly interpreted s 5(1) of the Act. CA 472/2005 6 December 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. Application for leave to cross appeal dismissed.
29 May 2007
___________________________
Appeal allowed, Costs order in the High Court reinstated.
Costs to appellant in Court of Appeal, $12,000 together with reasonable expenses.
Costs to appellant in Supreme Court, $20,000 together with reasonable expenses.
29 May 2007
___________________________
Appeal allowed, Costs order in the High Court reinstated.
Costs to appellant in Court of Appeal, $12,000 together with reasonable expenses.
Costs to appellant in Supreme Court, $20,000 together with reasonable expenses.
Leave judgment - leave granted
REID And Ors V R SC 95/2006 [29 May 2007] (PDF, 17 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Substantive judgment / Media release
Transcript
Case name
Kevin Jack Ngan v The Queen
Case number
SC 5/2007
Summary
Criminal – appeal against conviction – earlier unsuccessful application for leave to appeal directly to Supreme Court (see SC 24/2006) – lawfulness of “inventory searches” – admissibility of evidence obtained through police searches of applicant’s sunglasses pouch and wallet following injury of applicant in car crash – whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that searches both lawful and reasonable and evidence therefore properly admitted. CA 220/06 1 December 2006
Result
Leave to appeal granted. 15 March 2007
Media Releases
- pressreleasengan 000 (PDF, 78 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
NGAN v R SC 5/2007 [13 December 2007] (PDF, 195 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Substantive judgment / Media release
Case name
John Donald Currie v The Queen
Case number
SC 7/2007
Summary
Criminal – Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 – trial Judge awarded costs to defendants acquitted on charges of conspiracy to defraud and money laundering brought by Serious Fraud Office – Court of Appeal majority held that High Court Judge had erred in failing to take account of risk of a substantial award inhibiting the exercise of proper prosecutorial function – whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the cost award because it was “disproportionate” – whether Court of Appeal wrongly interpreted s 5(1) of the Act.CA 473/2005 6 December 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. Application for leave to cross appeal dismissed.
29 May 2007
_________________________
Appeal allowed, Costs order in the High Court reinstated.
Costs to appellant in Court of Appeal, $12,000 together with reasonable expenses.
In Supreme Court, reasonable expenses as may be fixed by the Registrar.
14 November 2007
29 May 2007
_________________________
Appeal allowed, Costs order in the High Court reinstated.
Costs to appellant in Court of Appeal, $12,000 together with reasonable expenses.
In Supreme Court, reasonable expenses as may be fixed by the Registrar.
14 November 2007
Leave judgment - leave granted
REID And Ors V R SC 95/2006 [29 May 2007] (PDF, 17 KB)
Substantive judgment / Media release
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Case name
Laxman Rajamani v the Queen
Case number
SC 8/2007
Summary
Criminal appeal – murder – husband killed wife – defence of lack of murderous intent and provocation – husband and wife both Indian - alleged provocative act by wife was in threatening to leave her husband for a Pakistani colleague – whether trial judge erred in proceeding with the trial to verdict with only ten jurors after two jurors had been discharged – whether trial judge erred in summing up on provocation – whether defence counsel’s cross-examination of a key Crown witness was inadequate; and whether trial judge’s summing up with respect to that witness was unbalanced – whether hearsay evidence from deceased a few days before her death concerning threats to her life from the defendant should have been admitted under R v Manase [2001] 2 NZLR 197; and whether trial judge’ s instructions as to the use to which that evidence could be put were incorrect. CA 140/06 20 December 2006
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
19 April 2007
____________________________
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed, new trial ordered.
23 August 2007
19 April 2007
____________________________
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed, new trial ordered.
23 August 2007
Transcripts
- Hearing date 25 July 2007 (PDF, 321 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
RAJAMANI v R SC 8/2007 [19 April 2007] (PDF, 12 KB)
Substantive judgment
RAJAMANI v R SC 8/2007 [23 August 2007] (PDF, 38 KB)
Case name
Unison Networks Limited v The Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 12/2007
Summary
Civil Appeal – appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision that revised price-related thresholds set by the Commerce Commission were lawful and the Court’s refusal to exercise its discretion to grant relief in relation to initial unlawful thresholds – whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by failing to consider whether the Commerce Commission misdirected itself and therefore erred in finding the revised thresholds to be lawful – whether the Court erred in law by finding that the revised thresholds met the statutory purpose and were thus lawful – whether it is appropriate for the Court to decline relief where a statutory body has acted outside the statutory process – whether the Court erred by failing to consider other types of relief. CA 284/05 19 December 2006
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
27 March 2007
____________________
Appeal dismissed.
Unison is ordered to pay the Commission costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. Costs in the Court of Appeal and High Court are to be determined by those Courts in light of this judgment.
10 September 2007
27 March 2007
____________________
Appeal dismissed.
Unison is ordered to pay the Commission costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. Costs in the Court of Appeal and High Court are to be determined by those Courts in light of this judgment.
10 September 2007
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment /Media release
Transcription
Hearing date : 18 and 20 June 2007
Blanchard J, Tipping J, McGrath J, Anderson J and Gault J.
Blanchard J, Tipping J, McGrath J, Anderson J and Gault J.
Judgment appealed from
Case name
New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union v New Zealand Fire Service Commission
Case number
SC 13/2007
Summary
Civil appeal – whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to determine the appeal from the Employment Court – whether the Court of Appeal applied the correct test in determining whether certain days would “otherwise be working days” for an employee – whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining the compliance of a collective employment agreement with the Holidays Act 1981 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the collective employment agreement – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 6 of the Holidays Act 1981. CA 270/05 21 December 2006
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds are:
(a) Whether the Court of Appeal correctly construed the phrase “a day that would otherwise be a working day for the employee” in s 57(1)(b) of the Holidays Act 2003; and
(b) Whether the Court of Appeal was right to conclude that s 57(1)(a) does not require specific agreement between the employer and employee as to a specific day for the taking of an alternative holiday.
17 April 2007
______________________________________________________________________________________
Notice of abandonment being lodged. the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
7 August 2007
B The approved grounds are:
(a) Whether the Court of Appeal correctly construed the phrase “a day that would otherwise be a working day for the employee” in s 57(1)(b) of the Holidays Act 2003; and
(b) Whether the Court of Appeal was right to conclude that s 57(1)(a) does not require specific agreement between the employer and employee as to a specific day for the taking of an alternative holiday.
17 April 2007
______________________________________________________________________________________
Notice of abandonment being lodged. the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
7 August 2007
Leave judgment - leave granted
Page 64 of 75