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.

5 June 2026

Case information summary (as at 5 June 2026) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 89 KB)
Case information summary (as at 5 June 2026)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 124 KB) 

All years

Case name
North Shore City Council v Body Corporate 188529 and Ors
Case number
SC 27/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the appellant owed duties of care to the owners and lessees of units in a multi-unit development respectively.  [2010] NZCA 65  CA 673/2008   22 March 2010
Result
A The application for leave to appeal by the North Shore City Council is granted.
B The approved grounds are:
(i) Whether and in what circumstances a local authority which performed regulatory functions under the Building Act 1991 in relation to the construction of a multi-unit residential development owed a duty of care to purchasers of units in the building to ensure that it complied with the building code.
(ii) Assuming such a duty exists, whether it extends to:
(a) Such persons who did not themselves at the time of purchase intend personally to occupy their unit(s) (investor owners); and
(b) Persons who subsequently acquired such units from the first purchasers after a claim for breach of duty to their predecessors had accrued; and
(iii) In light of the conclusions reached on the foregoing grounds, how these issues should be determined in the particular cases. C  The application for leave to appeal by the Second Respondent, Blue Sky Holdings Ltd, is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the North Shore City Council.
13 July 2010
___________________________
Appeal dismissed, Costs to the respondents.
17 December 2010
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL v BODY CORPORATE 188529 And Ors SC 27/2010 [13 July 2010] (PDF, 13 KB)
Substantive judgment
sc 27 2010 north shore city v body corporate 188529 and ors civil judgment (PDF, 205 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 8 – 10 November 2010

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
North Shore City Council v Body Corporate 189855 and Ors
Case number
SC 28/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the appellant owed duties of care to the owners and lessees of units in a multi-unit development respectively.  [2010] NZCA 65  CA 507/2008   22 March 2010
Result

A The application for leave to appeal is granted.

B The approved grounds are:

(i)  Whether and in what circumstances a local authority which performed regulatory functions under the Building Act 1991 in relation to construction of a multi-unit residential development owed a duty of care to purchasers of units in the building to ensure that it complied with the building code.

(ii) Assuming such a duty exists, whether it extends to:

(a) Such persons who did not themselves at the time of purchase intend personally to occupy their unit(s) (investor owners); and

(b) Persons who subsequently acquired such units from the first purchasers after a claim for breach of duty to their predecessors had accrued; and

(c) The body corporate.

(iii) Whether the conclusions which would otherwise be reached are affected in circumstances where the Council declined to issue a code compliance certificate.

(iv) In light of the conclusions reached on the foregoing grounds, how these issues should be determined in the particular cases.

  13 July 2010

________________________

Appeal dismissed,

Costs to the respondents

17 December 2010
Leave judgment - leave granted
NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL v BODY CORPORATE 189855 And Anor SC 28/2010 [13 July 2010] (PDF, 9 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 8 – 10 November 2010

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ

 
Case name
David Paul Halford and Blue Sky Holdings Ltd (in liquidation) (as trustee of the Auckland Residential Property Trust) v R F Coughlan & Associates and Ors
Case number
SC 35/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to find that the designer of apartment units was not negligent in respect of the plans and specifications of those units; whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the issue of practical completion certificates should give rise to liability irrespective of specific reliance by an owner.[2010] NZCA 64  CA 66/2009   22 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
DAVID PAUL HALFORD AND BLUE SKY HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AS TRUSTEE OF THE AUCKLAND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TRUST v R F COUGHLAN & ASSOCIATES And Anor SC 35/2010 [13 July 2010] (PDF, 10 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs $2,500 to the 1st respondent.

13 July 2010.
Case name
GE Free NZ in Food and Environment Incorporated v AgResearch Limited and Anor
Case number
SC 38/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether applications by AgResearch to import new genetically modified organisms were improperly registered for consideration by ERMA under s 40 of Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 – Whether applications so broad and generic as to be non-compliant with statutory information requirements – Whether applications must contain sufficient information at outset to allow meaningful public participation – Whether acceptance of applications a proper subject for judicial review.[2010] NZCA 89 CA 380/2009   23 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
G E FREE NZ IN FOOD AND THE ENVIRONMENT INCORPORATED v AGRESEARCH LIMITED And Anor SC 38/2010 [29 June 2010] (PDF, 41 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed  with costs $2,500 to each respondent.

29 June 2010.
Case name
Alan Parekura Torohinga Haronga v Waitangi Tribunal and others
Case number
SC 54/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial Review – Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 – Whether Appellant should be granted urgent Waitangi Tribunal remedies hearing in respect of application for resumption of Crown forest land subject to current settlement negotiations – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that Crown Forests Assets Act 1989 did not substantively alter Waitangi Tribunal’s role in relation to making of binding recommendations in respect of Crown forest land – Whether Court of Appeal failed to take into account that circumstances meant Tribunal did not exercise its discretion and Appellant could never have gained remedies hearing – Whether Court of Appeal failed to take into account right of smaller claimants to seek a remedy under s 8HB of Treaty of Waitangi Act.[2010] NZCA 201   CA 73/2010   19 May 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether in making his decision of 21 October 2009 in Wai 1489 to decline an urgent remedies hearing, the presiding Judge in the Waitangi Tribunal erred in law.
10 August 2010
___________________________
A The appeal is allowed and the determination of Judge  Clark is quashed. B The matter is remitted to the Waitangi Tribunal with the direction that it must proceed urgently to hear the claim. C The second respondent must pay the appellant costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.  Costs in the Court of Appeal and High Court are to be fixed by those Courts
Transcripts
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
HARONGA v WAITANGI TRIBUNAL AND ORS SC 54/2010 [19 May 2011] (PDF, 469 KB)
Case name
R S v The Queen
Case number
SC 103/2010
Summary
Criminal – Exclusion of evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that what specific drug, if any, a police constable is searching for under s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 is a factual rather than legal issue - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that whether s 23(1)(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act had been breached is a factual rather than legal issue – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its deciding unlawfully obtained evidence was admissible under the balancing exercise in s 30(2) of the Evidence Act 2006.[2010] NZCA 434 CA 333/2010 22 September 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Not publicly available
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

16 November 2010.
Case name
John Colman  v The Police
Case number
SC 106/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Summary Offences Act 1981, s (4)(1)(a) – using insulting language within hearing of a public place, being reckless as to whether anyone was insulted by the words - discharged without conviction on appeal – leave refused to appeal to the Court of Appeal – whether the applicant’s rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 have been breached.CRI 2009 488 09  22 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
COLMAN v THE POLICE SC 106/2010 [8 December 2010] (PDF, 66 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

8 December 2010.
Case name
Graham Ashley Robert Palmer v The Queen
Case number
SC 119/2010
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction for dishonest use of a GST return – whether the conduct of the  investigation and criminal prosecution of the applicant was in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 30 of the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Judges’ Rules – whether the trial Judge misdirected the jury as to the identity of a witness – whether the trial Judge erred in his summing up to the jury  – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to take into account evidence produced by the applicant as to the value of goods – whether there has been error in the calculation of the period for which the applicant is subject to release conditions following his sentence of imprisonment[2010] NZCA 53  CA 349/2009    5 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
PALMER v R SC 119/2010 [22 March 201 (PDF, 39 KB)
Hearing
Dates
Case name
Evgeny Orlov v Anza Distributing NZ Limited and USG Interiors Pacific Limited
Case number
SC 136/2010
Summary
Civil – costs – whether Court of Appeal with jurisdiction to strike out appeal against costs judgment in circumstances where no dispute between parties and main purpose of appeal to challenge legal basis of decision and factual findings that counsel had failed to reach minimum standard of competence that should be attained by officers of the Court – whether appropriate for appellant to pay for an amicus to act as contradictor – whether Court of Appeal decision contravened appellant’s rights under New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights; and United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers.   [2010] NZCA 536  CA 683/2009   22 November  2010
Additional document
sc 136 2010 orlov v anza fees review (PDF, 21 KB)
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ORLOV v ANZA DISTRIBUTING (NZ) LIMI TED & ORS SC 136/2010 [29 March 2011] (PDF, 69 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed. No order for costs.

29 March 2011.
Case name
Ports of Auckland Limited v Southpac Trucks Limited
Case number
SC 18/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Carriage of Goods Act 1979 – Statutory Interpretation – Proper meaning of s 6 “not liable as such” – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its application of the statutory exemption conferred in s 6 of the Carriage of Goods Act – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its conclusion that fork lift operator negligently driving into truck and causing $60,000 damage was exempt from liability under s 16(2) of the Carriage of Goods Act with the consequence that Ports of Auckland Ltd could not be held vicariously liable.[2008] NZCA 573  CA 355/2007  22  December 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
3 April 2009 
__________________________
Appeal allowed and the judgment of the High Court is restored. Appellant awarded costs of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements. Costs order in the Court of Appeal is reversed.
30 October 2009
Transcripts
Media Releases
Court of Appeal decision
SOUTHPAC TRUCKS LIMITED V PORTS OF AUCKLAND LIMITED CA CA355/2007 22 December 2008
Leave judgment - leave granted
PORTS OF AUCKLAND LTD v SOUTHPAC TRUCKS LTD SC 18/2009 [3 April 2009] (PDF, 13 KB)
Substantive judgment
PORTS OF AUCKLAND LIMITED v SOUTHPAC TRUCKS LIMITED SC 18/2009 [30 October 2009] (PDF, 160 KB)
Page 41 of 50