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.
4 September 2026
Case information summary (as at 4 September 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 116 KB)
Case information summary (as at 4 September 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 132 KB)
All years
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
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
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
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
- Hearing date 6 October 2009 (PDF, 150 KB)
Media Releases
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Westpac Banking Corporation v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 22/2009
Summary
Tax Law – Whether judicial review of a Commissioner’s decision is inconsistent with the statutory scheme of challenge under Part VIIIA of the Tax Administration Act 1994; whether judicial review amounted to a collateral attack on the Commissioner’s decision; Whether exceptional circumstances existed that resulted in an amended assessment falling outside the scope of s 109 and s 114 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 (the statutory scheme of challenge) and thereby justifying judicial review; Whether conscious or deliberate maladministration are the only circumstances in which an assessment may be invalid; Whether there was a breach of a legitimate expectation held by Westpac; Whether the Commissioner’s amended assessment was not an honest appraisal or a genuine exercise of judgment; Whether the Commissioner’s amended assessment was the product of an abuse of power; Whether the Commissioner’ s procedure applied in coming to an amended assessment was consistent with the law; Whether a correct assessment, reached by an improper process, is valid.[2009] NZCA 24 CA 624/07 20 February 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements to the respondent.
8 April 2009
8 April 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
TFAC Limited, Geoffrey Alan Grisdale and Amanda May Grisdale v Susan Elizabeth David and UAR Limited
Case number
SC 26/2009
Summary
Civil – Fair Trading Act 1986 – Australian home services franchising operation – Applicants entered into a master franchise agreement covering Auckland’s eastern suburbs with the respondents, who owned the New Zealand master franchise – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and law in its finding that the respondents did not engage in misleading and deceptive conduct in breach of s 9 of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overlooking the High Court’s finding that the respondents had breached s 22(1) and (2) of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in treating a particular pleaded misrepresentation as a misrepresentation as to a future matter – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a particular opinion was honestly held by the first respondent and had a reasonable basis – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its finding that even if the respondents had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct the causal link necessary to justify relief under s 43 of the Act was doubtful – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its finding that the respondents were protected from liability by various disclaimer and acknowledgement clauses.[2009] NZCA 44 CA 26/2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
26 May 2009
26 May 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Leroy John Barr v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 34/2009
Summary
Criminal appeal – whether jurisdiction to order the payment of medical expenses incurred by the Police in administering a blood test against persons convicted of driving with excess blood alcohol. [2009] NZCA 124 CA 700/2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
16 June 2009
______________________
Appeal allowed. The order for payment of medical expenses of $102.60 is set aside. Insubstitution, the appellant is ordered to pay $93 towards medical expenses.
21 October 2009
16 June 2009
______________________
Appeal allowed. The order for payment of medical expenses of $102.60 is set aside. Insubstitution, the appellant is ordered to pay $93 towards medical expenses.
21 October 2009
Media Releases
- media barr v nz police (PDF, 39 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Blanchard. Tipping, McGrath, Wilson, and Anderson JJ
Case name
William Patrick Jeffries v The Privacy Commissioner
Case number
SC 42/2009
Summary
Civil – Judicial Review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a barrister may not invoke the privilege of general immunity against civil liability in respect of his participation in court proceedings against the Privacy Commissioner in relation to the barrister’s preparation and conduct of court proceedings and thereafter – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that a barrister conducting litigation before a court comes within the definition of “agency” in s 2 of the Privacy Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that “any person” in s 91(4) of the Act includes persons who are not “agencies” pursuant to s 2 of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that the Privacy Commissioner’s failure to abide her notice obligations under ss 70 and 73 of the Act was understandable and not a relevant consideration in assessing her decision-makingCIV 2006 – 485-860 22 May 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal refused. Costs $2,500 plus disbursements to the respondent. 3 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Peter David Buddle v The Queen
Case number
SC 43/2009
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction – Crimes Act 1961 – Sexual offending – Criminal procedure – Exercise of s 374 discretion to discharge jury without their giving of a verdict – Whether trial Judge had authority to discharge jury at first trial on “a hung jury aspect” – Whether second trial a nullity in respect of all charges – Whether miscarriage of justice established.[2009] NZCA 184 CA 416/2008 14 May 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
22 June 2009
22 June 2009
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
BUDDLE v R SC 43/2009 [22 June 2009] (PDF, 9 KB)
Substantive judgment
BUDDLE v R SC 43/2009 [26 November 2009] (PDF, 132 KB)
Result
Appeal allowed, Convictions set aside. New Trial ordered on three counts.
26 November 2009
Hearing
13 August 2009
Case name
Cashmere Capital Limited v Patrick Kevin Carroll and others
Case number
SC 46/2009
Summary
Civil – Retirement Villages Act 2003 – retrospective operation of the Act – the Court of Appeal held that when there has been an Order in Council under s 103, the Registrar-General must note on the certificate of title to the land comprising the village that it is subject to s 22 of the Act, and that the expressed intention of Parliament was that the Act should operate retrospectively to 31 December 2002 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of ss 103 and 21 of the Act - whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that if the Registrar-General has registered Crossdale Village under s 21 of the Act then s 22 applied to the appellant and if the Registrar-General has not done so it should be performed forthwith.[2009] NZCA 185 CA 190/2007 15 May 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
24 July 2009
______________________
Appeal allowed, judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aisde. Costs of $5,000 plus disbursements to the appellant.
4 December 2009
24 July 2009
______________________
Appeal allowed, judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aisde. Costs of $5,000 plus disbursements to the appellant.
4 December 2009
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 November 2009 (PDF, 559 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2009] NZSC 123 (PDF, 58 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Wyeth (NZ) Limited v Ancare New Zealand Limited and The Environmental Risk Management Authority
Case number
SC 57/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal - Statutory Interpretation - whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996; whether the Act requires or entitles the Environmental Risk Management Authority to refuse to disclose the identity of a hazardous substance and/or its chemical composition; whether the Act allows the Environmental Risk Management Authority to require that the identity of a hazardous substance and/or its chemical composition be provided on the basis of confidentiality undertakings. [2009] NZCA 211 CA 424/2007 27 May 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
25 September 2009
______________________
The appeal is dismissed with no order for costs.
23 April 2010
25 September 2009
______________________
The appeal is dismissed with no order for costs.
23 April 2010
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 February 2010 (PDF, 600 KB)
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 42 of 51