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
Blair & Co Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council
Case number
SC 82/2009
Summary
Civil – negligence – the Court of Appeal struck out a claim against the Queenstown Lakes District Council by the owner of a commercial building – the claim alleged negligence in the course of the approval and building process resulting in a defect in the building that caused loss to the owner – whether it is reasonably arguable that the Council owed a duty of care to the building owner to exercise reasonable skill and care in the performance of its statutory functions and responsibilities under the Building Act 1991.[2009] NZCA 374   CA 441/2008   25 August 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
24 November 2009
____________________
Leave to appeal is revoked. The appellant is ordered to pay the respondent costs of $7,500, together with reasonable disbursements incurred prior to the abandonment by Charterhall Trustees Ltd of its appeal (SC 81/2009).  
22 April 2010
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
CHARTERHALL TRUSTEES LTD v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL SC 81/2009 [24 November 2009] (PDF, 11 KB)
Substantive judgment
BLAIR & CO LIMITED v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL SC 82/2009 [22 April 2 010] (PDF, 66 KB)
Judgment appealed from

 
Transcript

Hearing date : 12 and 13 April 2010
Case name
JD & CE Henson Partnership and others v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 95/2009
Summary
Civil – Tax Administration Act 1994 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining what is sufficient to constitute a statutory Notice of Assessment – Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly stated that the applicants’ assessments were subsequently amended – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that the Taxation Review Authority addressed the correctness of the assessments without objection from the applicants – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that the Taxation Review Authority had jurisdiction under the Notices of Assessment.[2009] NZCA 423   CA  661/2008   22 September    2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs to the respondents of $3,000 plus disbursements. 15 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
J D AND C E HENSON PARTNERSHIP AND ORS V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 95/2009 15 December 2009 (PDF, 42 KB)
Judgment appealed from

 
Case name
Greymouth Gas Kaimiro Limited and others v GXL Royalties Limited and Swift Energy New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 98/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management – Petroleum mining – Leases – Contract and interpretation – Equity – obligations – assignment – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that actual reasons for GXL Royalties Ltd’s refusal to consent to transfer of Swift Energy Ltd’s interests in a petroleum exploration permit, from Swift to Greymouth Gas Kaimiro Ltd, are irrelevant to the issue of whether consent was properly or improperly withheld – Whether Court of Appeal erred in confining the issue at trial to a purely objective test of whether it has been established that Greymouth has sufficient financial capability to meet the obligations under the permit and royalty deed – Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to account in the test for the requirement of reasonableness.[2009] NZCA 433   CA  100/2009   24 September 2009
Result
Leave to appeal is granted The approved ground is whether GXL is required to plead to an allegation that it refused consent to the transfer of Swift’s interest in the petroleum permit to Greymouth for collateral reasons unrelated to Greymouth’s financial capability to meet obligations under the permit and the deed reserving to GXL a royalty interest.
30 March 2010
_________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellants are ordered to pay the respondent costs of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
22 September 2010
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
GREYMOUTH GAS KAIMIRO LIMITED And Anor v GXL ROYALTIES LIMITED SC 98/2009 [30 March 2010] (PDF, 15 KB)
Substantive judgment
GREYMOUTH GAS KAIMIRO LIMITED, GREYMOUTH GAS PARAHAKI LIMITED, GREYMOUTH GAS TURANGI LIMITED AND GREYMOUTH PETROLEUM TURANGI LIMITED v GXL ROYALTIES LIMITED SC 98/2009 [22 September 2010] (PDF, 82 KB)
Transcript

Leave hearing : 24 March 2010

Hearing date : 5 August 2010

Chief Justice, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Young JJ. 
Judgment appealed from

 
Case name
The Attorney-General of New Zealand v Mervyn Chapman
Case number
SC 120/2009
Summary
Civil – Crown liability for judicial breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by holding that the Attorney-General is the correct defendant in an action alleging breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 by a Registrar and judges of the Court of Appeal – If not, whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by holding that the Attorney-General is not entitled to the same immunities as the person who committed the alleged breaches.[2009] NZCA 552 CA 245/2008  25 November 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. The approved ground is whether Bill of Rights damages can be ordered against the Attorney-General on behalf of the Crown for breach of fair trial rights by judicial conduct in respect of which the judicial officer is immune from liability. 
31 March 2010
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND v CHAPMAN SC 120/2009 [31 March 2010] (PDF, 10 KB)
Substantive judgment
ATTORNEY-GENERAL v CHAPMAN SC 120/2009 [16 September 2011] (PDF, 591 KB)
Case name
New Zealand Exchange Limited v Bank of New Zealand, Access Brokerage Limited (in liquidation) and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Case number
SC 13/2008
Summary
Civil – appeal from strike-out application – second respondent in liquidation, first and third respondents brought actions against NZX in contract and tort - whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that NZX owes personal duties of care to individual clients or to individual brokers, to protect each of them from economic loss due to broker’s dishonesty or negligence in relation to client funds held on trust – whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the breach of such a duty (if owed) is sufficiently legally causative of loss – whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that the Securities Commission is the “primary regulator” of the New Zealand Stock Exchange, and not NZX.2008] NZCA 25 CA236/06 22 February 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
NEW ZEALAND EXCHANGE LIMITED v BANK OF NEW ZEALAND And Ors SC 13/2008 [23 July 2008] (PDF, 29 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date: 7 July 2008
Case name
Carolyn Rochelle Taylor v The Queen
Case number
SC 22/2008
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction on three charges of unlawful possession of airgun, assisting escape from lawful custody and kidnapping – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding prisoner Appellant assisted to escape (AT) was in lawful custody.[2007] NZCA 318 CA 40/07 27 July 2007
Dates
Notice of abandonment being lodged the application for leave to appeal dismissed.
26 June 2008
Case name
Mark Moncrieff Stevens and others v Premium Real Estate Limited
Case number
SC 23/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – Breach of fiduciary duty and Fair Trading Act 1986 – Damages – Advertising and sale of residential property where absence full disclosure by agent to principal of close, ongoing commercial relationship with purchaser – Whether Court of Appeal erred in quantification of damages assessment, including whether correct measure of loss includes profit made by third party (rather than fiduciary) as result of breach of fiduciary duty.[2008] NZCA 82 CA 31/07 11 April 2008
Result
Leave to appeal and cross appeal granted.
29 July 2008
________________________
The appellants’ appeal is allowed.The respondent’s appeal is dismissed.  The respondent is ordered to pay the appellants damages of $659,813 and to repay to them the commission of $67,050. The judgment sums will bear interest at 7% per annum from 16 July 2004 (the date of settlement).The appellants are awarded costs in this Court of $15,000 and costs in the Court of Appeal of $6,000, together in each case with their reasonable disbursements as fixed by the respective Registrars if not otherwise agreed between the parties.
6 March 2009
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
STEVENS AND ORS V PREMIUM REAL ESTATE LIMITED SC 23/2008 [29 July 2008] (PDF, 13 KB)
Substantive judgment
STEVENS AND OTHERS v PREMIUM REAL ESTATE LTD SC 23/2008 [6 March 2009] (PDF, 198 KB)
Recall judgment
STEVENS AND OTHERS v PREMIUM REAL ESTATE LTD SC 23/2008 [3 April 2009] (PDF, 15 KB)
Case name
Alisdair Bruce Aylwin v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 33/2008
Summary
Criminal – appeal by way of case stated – whether, on a charge of driving with excess breath alcohol, evidence must be given by the prosecution as to the manner in which the breath screening and/or evidential breath tests were carried out – whether the principle of omnia praesumuntur operates to place an evidentiary burden on the defence to raise this question.[2008] NZCA 154  CA 227/07  6 June 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
29 July 2008
__________________________
Appeal dismissed.
19 December 2008
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
AYLWIN v R SC 33/2008 [29 July 2008] (PDF, 14 KB)
Substantive judgment
AYLWIN v NEW ZEALAND POLICE SC 33/2008 [19 December 2008] (PDF, 38 KB)
Case name
Jonathan John Edward Belcher v The Queen
Case number
SC 34/2008
Summary
Criminal – appeal against conviction – indecent assault and sexual violation – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the trial Judge did not need to dismiss the jury when the appellant alleged he knew a juror – whether the Court of Appeal was right in holding that there was evidence to convict.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BELCHER v R SC 34/2008 [27 March 2009] (PDF, 16 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

27 March 2009
Case name
Pranfield Holdings Limited and United Fisheries Limited v Minister of Fisheries and others  
Case number
SC 47/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – Commercial fishing – Licence and quota management system – Misfeasance in Public Office – Whether Court of Appeal correctly applied Garrett v Attorney-General [1997] 2 NZLR 332 – Breach of Statutory Duty – Fisheries Act 1983, s 63 – Whether Court of Appeal adopted correct approach toward exercise of discretion under Fisheries Act 1983 – Negligence – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding no duty of care breached – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 27 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding s 27 not engaged – Fisheries Act 1996, ss 308 and 329 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding Applicant’ s claims for damages and in tort barred by statute.[2008] NZCA 216 CA 48/07 CA 56/07 10 July 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
PRANFIELD HOLDINGS LIMITED V THE MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND ORS SC 47/2008 22 October 2008 (PDF, 11 KB)
Dates
Applications for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2500.00 and disbursements to the respondents
Page 43 of 50