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.

17 August 2026

Case information summary (as at 17 August 2026) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 17 August 2026)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 128 KB) 

All years

Case name
Body Corporate 207624 and others v North Shore City Council
Case number
SC 58/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Negligence – Leaky building – Whether applicant hotel unit owners owed a duty of care by respondent council – Whether applicant penthouse apartment owners owed a duty of care by council – Whether intended use of building as residential or non-residential a controlling factor in determining whether local authority owes duty of care – How duty of care in respect of a mixed-use building should be determined – Whether council can owe duty of care for negligent misstatement based upon code compliance certificates in absence of specific reliance by applicants.[2011] NZCA 164  CA 760/2009
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is whether and to what extent the respondent local authority owed a duty of care to the body corporate and/or all or some of the appellant unit owners in exercising its regulatory functions under the Building Act 1991 in relation to the construction of the Spencer on Byron building which contains a mixture of  non-residential and residential apartments. 5 August 2011 _________________________________ A The appeal is allowed.
B The orders made in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.
C The appellants’ claim against the respondent is permitted to proceed in the High Court.
D The appellants are entitled to costs in the High Court and the Court of Appeal.  If the parties cannot agree quantum, costs are to be fixed in the respective Courts.
E The respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs in this Court in the sum of $40,000 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.  11 October 2012
Leave judgment - leave granted
sc 58 2011 body corporate no 207624 anor v north shore city 1 (PDF, 8 KB)
Transcript

Hearing dates : 20, 21 and 26 March 2012

Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Chambers JJ.
Case name
Pacific Farms Limited and Pacific Farms Development Limited v Palmerston North City Council and Palmerston North Industrial & Residential Developments Limited
Case number
SC 64/2011
Summary
Civil – Resource Management Act 1991 – Issue of consents without notice ¬– High Court declining to quash consents or grant declarations on terms sought by appellants – Whether Court of Appeal correct to set aside all of High Court’s declarations (and leave feasibility of a rehearing to the parties) on basis that late revelation of a relevant consent and regional plan meant that the critical issues were unable to be addressed in any meaningful way – Whether, in light of that finding, Court of Appeal correct to order parties to bear their own costs and set aside High Court costs orders – Extent of differentiation and/or overlap of functions and jurisdiction of Territorial Authorities and Regional Councils – Effect of regional plan on status of activity for notification purposes – Effect of principles of natural justice on Court of Appeal decision, particularly its decision to determine proceedings on a ground not the subject of pleadings or submissions by the parties.     [2011] NZCA 187    CA 116/2010
Dates
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
6 July 2011.
Case name
John Anthony Edwards v Wellington Regional Council
Case number
SC 67/2011
Summary
Civil – Costs – Whether the Court of Appeal was right to uphold a decision of the Acting Registrar of that Court fixing security for costs on an appeal from the High Court – Section 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 – Appeal directly from the High Court – Whether a decision of the High Court to stay proceedings until a further statement of claim with adequate pleadings is submitted, and the leave of a Judge to file it is granted, is sufficiently exceptional to allow a direct appeal against the judgment to this Court. [2011] NZCA 260   CA 176/2011
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
EDWARDS v WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL SC 67/2011 [5 July 2011] (PDF, 41 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,5000 to the respondent.
Case name
Paul Robert Devcich and others v AMI Insurance Limited
Case number
SC 78/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Insurance – Arson – Applicant claims indemnification against respondent insurer for fire damage and stolen property in respect of deliberately started fire at his Auckland property – Whether Court of Appeal correct to find on civil standard of proof that applicant himself responsible for starting fire – Whether Court of Appeal wrong to find that High Court’s approach did not apply an appropriate standard of proof and imposed too high a standard for respondent to meet – Whether Court of Appeal did not defer appropriately to High Court’s factual findings.[2011] NZCA 266   CA 522/2010
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 to the respondent.
30 August 2011.
Case name
Michael Shane McElroy and others as trustees of the Craigie Trust v Auckland International Airport Limited
Case number
SC 11/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Public Works Act 1981 – Respondent not subject to the obligation in s 40 of the Act to offer back to the applicant land no longer required for the public work for which it was held – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the word “required” in s 40 – whether the Court of Appeal misinterpreted the term “ aerodrome” or “airport” as defined by the Act and the Airport Authorities Act 1966 – whether the Court’s interpretation of “ aerodrome” or “airport” undermines the purposes of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the qualifications in s 40(2) of the Act would nonetheless apply to exclude the respondent from the requirement to offer back the land[2009] NZCA 621  CA 440/2008   23 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
McELROY AND ORS v AUCKLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD SC 11/2010 [9 June 2010] (PDF, 47 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed,  with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.

9 June 2010.
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
Marlborough District Council v Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited and Ors
Case number
SC 33/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Negligence – Whether duty of care owed by local authority in issuing a Land Information Memorandum (LIM) inducing party to enter into contract to purchase land – Whether local authority protected from liability by s 41 of Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) when providing information in LIM in good faith – Whether s 44A of LGOIMA requires inclusion of information relating to water resource entitlements in a LIM – Whether loss is actually suffered in tort against a third party where compensatory damages under s 6 Contractual Remedies Act 1979 against a party to the contract have already offset financial loss suffered by misrepresentation.[2010] NZCA 104  CA 448/2008 and CA 215/2009   29 March 2010
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds are: (i) Whether a duty of care is owed by a local authority to the recipient of a Land Information Memorandum (LIM) issued under s 44A of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. (ii) If so, whether Altimarloch Joint Venture Ltd suffered any loss recoverable from the Council by reason of breach of that duty of care.
14 July 2010
_____________________
The appeal by the Marlborough District Council from the liability judgment given against it in favour of Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited is dismissed. The appeal by the Marlborough District Council from the contribution judgment given against it in favour of D S and J W Moorhouse is allowed.  That judgment is set aside and judgment in favour of the Council is entered in respect of that claim. Costs of $10,000 to Altimarloch.  Disbursements shall be added as agreed or fixed by the Registrar.
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL v ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED And Anor SC 33/2010 [14 July 2010] (PDF, 44 KB)
Additional document
MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL v ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED And Ors SC 33/2010 [20 October 2010] (PDF, 40 KB)
Substantive judgment
MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL v ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED SC 33/2010 [5 March 2012] (PDF, 595 KB)
Transcript

Hearing dates : 14 and 15 February 2011

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
Vining Realty Group Limited v Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited and Ors
Case number
SC 40/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Misrepresentation – Quantification of Damages – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding inappropriate measure of expectation damages owed by Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks to Altimarloch Joint Venture in respect of purchase of land where water rights misrepresented – Whether proper measure of damages is difference between actual value and represented value not cost to remedy property to meet purchaser’ s original expectation.[2010] NZCA 104  CA 438/2008 and CA 213/2009   29 March 2010
Result
A The application for leave to appeal are granted.
B  The approved ground is whether the award of damages against DS & JW Moorhouse (in respect of which they are entitled to be fully indemnified by Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks) was appropriately quantified on an expectation basis.  
14 July 2010
______________________________
Appeal dismissed.
Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks are to pay the Council costs of $5,000.  They are to pay in the proportions fixed in the Court of Appeal, namely 60 per cent by Vining Realty and 40 per cent by Gascoigne Wicks.
Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks are to pay in the same proportions costs of $10,000 to Altimarloch.
In each case where costs are awarded, disbursements shall be added as agreed or fixed by the Registrar.
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
VINING REALTY GROUP LIMITED v ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED And Anor SC 40/2010 [14 July 2010] (PDF, 39 KB)
Substantive judgment
MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL v ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED SC 33/2010 [5 March 2012] (PDF, 595 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 14 and 15 February 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Page 15 of 20