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
Gascoinge Wicks v Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited and Ors
Case number
SC 41/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Misrepresentation – Whether Court of Appeal wrong to find that Alitmarloch Joint Venture Ltd induced by representations made by Gascoigne Wicks and Vining Realty to enter into and confirm contract for sale and purchase – Whether reasonable in the circumstances for AJVL to act in reliance on representations.[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.
Transcript

Hearing date : 14 and 15 February 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
D A Constable Syndicate 386 v Auckland District Law Society
Case number
SC 65/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – contractual interpretation – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of an indemnity clause in the Auckland District Law Society’s standard professional indemnity policy, namely whether the word “negligent” should be read as qualifying only the word “act” in the phrase “negligent act, error or omission” .[2010] NZCA 237   CA 565/2008   8 June  2010
Result
Notice of Abandonment being filed, the appeal is deemed to  be dismissed.
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is granted. 

The approved ground of appeal is whether the word “negligent” qualifies the words “error or omission” in the indemnity clause.

8 September 2010.
Case name
North Shore City Council v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 77/2010
Summary
Civil – Duty of care – Whether Building Industry Authority owed a duty of care to the Council in connection with 1995 review of Council’ s building regulatory operations and functions under Building Act 1991 – Whether case so untenable to justify striking out of third-party notice.[2010]  NZCA 324   26 July  2010
Result

A Leave to appeal is granted.

B  The approved grounds are:

(i) Whether it is reasonably arguable that the BIA owed a duty of care to the Council in relation to the Grange development in any of the respects pleaded (as described in para 13.1 – 13.3 of the Council’s submissions in support of its application for leave to appeal).

(ii) Whether it is reasonably arguable that the BIA owed a duty of care to the plaintiff body corporate and unit owners in the respect pleaded (as described in para 13.4 of the Council’s submissions in support of its application for leave to appeal).

13 October 2010

________________

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant is to pay the respondent costs of $40,000 and reasonable disbursements in connection with this appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.

27 June 2012

 
 
 
 

 
Transcript
Hearing date : 1 – 3 November 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard , Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Peter Hardie McNamara and Patrick Sturgeon McNamara as Trustees of the PH McNamara Family Trust v Auckland City Council
Case number
SC 85/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondent did not owe a duty of care to the appellant; whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the building certificate issued by a third party was invalid under the Building Act 1991.[2010] NZCA 345 CA 457/2009 3 August 2010.
Result
A          The application for leave to appeal is granted.  
B          The approved grounds are:  Whether a local authority:  (i)         owes a duty of care to purchasers of units in a residential development for which a code compliance certificate was issued by a private certifier which was acting outside of its authority to issue such certificates; and/or  (ii)          was immunised by s 50(3) of the Building Act 1991 against liability in relation to its actions in reliance on such a certificate.
30 November 2010
____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
The appellants are to pay the respondent costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements in connection with this appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
9 May 2012
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
MCNAMARA AND ORS v AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL SC 85/2010 [30 November 2010] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
MCNAMARA AND ORS v AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL SC 85/2010 [9 May 2012] (PDF, 7 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 19 April 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ. 
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)
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
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TFAC LIMITED AND ORS V SUSAN ELIZABETH DAVID AND ANOR SC 26/2009 26 May 2009 (PDF, 14 KB)
Case name
Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated v Kapiti Coast District Council and Kotuku Parks Limited
Case number
SC 29/2009
Summary
Civil appeal – ss 94A(c) & 93 Resource Management Act 1991 – application for resource consent to subdivide land adjacent to the Waikanae River Estuary Scenic Reserve – Department of Conservation gave written approval to the application – decision taken to proceed to hear the application without notification – Court of Appeal held that the approval of the Department of Conservation did not allow the first respondent to disregard the effects of the application on the Reserve when deciding whether to notify – whether the first respondent is required to consider the effects of the application on the Reserve when making the notification decision under s 93 – whether the first respondent must be “satisfied” that the adverse effects of the activity on the Reserve will be minor – whether the Court of Appeal correctly applied ss 94A(c) & 93[2009] NZCA 73  CA 695/07
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondents jointly. 16 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED V KAPITI COAST DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ANOR SC 29/2009 16 June 2009 (PDF, 15 KB)
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
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
CASHMERE CAPITAL LIMITED v CROSSDALE PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ORS SC 46/2009 [24 July 2009] (PDF, 10 KB)
Substantive judgment
CASHMERE CAPITAL LTD v PATRICK KEVIN CARROLL AND ORS SC 46/2009 [4 December 2009] (PDF, 189 KB)
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Solicitor-General
Case number
SC 48/2009
Summary
Civil/Criminal Appeal – Offences – Contempt of Court – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Appeal against decision committing appellant to prison for contempt – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding contempt proceedings civil in nature – Whether appellant wrongly denied opportunity to elect trial by jury.[2009] NZCA  62   CA 447/2008    9 March 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
7 August 2009
______________________
The appeal is allowed and the order made by the Court of Appeal is quashed.  It is replaced by an order committing the appellant to prison for a term of a maximum of three months, subject to the proviso that the term of imprisonment will come to an immediate end if the appellant complies with the injunction issued on 5 May 2005 and made permanent on 23 December 2008 by the High Court at Auckland in the proceeding Korda Mentha v Siemer HC Auckland CIV-2005-404-1808, 23 December 2008 and if he also provides an undertaking to the High Court in a form approved by the High Court that he and Paragon Oil Services Ltd will continue to comply with that injunction for so long as it remains in force.  Mr Siemer is ordered to surrender to his bail at the High Court in Auckland no later than 4pm on 20 May 2010 unless by then he has complied with the injunction and provided that undertaking to the High Court in a form approved by it.
17 May 2010
____________________________
Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
11 June 2010
_____________________________
Further application for recall of judgment dismissed.
15 June 2010
Leave judgment - leave granted
SIEMER v SOLICITOR-GENERAL SC 48/2009 [7 August 2009] (PDF, 9 KB)
Substantive judgment
SIEMER v SOLICITOR-GENERAL SC 48/2009 [17 May 2010] (PDF, 159 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : recusal 26 February 2017

Hearing date : 2 March 2010

Elias CJ, Blanchard, McGrath, Wilson, Anderson JJ

Case Number
SC 48/2009
Case name
Penelope Mary Bright v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 51/2009
Summary
Criminal – Trespass Act 1980 – appellant arrested and charged with the offence of trespass under ss 3(1) and 11(2)(a) of the Trespass Act following refusal to leave a Council meeting when asked to do so – appellant subsequently convicted in the District Court – whether the Local Government Official Information and Meeting Act 1987 negates the Trespass Act since removal of a person under s 50 of the Local Government Official Information and Meeting Act is a complete remedy in itself – whether the minimum threshold for convicting under the Trespass Act was not met because the appellant was never warned for trespass before being charged and convicted.[2009] NZCA  187  CA 796/2008    15 May 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 6 August 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BRIGHT V NEW ZEALAND POLICE SC 51/2009 6 August 2009 (PDF, 14 KB)
Page 16 of 20