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
Ngati Rangi Trust and others v Genesis Power Limited and Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council
Case number
SC 60/2009
Summary
Civil – Grant of resource consents – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to determine that the Environment Court had incorrectly directed itself as to the statutory purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to address who was burdened by an evidential onus to demonstrate appropriate measures to mitigate the adverse effects of a proposal.[2009] NZCA 222 CA 518/2007 2 June 2009
Result
Notice of Abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed. 21 December 2010
Case name
The Commerce Commission v Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Limited and Telecom New Zealand
Case number
SC 76/2009
Summary
Civil – alleged breach of s 36 of the Commerce Act 1986 – the Privy Council in Telecom Corporation of New Zealand v Clear Communications [1995] 1 NZLR 385 formulated a counterfactual test (whether a hypothetical firm, not in a dominant position but otherwise in the same circumstances, would have acted as the dominant firm did) to determine whether a firm has used its dominant position in breach of s 36 – whether this test is the appropriate and necessary test for determining a breach of s 36 – if the test is reconsidered, and if the question is assessed on a factual enquiry rather than solely by apply a counterfactual analysis, whether Telecom used its dominant position in the national retail market in breach of s 36 – alternatively, whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that, on application of the counterfactual test, the Commission had not demonstrated that Telecom had used its dominant market position in breach of s 36 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in not considering whether the High Court erred in finding that Telecom did not have an anticompetitive purpose under s 36(1) of the Act.[2009] NZCA 338 CA 288/2008 4 August 2009
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
30 October 2009
__________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant must pay the respondents costs of $50,000 plus disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
1 September 2010
Transcript
Hearing date : 21 – 24 June 2010
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ
Case name
Charterhall Trustees Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council
Case number
SC 81/2009
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
_______________________
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.
_______________________
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.
Leave judgment - leave granted
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
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
- sc 82 2009 blair co v queenstown lakes (PDF, 461 KB)
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Case name
Benjamin Morland Easton v Wellington City Council
Case number
SC 99/2009
Summary
Judicial review – the respondent put forward a proposal to open Manners Mall in Wellington to bus traffic for public consultation – the applicant initiated judicial review proceedings in the High Court alleging unlawful predetermination on the part of the respondent in favour of the proposal – the applicant sought an interim order to prevent the respondent from taking further action in relation to the proposal until his judicial review proceedings were heard – the High Court Judge declined to make the interim order and ordered the applicant to provide security for costs in the amount of $12,000 – the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court but varied the Judge’s order to substitute $8,000 for $12,000 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s decision.[2009] NZCA 513 CA 615 /2009 23 October 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
26 February 2010
26 February 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Douglas John Williamson and John Blackwood Williamson v Selwyn District Council
Case number
SC 118/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – security for costs – strike-out – summary judgment – Appeal against strike-out by Court of Appeal – appellants’ failure to pay security for costs – Appeal against application in High Court by Selwyn District Council (SDC) to recover possession of land – Appellants refused to vacate land on expiry of 3-year lease agreement as part of sale and purchase agreement of land to SDC – Whether sale and purchase agreement and lease void because SDC exerted duress/undue influence or obtained unconscionable bargain in abuse of dominant bargaining position, or acted in breach of Local Government Act 1974 – Whether the SDC breached Resource Management Act 1991 in obtaining non-notified resource consent – Whether lawyers acted in conflict of interest between appellants and SDC councillor and breached fiduciary duty – Whether appellants waived conflict of interest with informed consent.[2008] NZCA 147 CA 662/2007 5 June 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 23 February 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Supreme court decision
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Ngai Tahu Properties Limited v Central Plains Water Trust and Canterbury Regional Council
Case number
SC 15/2008
Summary
Civil – Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) – competing resource consent applications to take (and use) water from a finite natural resource – whether the Court of Appeal majority assessed the priority of claims correctly – whether the “ready for notification” test should apply in such cases – how a consent authority decision not to proceed with notification under s 91 RMA should affect priority of claims.[2008] NZCA 71 CA69/07 19 March 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. 24 June 2008
_________________
Interim decision released
26 March 2009
______________
Notice of Abandonment being lodged the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
2 June 2009
_________________
Interim decision released
26 March 2009
______________
Notice of Abandonment being lodged the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
2 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Transcript
Case name
Qiwen Huang v The Manager of Custodial Services, Auckland Central Remand Prison
Case number
SC 39/2008
Summary
Habeas Corpus [2008] NZCA 225 CA 389/2008 9 July 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 10 July 2008
Case name
New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council and New Zealand Big Game Fishing Council Inc v Sanford Limited, Sealord Limited and others
Case number
SC 40/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – Fisheries Act 1996 – statutory interpretation issues arising from review of Minister of Fisheries’ exercise of statutory power to fix the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) – interpretation of the relationship between s 8 (providing that purpose of Act is to provide for utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability) and s 21 (providing for matters which the Minister must take into account in setting the Total Allowable Catch) – specifically, whether the TAC and TACC decisions can be characterised as sustainability and utilisation decisions respectively – whether a “global approach” should be taken to the purpose provision whereby it is a guide to government policy that decision-makers are to bear in mind generally, or whether the provision contains mandatory relevant considerations to be taken into account in relation to individual decisions – how the purpose of enabling people to “provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing” in s 8(2) is to be interpreted – whether the common law right to fish extends to commercial fishers.[2008] NZCA 160 CA 163/07 11 June 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
2 October 2008
__________________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
28 May 2009
2 October 2008
__________________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
28 May 2009
Media Releases
- big game fishing press release (PDF, 90 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcription
Case name
Michael Spackman v The Queenstown Lakes District Council and others
Case number
SC 48/2008
Summary
Civil resource management applicant sought judicial review of Councils decision to grant resource consent for neighbouring subdivision into four lots error conceded at trial relief granted in the form of revoked approval for one lot and restriction on consent notice for another applicant appealed form of relief Whether the Court of Appeal erred in making allegedly contradictory findings and relying on those findings when deciding whether to grant relief in favour of the applicant whether the Court of Appeal erred when deciding that various discretionary factors overcame the applicant's right to be heard again in respect of the whole subdivision application for leave to appeal out of time[2008] NZCA 234 CA 193/07 11 July 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs of $2000 to both the first and second respondents.
24 October 2008
Page 17 of 20