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.
8 May 2026
Case information summary (as at 8 May 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 89 KB)
Case information summary (as at 8 May 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 127 KB)
All years
Leave to appeal is granted on the following questions:
(1) Did the marketing by Blue Chip companies and sales agents of the Blue Chip investment products amount to offers to the public of equity and/or debt securities for the purposes of s 37 of the Securities Act 1978?
(2) If so, is the exemption in s 5(1)(b) applicable?
(3) If the answers to questions (1) and (2) are favourable to the investors, does this impeach the ability of the developers to enforce the agreements for sale and purchase on the basis that they (a) constituted part of the relevant allotments and were thus void and of no effect under s 37(4) or, (b) were tainted by their association with those allotments and thus illegal?
6 September 2011
________________________
A The appeals are allowed.
B The SPAs executed at the same time as, or after, the corresponding Blue Chip investment product agreements were entered into are declared to be unenforceable under s 37 of the Securities Act 1978.
C The High Court is to determine whether SPAs, entered into before the corresponding Blue Chip investment products were executed, were subscriptions for securities.
D The cases are otherwise generally remitted to the High Court to make such further orders as may be consistent with this judgment.
E The respondents are to pay the appellants costs $75,000 and usual disbursements.
F Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be as determined by those courts.
9 August 2012
______________________
Recall judgment
Former order F now replaced by orders F, G and H.
F The existing orders for costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.
G Other than those affected by timing issues (being Mr Hutchinson in the case of TWL, and in the case of Greenstone Barclay, Mr and Mrs Bogardus, Ms Janes, Mrs and Mrs Johnson, Mr Crawford-Greene, Mr and Mrs Dick and Mr and Mrs Lester) the appellants are to be awarded costs and disbursements in the High Court and Court of Appeal in sums to be determined by those Courts in light of the judgment of this Court.
H Costs and disbursements in relation to the appellants affected by timing issues are to be addressed in the High Court and Court of Appeal once those timing issues have been resolved.
11 December 1012
Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Anderson JJ.