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.
22 September 2026
Case information summary (as at 18 September 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 112 KB)
Case information summary (as at 18 September 2026) – Currently unavailable
All years
Case name
Raewyn Marie Scott v Lindy Jane Ellison
Case number
SC 84/2011
Summary
Civil – Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Land – Contractual interpretation – Standard form vendor warranty – Warranty that where vendor has done/permitted works on property requiring permits/consents these have been obtained (cl 6.2(5)) – Whether Court of Appeal correct in dismissing appeal against refusal to grant summary judgment – Appellant and co-owner made alterations to property without obtaining requisite permits and certificates – Appellant, then sole owner, created trust, transferred property to trustees, then sold property describing vendor as appellant and trustees – Whether appellant’s status as legal owner changed – Whether warranty applies to works done/permitted by appellant prior to transfer to trustees [2011] NZCA 302 CA 660/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the respondent.
31 August 2011.
31 August 2011.
Case name
Robert Michael Symons, Gregory John Symons and others v Wiltshire Investments Limited
Case number
SC 92/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Appeal against Court of Appeal upholding a summary decision of the High Court – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the refusal by the respondents to produce critical relevant documents that are in the respondent’s sole possession did not constitute a failure by the respondent to discharge the onus on a summary judgment application to establish that the appellants had no arguable defence – Whether the use of residual discretion to refuse an application for summary judgment under r 12.2 of the High Court Rules was justified – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the confidentiality can be a valid ground for refusal to disclose relevant documentation to the Court and the defendants in a summary judgment application. [2011] NZCA 397 CA 534/2010
Result
Leave to appeal is granted in relation to the indebtedness associated with Opus Fintek Ltd (in receivership). The approved question is whether the Associate Judge ought to have entered summary judgment despite the non disclosure of the 2009 settlement agreement between Opus Fintek Ltd and Hats Holdings Ltd.
17 November 2011
_________________________________
A Leave to appeal is extended to cover the indebtedness of Fibroin Initiatives Ltd.
B The appeal is allowed with the result that the entry of summary judgment is set aside but with leave reserved to the respondent to seek summary judgment once it has disclosed the settlement agreement to the appellants.
C The awards of costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside. 9 August 2012
___________________________________
17 October 2012:
Judgment recalled and reissued. A Leave to appeal is extended to cover the indebtedness of Fibroin Initiatives Ltd.
B The appeal is allowed with the result that the entry of summary judgment is set aside.
C Upon disclosure of the settlement agreement to the appellants, the application for summary judgment is, at the option of the respondent, to be reheard in the High Court with the appellants at liberty to resist the claim (and, if they think appropriate, produce additional evidence) on the basis of (i) defences associated with, or arising out of the disclosure of the settlement agreement and (ii), subject to the leave of the High Court being obtained, on any other basis. The appellants are also at liberty to make such interlocutory applications to the High Court as they see fit. D The awards of costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.
17 November 2011
_________________________________
A Leave to appeal is extended to cover the indebtedness of Fibroin Initiatives Ltd.
B The appeal is allowed with the result that the entry of summary judgment is set aside but with leave reserved to the respondent to seek summary judgment once it has disclosed the settlement agreement to the appellants.
C The awards of costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside. 9 August 2012
___________________________________
17 October 2012:
Judgment recalled and reissued. A Leave to appeal is extended to cover the indebtedness of Fibroin Initiatives Ltd.
B The appeal is allowed with the result that the entry of summary judgment is set aside.
C Upon disclosure of the settlement agreement to the appellants, the application for summary judgment is, at the option of the respondent, to be reheard in the High Court with the appellants at liberty to resist the claim (and, if they think appropriate, produce additional evidence) on the basis of (i) defences associated with, or arising out of the disclosure of the settlement agreement and (ii), subject to the leave of the High Court being obtained, on any other basis. The appellants are also at liberty to make such interlocutory applications to the High Court as they see fit. D The awards of costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.
Leave judgment - leave granted
sc 92 2011 symons v wiltshire investments ltd (PDF, 10 KB)
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ
Case name
Jay Maui Wallace v The Queen
Case number
SC 99/2011
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Whether trial was conducted unfairly resulting in a miscarriage of justice – Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to convict – Whether bail should be granted pending determination of the appeal. [2011] NZCA 424 CA 471/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
18 October 2011.
18 October 2011.
Case name
James Joseph Kapa v The Queen
Case number
SC 114/2011
Summary
[2011] NZCA 504 CA 407/2010 CA 572/2010
Result
Leave to appeal is granted in respect of the sentence of reparation only.
The approved ground is whether the sentence of reparation complied with the requirements of s 32 of the Sentencing Act 2002.
7 February 2012
____________________________
Appeal is allowed. The sentence of reparation is quashed.
20 December 2012
The approved ground is whether the sentence of reparation complied with the requirements of s 32 of the Sentencing Act 2002.
7 February 2012
____________________________
Appeal is allowed. The sentence of reparation is quashed.
20 December 2012
Media Releases
- MR [2012 ] NZSC 119 (PDF, 62 KB)
Transcript
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook J.
Case name
Michael Andrew Keith Hastie v The Queen
Case number
SC 120/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the trial Judge should have given a Papadopoulos direction.[2011] NZCA 498 CA 153/2011
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved grounds of appeal are whether the directions given to the jury before it delivered its verdicts were appropriate and, if not, whether this gave rise to a substantial miscarriage of justice?
9 February 2012
_______________________
Appeal dismissed.
23 July 2012
Transcript
Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Chambers JJ
Case name
Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Inc and others v OCS Limited
Case number
SC 124/2011
Summary
Employment – Employment Relations Act 2000, ss 69N(3) and 69O – Relationship between the Act and the parties’ (collective) employment agreement – Express exclusion of monetary compensation for redundancy by terms of agreement, with alternative forms of entitlement also provided for – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that appellants are not entitled to seek (bargain for) appropriate redundancy entitlements under the Act [2011] NZCA 597 CA 865/2010
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved questions are whether, and if so to what extent, the multi-employer collective employment agreement precludes the second appellants from bargaining for redundancy entitlements under s 69N of the Employment Relations Act 2000.
28 February 2012
_________________________
The appeal is allowed.
The orders made by the Court of Appeal are set aside.
The orders made by the Employment Court are reinstated.
9 August 2012
Transcript
Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Gault, Blanchard JJ.
Case name
Josephine Takamore v Denise Clarke and Nehuata Takamore & Donald Takamore
Case number
SC 131/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Customary Law – Approach to determining whether Tūhoe burial custom forms part of the common law – Whether the Court of Appeal majority erred in its analysis of the reasonableness of the Tū hoe custom – Whether the Court of Appeal majority was wrong to hold that the Tūhoe custom was insufficiently certain to form part of the common law – Whether the Court of Appeal majority was correct to hold that Tū hoe custom was a relevant cultural consideration for an executor or executrix where one or more of the whānau pani of the deceased is Tūhoe and the deceased is Tūhoe under Tūhoe custom – Whether the Court of Appeal minority judgment raised important issues about the approach to findings of fact in the High Court[2011] NZCA 587 CA 525/2009
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds of appeal are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that New Zealand law entitled the executrix to determine disposal of the body of the deceased and whether it was correct to hold that the executrix is entitled to take possession of the body of the deceased notwithstanding its burial.
28 March 2012
________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The first respondent is entitled to proceed under the exhumation licence to have Mr Takamore reburied in a place of her choosing.
C The matter is remitted back to the High Court in case any consequential orders are necessary.
D Costs are reserved.
18 December 2012
B The approved grounds of appeal are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that New Zealand law entitled the executrix to determine disposal of the body of the deceased and whether it was correct to hold that the executrix is entitled to take possession of the body of the deceased notwithstanding its burial.
28 March 2012
________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The first respondent is entitled to proceed under the exhumation licence to have Mr Takamore reburied in a place of her choosing.
C The matter is remitted back to the High Court in case any consequential orders are necessary.
D Costs are reserved.
18 December 2012
Transcripts
- Hearing date 17-18 July 2012 SC 131/2011 (PDF, 1 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2012] NZSC 116 (PDF, 92 KB)
Substantive judgment
TAKAMORE v CLARKE SC 131/2011 [18 December 2012] (PDF, 556 KB)
Case name
PM v The Queen
Case number
SC 3/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Bail Act 2000 – appeal against dismissal of application for bail by Court of Appeal – Whether appropriate in interests of justice for appellant to be granted bail pending appeal against conviction to Court of Appeal – Whether bail can be sought to arrange appeal against conviction – Whether bail can be sought to arrange parole accommodation.[2009] NZCA 615 CA 663/2009 18 December 2009
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed
10 February 2010.
Case name
William Patrick Jeffries v The Privacy Commissioner
Case number
SC 5/2010
Summary
Civil – Litigation privilege – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that unsolicited communication does not attract litigation privilege under s56 of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the word ‘person’ in s91(4) of the Privacy Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to apply s74 of the Evidence Act 2006 to matters before the Privacy Commissioner – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to review the Privacy Commissioner’ s decisions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not addressing s27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2009] NZCA 567 CA 339/2008 3 December 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. The approved ground is whether unsolicited communications received by the applicant while acting as a barrister are capable of attracting litigation privilege.
31 March 2010
_______________________
The appeal is dismissed. Any claim of privilege must be referred for the determination of the Privacy Commissioner in accordance with this judgment. No order for costs is made.
12 August 2010
31 March 2010
_______________________
The appeal is dismissed. Any claim of privilege must be referred for the determination of the Privacy Commissioner in accordance with this judgment. No order for costs is made.
12 August 2010
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
John Hanita Paki and others v Attorney-General
Case number
SC 7/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “navigable river” in terms of s 14 of the Coal Mines Amendment Act 1903; whether the Waikato River was navigable for the purposes of s 14; whether, in the 1880s and 1890s, the Crown owed the appellants’ ancestors, as Maori and Treaty of Waitangi partners, a fiduciary duty or a relational duty of good faith not to acquire their land or taonga except with their full and informed consent, namely, whether the Crown owed an obligation to advise the original owners of the usque ad medium filum aquae principle (legal title to land runs to midpoint of riverbed) and, if so, whether the Crown breach either of those duties; whether the appellants’ ancestors had customary title to the river; whether the appellants (as representatives or otherwise of the Pouakani hapu) have standing to bring their claim; whether the appellants’ claim is time-barred under the Limitation Act 1950; whether the appellants’ claim is barred under s 12 of the Pouakani Claims Settlement Act 2000;[2009] NZCA 566 CA 691/2009 1 December 2009
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds are: (i) Did the applicants have standing to bring the proceeding in a representative capacity? (ii) Did s 14 of the Coalmines Amendment Act 1903 vest title in the riverbed adjoining the Pouakani lands in the Crown? (iii) If not, did the Crown acquire title to the claimed part of the riverbed through application of the presumption of riparian ownership ad medium filum aquae by reason of its acquisition of the riparian lands? (iv) If so, in the circumstances in which the Crown acquired the claimed part of the riverbed, was it in breach of legally enforceable obligations owed to the owners from whom title was acquired? (v) If so, have the applicants lost their right to enforce such obligations by reason of defences available to the Crown through lapse of time? (vi) If not, what relief is appropriate? C The Registrar is directed to set down the hearing of the first two questions only for hearing at a fixture of 2 days. Further timetabling and direction orders for hearing of the remaining Questions will be made at or following the first hearing. The Court may review the expression of grounds 3 to 6 if it considers it appropriate to do so after hearing the argument of questions 1 and 2.
21 July 2010
________________
The appellants have standing to bring the proceedings in a representative capacity. The riverbed adjoining the Pouakani lands is not vested in the Crown under s 261 of the Coal Mines Act 1979 and s 354 of the Resource Management Act 1991. Costs are reserved.
27 June 2012
_______________
Appeal dismissed.
29 August 2014
B The approved grounds are: (i) Did the applicants have standing to bring the proceeding in a representative capacity? (ii) Did s 14 of the Coalmines Amendment Act 1903 vest title in the riverbed adjoining the Pouakani lands in the Crown? (iii) If not, did the Crown acquire title to the claimed part of the riverbed through application of the presumption of riparian ownership ad medium filum aquae by reason of its acquisition of the riparian lands? (iv) If so, in the circumstances in which the Crown acquired the claimed part of the riverbed, was it in breach of legally enforceable obligations owed to the owners from whom title was acquired? (v) If so, have the applicants lost their right to enforce such obligations by reason of defences available to the Crown through lapse of time? (vi) If not, what relief is appropriate? C The Registrar is directed to set down the hearing of the first two questions only for hearing at a fixture of 2 days. Further timetabling and direction orders for hearing of the remaining Questions will be made at or following the first hearing. The Court may review the expression of grounds 3 to 6 if it considers it appropriate to do so after hearing the argument of questions 1 and 2.
21 July 2010
________________
The appellants have standing to bring the proceedings in a representative capacity. The riverbed adjoining the Pouakani lands is not vested in the Crown under s 261 of the Coal Mines Act 1979 and s 354 of the Resource Management Act 1991. Costs are reserved.
27 June 2012
_______________
Appeal dismissed.
29 August 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 19 July 2010 (PDF, 266 KB)
- Hearing date 15-16 March 2011 SC 7/2010 (PDF, 940 KB)
- Hearing date 19 and 20 February 2013 SC 07/2010 (PDF, 768 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2012 ] NZSC 50 (PDF, 87 KB)
- MR [2014] NZSC 118 (PDF, 102 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Page 58 of 81