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.
19 June 2026
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 89 KB)
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 126 KB)
All years
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
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Stiassny and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 8/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Defamation – Appellant ordered by High Court to pay $920,000 in damages to Respondents for defamation and breach of contract – Appellant previously found by High Court to be in contempt of Court for breach of interim injunction and failure to pay costs, and debarred from defending defamation suit – Appeal to Court of Appeal struck out except for appeal as to quantum of damages awarded – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in granting in part Respondents’ strike-out application on the grounds of Appellant’s continuing contempt of Court – Whether strike-out application by Respondents made out of time – Whether Court of Appeal judge acted under a conflict of interest. [2009] NZCA 566 CA 453/2009 22 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIEMER v STIASSNY AND ANOR SC 8/2010 [20 May 2010] (PDF, 20 KB)
Dates
Applications for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 May 2010.
Case name
Valerie Morse v The Queen
Case number
SC 10/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 to a charge of ‘offensive behaviour’ under s4(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of ss5 and 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to consider art 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Whether the classification of behaviour as ‘offensive’ is a question of fact or law.[2009] NZCA 623 CA 530/2008 22 December 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. The approved ground is whether the District Court correctly interpreted and applied s 4(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981. 18 May 2010
_______________________
Appeal allowed. Conviction entered against the appellant in the District Court is set aside.
6 May 2011
_______________________
Appeal allowed. Conviction entered against the appellant in the District Court is set aside.
6 May 2011
Media Releases
- media release morse 1 (PDF, 89 KB)
Substantive judgment
MORSE v THE POLICE SC 10/2010 [6 May 2011] (PDF, 338 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
MORSE v THE POLICE SC 10/2010 [18 May 2010] (PDF, 9 KB)
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ
Case name
William Patrick Jeffries v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 22/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to give effect to the criteria for consent to overseas investment as set out in s 14A of the Overseas Investment Act 1973; Whether the “standard conditions” for granting consent imposes a continuing obligation on consent-holders to carry out the proposals they made to the Minister in order to secure such consent; Whether releasing information supplied by the appellant pursuant to s 6(c) of the Official Information Act 1982 would prejudice the maintenance of the law or would breach the appellant’s confidence.[2010] NZCA 38 CA 338/2008 26 February 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2.500 to the respondent.
26 May 2010.
Case name
Trent Grant Holmes v The Queen
Case number
SC 24/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against sentence for aggravated robbery and injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm - Whether the Court of Appeal failed to take into account certain mitigating factors.[2010] NZCA 47 CA 723/2009 2 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
HOLMES v R SC 24/2010 [9 June 2010] (PDF, 13 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
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
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
Substantive judgment
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
Transcript
Hearing date : 8 – 10 November 2010
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ
Case name
Dick Halton Headley v The Queen
Case number
SC 31/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961 – Abduction – whether Judge Boshier erred in making public certain Family Court judgments – whether the Court of Appeal erred in giving insufficient weight to this publication, or other information released on a website – whether a stay of proceedings, or a change in venue should have been granted – whether the Court of Appeal erred by giving insufficient weight to the applicant’s right to a fair trial – whether the lack of experienced counsel and the appointment of an “amicus” prevented the applicant from adequately presenting his case – whether the inability to call a witness to give evidence undermined the applicant’s defence – whether police conduct in light of alleged conflicts of interest was unfair – whether the applicant was denied legal assistance to present his defence[2010] NZCA 71 CA 18/2009 16 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
HEADLEY v R SC 31/2010 [9 June 2010] (PDF, 30 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
9 June 2010.
Case name
Kay Halton Skelton v The Queen
Case number
SC 32/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961 – Abduction – whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to set aside the applicant’s conviction, to which she entered a guilty plea, on the grounds of claimed wrongful refusals to grant a stay of proceedings, to direct a change of venue or to adjourn proceedings[2010] NZCA 71 CA 24/2009 16 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SKELTON v R SC 32/2010 [13 August 2010] (PDF, 40 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
13 October 2010.
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.
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
- sc 33 2010 marlborough district council v (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Hearing dates : 14 and 15 February 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Page 58 of 80