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
Tannadyce Investments Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 63/2010
Summary
Civil – Statutory demand for tax arrears – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that conscious maladministration cannot justify judicial review unless it negated the assessment made by the CIR – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that Tannadyce had the opportunity to invoke the statutory challenge procedure – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to find that the CIR and its officers acted unacceptably in refusing Tannadyce access to documents relating to it.[2010] NZCA 233 CA 703/2008, CA 330/2009 4 June 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal erred in striking out as an abuse of process the remaining ground of the appellant’s judicial review proceeding in which it alleges conscious maladministration by the respondent in denying that it had possession of documents which the appellant alleges it needed in order to be able to file tax returns. 27 August 2010
________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $15,000 plus disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
20 December 2011
________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $15,000 plus disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
20 December 2011
Media Releases
- MR [2011] NZSC 158 (PDF, 84 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Hearing date : 25 August 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Case name
Justin Leigh Harney v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 64/2010
Summary
[2010] NZCA 264 CA 194/2010 1 July 2010
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. The approved grounds are: (i) Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there was a “good reason” for not following a formal identification procedure pursuant to s 45(1) of the Evidence Act 2006? (ii) If not, was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the circumstances in which the identification was made produced a reliable identification beyond reasonable doubt pursuant to s 45(2) of the Evidence Act? 13 August 2010 __________________ Appeal allowed. Convictions set aside. No order for a new trial.
16 September 2011
16 September 2011
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment / Media release
Transcript
Hearing date : 17 August 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Judgment appealed from
Case name
John Hillary Corbett v Robert Corbett Western and Bruce Reginald Patterson
Case number
SC 69/2010
Summary
Civil appeal – applicant seeks leave to appeal a refusal by the Court of Appeal to grant leave for the bringing of an appeal to that Court[2010] NZCA 270 25 June 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
3 August 2010.
Case name
Graeme John Ingram and Elizabeth Knee & Kip Investments Limited v Patrcroft Investments Limited
Case number
SC 72/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contract – Respondent re-entered property on 14 June 2005, one day before entitled to cancel lease contract for failure by Appellants to pay rent arrears – Whether Respondent cancelled contract under s 8 Contractual Remedies Act 1979 on 15 June by remaining in occupation of the property – Whether Respondent must have been ready, willing and able to perform the contract when cancelling on 15 June – Whether Court of Appeal correct to say Appellants could have reserved their rights to cancel for Respondent’s repudiation by paying outstanding rent on 14 June.[2010] NZCA 275 29 June 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is: In circumstances in which the respondent’s re-entry into the premises on 14 June 2005 was invalid, whether, and when, either of the parties thereafter validly terminated the lease.
27 September 2010
______________________
A The appeal is allowed and the orders made by the High Court are restored.
B The appellants are awarded costs of $15,000 together with their reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
C The costs order made by the Court of Appeal is reversed. Any outstanding questions concerning interest and costs should be determined by the High Court.
19 May 2011
The approved ground is: In circumstances in which the respondent’s re-entry into the premises on 14 June 2005 was invalid, whether, and when, either of the parties thereafter validly terminated the lease.
27 September 2010
______________________
A The appeal is allowed and the orders made by the High Court are restored.
B The appellants are awarded costs of $15,000 together with their reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
C The costs order made by the Court of Appeal is reversed. Any outstanding questions concerning interest and costs should be determined by the High Court.
19 May 2011
Media Releases
- media release ingram v patcroft 10 may 2011 doc (PDF, 84 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Neville Fong and June Chong v Christopher Shane Wong and Angela Kim Fong
Case number
SC 75/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in apply s 149 of the Companies Act 1993 to a transaction between persons who are not directors as defined by s 126 of that Act; whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “fair value” in s 149.[2010] NZCA 301 16 July 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dimissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
28 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.
Elias CJ, Blanchard , Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Chala Sani Abdula v The Queen
Case number
SC 80/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal - whether the applicant was denied his right to an interpreter under s 24(g) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; whether the adequacy of evidence called by the defence at trial and the Court of Appeal's refusal of an application to call further medical and scientific evidence gave rise to a miscarriage of justice.[2010] NZCA 332 28 July 2010
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the applicant was denied his right to an interpreter under s 24(g) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
4 November 2010
___________________________________
Appeal dismissed.
1 November 2011
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the applicant was denied his right to an interpreter under s 24(g) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
4 November 2010
___________________________________
Appeal dismissed.
1 November 2011
Transcripts
- Hearing date 25 March 2011 SC 80/2010 (PDF, 490 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2011 ] NZSC 130 (PDF, 90 KB)
Substantive judgment
ABDULA v R SC 80/2010 [1 November 2011] (PDF, 149 KB)
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
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
- sc 85 2010 mcnamara family trust v auckland cc (PDF, 983 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2012] NZSC 34 (PDF, 95 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Tabbasum Mahomed v The Queen
Case number
SC 97/2010
Summary
Criminal – Failing to Provide the Necessaries of Life – Whether Court of Appeal erred in pre-trial ruling admitting certain propensity/narrative evidence against the applicant – Whether Court of Appeal in dismissing appeal erred in concluding trial Judge not required to give specific directions on propensity evidence at trial – Whether Crown was required to exclude at trial the possibility that murder injury was unsurvivable – Whether Court of Appeal wrong to find sufficient evidence to exclude that possibility.[2010] NZCA 419 CA 790/2009 14 September 2010.
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
The approved grounds are: (i) Whether the evidence concerning the child’ s being left in the car on 19 December 2007 was admissible; and (ii) If so, whether the Judge’s directions relating to that evidence were adequate.
2 November 2010
_____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
19 May 2011
The approved grounds are: (i) Whether the evidence concerning the child’ s being left in the car on 19 December 2007 was admissible; and (ii) If so, whether the Judge’s directions relating to that evidence were adequate.
2 November 2010
_____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
19 May 2011
Media Releases
- mahomed v the queen press release (PDF, 87 KB)
Substantive judgment
MAHOMED v R SC 97/2010, SC 117/2010 [19 May 2011] (PDF, 321 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 17 February 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Westpac New Zealand Limited v Map & Associates Limited
Case number
SC 98/2010
Summary
Civil – Knowing assistance in breach of trust – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Westpac did not have reason to refuse to follow the instructions of its account holder – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 87 of the Judicature Act 1908.[2010] NZCA 404 CA 193/2009 6 September 2010.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that Westpac had breached its mandate.
C The application for leave to cross-appeal is refused.
2 February 2011
_______________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $15,000.00 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.
16 August 2011
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that Westpac had breached its mandate.
C The application for leave to cross-appeal is refused.
2 February 2011
_______________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $15,000.00 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.
16 August 2011
Transcripts
- Hearing date 31 May 2011 SC 98/2010 (PDF, 725 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2011] NZSC 89 (PDF, 85 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 60 of 80