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
Philip Wayne Hart v The Queen
Case number
SC 74/2009
Summary
Criminal appeal – appeal against conviction – convictions for sexual offending – the trial judge acceded to an application by the Crown for a prior consistent statement of the complainant to be admitted in terms of s 35(2) of the Evidence Act 2006 to rebut the assertion that the complainant’s evidence was fabricated in order to entitle her to ACC – whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that defence counsel asserted recent invention on the part of the complainant and thus attacked the complainant’s veracity, opening the way to evidence on that topic under s 37 and also justifying an application by the Crown for an order that the complainant’s prior consistent statement was admissible under s 35(2) – whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the trial judge did not need to direct the jury on its use of the prior consistent statement because such statements, once admitted, are admissible for the truth of their contents under the Evidence Act 2006.[2009] NZCA 276 CA 609/2008 29 June 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
15 October 2009
_______________________________
Appeal dismissed.
23 July 2010
15 October 2009
_______________________________
Appeal dismissed.
23 July 2010
Transcripts
- Hearing date 18 November 2009 SC 74/2009 (PDF, 338 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2010] NZSC 91 (PDF, 81 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
HART v R SC 74/2009 [15 October 2009] (PDF, 6 KB)
Substantive judgment
HART v R SC 74/2009 [23 July 2010] (PDF, 210 KB)
Case name
Totara Investment Limited v Crismac Limited and Ulster Limited
Case number
SC 75/2009
Summary
Civil – Interpretation of a mortgage - Whether the Court of Appeal erred as a matter of fact and law in finding that cl 9.1(d) of the mortgage did not authorise the lender to obtain security over additional property.[2009] NZCA 369 CA 599/2008 21 August 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
21 October 2009
______________________
tbc
21 October 2009
______________________
tbc
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, McGrath, Wilson, Anderson JJ.
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
Air Nelson Limited v NZ Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union Inc
Case number
SC 78/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000 – Strikes and lockouts – legality – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that in s 97 of the ERA 2000 the words “the work of a striking or locked employee” mean “the work a striking or locked out employee would probably have been performing had he/she not been locked out – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that s 97 of the ERA 2000 applies in circumstances where the work in question is work which is being performed, or is intended to be performed, by a person who would normally or routinely perform such work.[2009] NZCA 349 CA 206/2008 7 August 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
27 October 2009
_____________________
The appeal is allowed with costs of $15,000 to be paid by the respondent to the appellant together with the appellant’s reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
17 May 2010
27 October 2009
_____________________
The appeal is allowed with costs of $15,000 to be paid by the respondent to the appellant together with the appellant’s reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
17 May 2010
Transcripts
- TS sc 78 2009 23 February 2010 (PDF, 225 KB)
Media Releases
- press release air nelson 17 may 2010 (PDF, 39 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
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
Westpac Banking Corporation, Bank of New Zealand Limited, ANZ National Bank Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 83/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Banking and Finance – Unclaimed Money Act 1971 – meaning of terms: “money” “payable”, “has become owing” – Whether UMA applies to conditional transactional liabilities such as cheques, drafts or other bills of exchange – Bills of Exchange Act 1908 – nature of drawer’s liability – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Thomas Cook (New Zealand) Ltd [2005] 2 NZLR 722 (PC) applied – Whether Thomas Cook rightly decided.[2009] NZCA 376 CA 741/2008 26 August 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
4 December 2009
__________________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellants are ordered to pay the respondent costs of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
7 April 2011
4 December 2009
__________________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellants are ordered to pay the respondent costs of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
7 April 2011
Transcripts
- sc 83 2009 westpac ors v ird (PDF, 579 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Ludgater Holdings Limited v Gerling Australia Insurance Company Pty Limited
Case number
SC 92/2009
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936, namely whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the respondent had a sufficient presence in New Zealand and whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction – whether s 9 has an extraterritorial effect – whether, if the High Court does have jurisdiction, the Court in the exercise of its discretion should decline or allow jurisdiction[2009] NZCA 397 CA 546/2008 11 September 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
16 December 2009
___________________________
Appeal dismissed. Cost to respondent $15,000 plus reasonable disbursements.
11 May 2010
16 December 2009
___________________________
Appeal dismissed. Cost to respondent $15,000 plus reasonable disbursements.
11 May 2010
Media Releases
- press release ludgater (PDF, 38 KB)
Substantive judgment
Leave judgment - leave granted
sc 92 2009 ludgater holdings leave judgment (PDF, 36 KB)
Transcript
Judgment appealed from
Case name
The Queen v George Evans Gwaze
Case number
SC 93/2009
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against case stated decision – Whether Court of Appeal majority erred in concluding that the trial Judge’s decision to allow inadmissible hearsay “evidence” was an error of fact rather than an error of law and that therefore the case stated provisions of the Crimes Act 1961 were not engaged – Whether the Court of Appeal President erred in concluding that the Crown could succeed on an appeal under ss 380 and 380 of the Crimes Act 1961 in this case only if “To set aside the acquittal and direct a new trial would not be an unacceptable derogation from the spirit of the rule against double jeopardy”.[2009] NZCA 430 CA 90/2009 24 September 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
23 November 2009
______________________
A The appeal is allowed and the acquittals are quashed. B A new trial is directed under s 382(2)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961. C A certified direction for new trial will issue to the Registrar of the High Court at Christchurch with the consequences provided for by ss 380(4) and 382(4) of the Crimes Act.
17 May 2010
23 November 2009
______________________
A The appeal is allowed and the acquittals are quashed. B A new trial is directed under s 382(2)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961. C A certified direction for new trial will issue to the Registrar of the High Court at Christchurch with the consequences provided for by ss 380(4) and 382(4) of the Crimes Act.
17 May 2010
Transcripts
- sc 93 2009 the queen v george evans gwaze (PDF, 539 KB)
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
R v GWAZE SC 93/2009 [23 November 2009] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
R v GWAZE SC 93/2009 [17 May 2010] (PDF, 167 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 25 February 2010
Elias CJ, Blanchard, McGrath, Wilson J.
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Greymouth Gas Kaimiro Limited and others v GXL Royalties Limited and Swift Energy New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 98/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management – Petroleum mining – Leases – Contract and interpretation – Equity – obligations – assignment – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that actual reasons for GXL Royalties Ltd’s refusal to consent to transfer of Swift Energy Ltd’s interests in a petroleum exploration permit, from Swift to Greymouth Gas Kaimiro Ltd, are irrelevant to the issue of whether consent was properly or improperly withheld – Whether Court of Appeal erred in confining the issue at trial to a purely objective test of whether it has been established that Greymouth has sufficient financial capability to meet the obligations under the permit and royalty deed – Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to account in the test for the requirement of reasonableness.[2009] NZCA 433 CA 100/2009 24 September 2009
Result
Leave to appeal is granted The approved ground is whether GXL is required to plead to an allegation that it refused consent to the transfer of Swift’s interest in the petroleum permit to Greymouth for collateral reasons unrelated to Greymouth’s financial capability to meet obligations under the permit and the deed reserving to GXL a royalty interest.
30 March 2010
_________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellants are ordered to pay the respondent costs of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
22 September 2010
30 March 2010
_________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellants are ordered to pay the respondent costs of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
22 September 2010
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Chief Justice, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Young JJ.
Judgment appealed from
Page 64 of 80