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
Slawomir Ryszard Bujak v Solicitor-General
Case number
SC 64/2008
Summary
Civil – Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that an order for the seizure of property in Poland could be registered in New Zealand under s 55 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal matters Act 1992.[2008] NZCA 334 CA 679/2008 11 September 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
11 November 2008
_____________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
15 May 2009
11 November 2008
_____________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
15 May 2009
Media Releases
- MR [2009] NZSC 42 (PDF, 90 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Case name
APN New Zealand Limited v Simunovich Fisheries Limited and others
Case number
SC 69/2008
Summary
Civil – Defamation – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the obligation in s 38 of the Defamation Act 1992 applies to the pleading of a stand alone defence of truth – whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that the “repetition rule” and the “ conduct rule” apply to pleadings of truth - whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the change in approach to admissibility of hearsay evidence in the Evidence Act 2006 does not affect the applicability of the “repetition rule” to a pleading of truth – was the Court of Appeal wrong to hold that it is not open to a defendant to plead the opinions and statements of third parties in support of a truth defence, or in support of an honest opinion defence.[2008] NZCA 350 CA 447/07 CA 584/07 8 September 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted
1 December 2008
________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs $15,000 to the respondent jointly with one half of their disbursements.
26 August 2009
1 December 2008
________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs $15,000 to the respondent jointly with one half of their disbursements.
26 August 2009
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Case name
Television New Zealand Limited v Simunovich Fisheries Limited and others
Case number
SC 70/2008
Summary
Civil – Defamation – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the repetition and conduct rules of pleading apply to a defence of truth – whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that a defendant may not seek to prove the truth of imputations by reference to the opinions or assertions of others – did the Court of Appeal err in holding that s 38 does not permit third party assertions and opinion to be pleaded for the defence of truth – was the Court of Appeal wrong to find that a defendant is not entitled to rely on third party assertions as publication facts on which a defence of honest opinion is based, but must identify true statements of facts in the publication which may not include the fact that others made allegations or expressed opinions.[2008] NZCA 350 CA 447/07 CA 584/07 8 September 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
1 December 2008
________________________
Appeal dismissed.
Costs $15,000 to the respondent jointly with one half of their disbursements.
26 August 2009
Transcript
Case name
B and others v Crown Health Financing Agency
Case number
SC 72/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – Mental Health – Treatment – Statutory Interpretation – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding all informal patients in psychiatric hospitals were within leave and immunity provisions contained in s 6 of the Mental Health Act 1935 and s 124 of the Mental Health Act 1969 (“leave and immunity provisions”) – Whether, alternatively, Court of Appeal erred in holding leave and immunity provisions apply to all informal patients after 1 April 1972.[2008] NZCA 362 CA 173/07 16 September 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
1 December 2008
___________________________
Appeal allowed. Proceedings that were before the Court of Appeal referred back to High Court. Costs $15,000 to appellant, together with reasonable disbursements.
17 September 2009
1 December 2008
___________________________
Appeal allowed. Proceedings that were before the Court of Appeal referred back to High Court. Costs $15,000 to appellant, together with reasonable disbursements.
17 September 2009
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
sc 72 2008 p and b v crown healthfinancing agency (PDF, 12 KB)
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Case name
Igor Alexandrovich Mikitasov v Bernard John Collins
Case number
SC 76/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – extent of right of way for driveway to adjacent properties – whether respondent’s representations prior to the sale of 2 adjacent properties to the appellant included a representation that the right of way granted to one Lot could be used for access to the other– whether Court of Appeal had sufficient information to conclude that the respondent did not make such a representation – whether the uses of the two Lots owned by the appellant, the circumstances of their purchase and the convenience provided by the use of the right of way for both lots are sufficient to support a counterclaim for an interest in land – whether the principle in Wheeldon v Burrows (1879) 12 Ch D 31 of being ‘necessary for reasonable enjoyment’ applies– whether an injunction should have been granted in addition to a declaration – whether the respondent is estopped from strictly enforcing the terms of the right of way.[2008] NZCA 390 CA 211/2008 25 September 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MIKITASOV v COLLINS SC 76/2008 [4 February 2009] (PDF, 18 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
4 February 2009
Case name
Eric Barry Stewart v The Queen
Case number
SC 81/2008
Summary
Criminal Appeal – fraudulent use of medical certificates on ACC forms appeal against conviction – motive to lie – whether the prosecutor’ s comments to the jury about the applicant’s motive to lie amounted to a miscarriage of justice – whether the trial judge should be required to correct these comments in summing up – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the prosecutor’s questioning of defence expert witness did not amount to a miscarriage of justice because the witness did not provide the applicant with a defence – whether this questioning was without foundation, an error of law and unfair [2008] NZCA 341 CA 231/07 2 September 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted
5 February 2009
_________________________
Appeal allowed, convictions quashed. No order for retrial.
28 May 2009
5 February 2009
_________________________
Appeal allowed, convictions quashed. No order for retrial.
28 May 2009
Transcripts
- Hearing date 7 May 2009 (PDF, 180 KB)
Media Releases
- stewart v the queen media release (PDF, 87 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
STEWART v R SC 81/2008 [5 February 2009] (PDF, 12 KB)
Substantive judgment
STEWART v R SC 81/2008 [28 May 2009] (PDF, 56 KB)
Case name
William Patrick Jeffries v The Attorney--General
Case number
SC 84/2008
Summary
Civil – Administrative law – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to observe principles of natural justice by deciding an application for indemnity costs and making findings on the motive of the Appellant ‘on the papers’ – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in taking into account the Appellant’ s standing on the judicial review proceedings when that was already under appeal separately to the Court.[2008] NZCA 426 CA 150/2008 20 October 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
4 February 2009
4 February 2009
Transcripts
- Hearing date 7 July 2009 (PDF, 122 KB)
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Property Ventures Investments Limited v Regalwood Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 85/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – property – validity of settlement notice and notice of cancellation of an agreement for sale and purchase – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondent had validly cancelled the agreement for sale and purchase when the Court had held that essentiality of time under the respondent’s earlier settlement notice had been waived – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that cl 5.4 of the standard ADLS/REINZ form (7th ed, July 1999) applies only to misdescription about the property at the time of the agreement and not to a breach of warranty under cl 6.2 – accordingly, whether the respondent’s settlement notice under cl 6.5 requiring the purchaser to settle for the full price was valid.[2008] NZCA 422 CA 43/2008 16 October 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
4 February 2009
_______________________
Appeal allowed. Orders made in the High Court set aside. Summary Judgment application dismissed. Proceeding remitted to the High Court. Costs of $15,000 to the appellant.
28 April 2010
4 February 2009
_______________________
Appeal allowed. Orders made in the High Court set aside. Summary Judgment application dismissed. Proceeding remitted to the High Court. Costs of $15,000 to the appellant.
28 April 2010
Transcripts
- Hearing date 25 June 2009 SC 85/2008 (PDF, 345 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2010] NZSC 47 (PDF, 37 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Astrazeneca Limited v Commerce Commission and Pharmaceutical Management Agency
Case number
SC 91/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – Respondent gave notice under s 98 of the Commerce Act 1986 of an investigation into allegations that the applicant acted contrary to section 36 of the Act in negotiations with PHARMAC – whether exemption to Part 2 of the Commerce Act in s 53 of the Public Health and Disability Act 2000 applied so that the respondent should not have issued a notice – whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding it did not have sufficient factual information to determine whether s 53 applied – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that there might be some other purpose of s 53 which would become evident when it was considered in light of the full facts.[2008] NZCA 479 CA 241/2008 11 November 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted
25 February 2009
________________________
Appeal allowed. It is declared that the notice under s 98 of the Commerce Act 1986 given by the Commerce Commission on 31 October 2007 was ultra vires and invalid. It is ordered that the notice is quashed. The Commerce Commission is ordered to pay the appellant costs in this Court of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar. Costs in the Court of Appeal and the High Court should now be fixed respectively by those Courts in light of this Court’s judgment.
26 August 2009
25 February 2009
________________________
Appeal allowed. It is declared that the notice under s 98 of the Commerce Act 1986 given by the Commerce Commission on 31 October 2007 was ultra vires and invalid. It is ordered that the notice is quashed. The Commerce Commission is ordered to pay the appellant costs in this Court of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar. Costs in the Court of Appeal and the High Court should now be fixed respectively by those Courts in light of this Court’s judgment.
26 August 2009
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Case name
Deryck Joseph Morgan v The Queen
Case number
SC 92/2008
Summary
Criminal Appeal – aggravated robbery – appeal against conviction – miscarriage of justice – previous inconsistent statement of hostile witness – actual statement not produced until re-examination because of oversight – whether Court of Appeal was correct to hold that this statement was admissible as evidence of the truth of its contents.[2008] NZCA 537 CA 481 /2008 5 December 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
25 March 2009
_________________________
Appeal dismissed.
16 March 2010
25 March 2009
_________________________
Appeal dismissed.
16 March 2010
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 July 2009 (PDF, 294 KB)
Media Releases
- press release morgan v the queen (PDF, 31 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
MORGAN v R SC 92/2008 [25 March 2009] (PDF, 12 KB)
Substantive judgment
MORGAN v R SC 92/2008 [16 March 2010] (PDF, 87 KB)
Page 67 of 80