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
Trustee Executors Limited v Peter James Murray and others and Morel & Co Ltd and Jennifer Ann Morel
Case number
SC 15/2006
Summary
Civil - allotment of participatory securities - 'payment' of minimum amount within 4 months of registered prospectus - whether the tender and acceptance of a cheque on terms that it be held and its value offset against the amount payable to its drawer on settlement can "be deemed to have been paid" within the meaning of Securities Act 1978, s 37(2)(a) - whether statutory supervisor owes common law duty of care in addition to duty to exercise reasonable diligence imposed by statutory implication and Deed of Participation - whether a duty as trustee of funds received pursuant to an offer of securities can be imposed in addition to an express duty as statutory supervisor - whether exclusion clause in Deed of Participation can exclude liability except for breach of the statutory implied duty to exercise reasonable diligence - whether negligent or inadvertent breach of trust can amount to (equitable) fraud for the purposes of Limitation Act 1950, s 28. CA 86/04 22 December 2005
Result
4 April 2006 – Leave to Appeal granted
Transcripts
- Hearing date 21 and 22 Nov 2006 SC 15/2006 (PDF, 485 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2007] NZSC 27 (PDF, 159 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Peter James Murray and others and Morel & Co Ltd and Jennifer Ann Morel
Case number
SC 17/2006
Summary
Civil - allotment of participatory securities - numerous causes of actions brought against respondents alleging, among other things, an allotment in breach of Securities Act 1978, s 37(2), and issuing a prospectus containing untrue statements in breach of Securities Act 1978, s 56 - causes of action struck out as an abuse of process, being time barred pursuant to the Limitation Act 1950 - whether the doctrine of “reasonable discoverability” should apply to all causes of action. CA 86/04 22 December 2005
Result
4 April 2006 – Leave to Appeal granted
Transcripts
- Hearing date 21 and 22 Nov 2006 SC 15/2006 (PDF, 485 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2007] NZSC 27 (PDF, 159 KB)
Substantive judgment
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Paper Reclaim Limited v Aotearoa International Limited
Case number
SC 25/2006
Summary
Civil – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the appellant’ s liability to the respondent would be for lost commissions between 2 February 2001 and the end of a reasonable notice period – whether the letter of 2 February 2001 was a repudiation – whether damages recoverable are damages for that repudiation – basis upon which damages to be calculated – interrelationship between repudiation and resultant cancellation of a contract. CA 70/04 14 March 2006
Result
Leave to Appeal granted.
2 June 2006
2 June 2006
Transcripts
- Hearing date 9 February 2007 SC 25/2006 (PDF, 52 KB)
- Hearing date 5 March 2007 SC 25/ and SC 282006 (PDF, 604 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2007] NZSC 26 (PDF, 89 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Aotearoa International Limited v Paper Reclaim Limited
Case number
SC 28/2006
Summary
Civil – exclusion from export venture – whether Court of Appeal erred in its determination of an appropriate notice-of-termination period – whether Court of Appeal wrong to interfere with trial Judge’s finding that respondent’s sales of waste paper to third party for export was in breach of its contract with the applicant – whether Court of Appeal wrong to deny applicant equitable relief for loss arising from breach of fiduciary duty – whether Court of Appeal wrong to interfere with trial Judge’ s finding that respondent’s principals made false affidavits and gave false evidence in denying existence of contract and therefore whether Court of Appeal erred in setting aside costs awarded on an indemnity basis. CA 70/04 14 March 2006
Result
Leave to Appeal granted.
2 June 2006
2 June 2006
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 March 2007 SC 25/ and SC 282006 (PDF, 604 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2007] NZSC 26 (PDF, 89 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Brett Ronald Larsen v Rick Dees Limited
Case number
SC 29/2006
Summary
Civil appeal – agreement for sale and purchase of ten residential units – delays in settlement - vendor issued settlement notice - notice specified that on receipt from purchaser of faxed bank cheque for settlement figure, title documents would be delivered – purchaser transferred funds electronically before the time limit but confirmation fax only received after time limit – Court of Appeal allowed appeal from decision of High Court in which purchaser’s claim for specific performance was dismissed on basis that purchaser had not settled in accordance with the settlement notice – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the purchaser had fulfilled its obligation to settle in terms of the settlement notice - whether the Court of Appeal applied the correct provision of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979 with respect to the vendor’s entitlement to cancel. CA 82/05 13 March 2006
Result
Leave to Appeal granted. 2 June 2006 ____________________ The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court dismissing the respondent’s claim is restored.
The appellant is awarded costs in this Court of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. The appellant is also awarded costs in the Court of Appeal of $6,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar of that Court. 1 June 2007
The appellant is awarded costs in this Court of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. The appellant is also awarded costs in the Court of Appeal of $6,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar of that Court. 1 June 2007
Leave judgment - leave granted
LARSEN V RICK DEES LIMITED SC 29/2006 [2 June 2006] (PDF, 13 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Transcript
Judgment appealed from
Substantive judgment / Media release
Case name
The Secretary for Justice As the New Zealand Central Authority v HJ
Case number
SC 36/2006
Summary
Summary Civil appeal * Care of Children Act 2004 * children wrongfully removed to New Zealand by one parent * other parent made application for an order for children to be returned to Australia * statutory defence to an order available under s 106(1)(a) - whether the Court of Appeal erred in its construction of s 106(1)(a) * whether the Court of Appeal erred in its exercise of discretion under s 106(1)(a).
CA 149/04 11 April 2006
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
27 June 2006
___________________________
The appeal is dismissed. Costs are reserved
16 November 2006
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Case name
Commerce Commission v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Limited
Case number
SC 39/2006
Summary
Civil – dairy industry restructuring – raw milk regulations – whether “cost of capital rate” refers to cost of equity capital rate or to “Weighted Average Cost of Capital” – Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk) Regulations 2001, reg 9(1) CA 175/05 4 May 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
17 August 2006
_____________________
The appeal is allowed and all relevant orders made in the courts below are set aside. A. The Court declares that the capital referred to in reg 9(1) of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk) Regulations 2001 is the respondent’s equity capital.
B. The respondent is to pay the appellant costs of $15,000 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar. In the absence of agreement costs below are to be fixed by the courts below.
17 August 2006
_____________________
The appeal is allowed and all relevant orders made in the courts below are set aside. A. The Court declares that the capital referred to in reg 9(1) of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk) Regulations 2001 is the respondent’s equity capital.
B. The respondent is to pay the appellant costs of $15,000 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar. In the absence of agreement costs below are to be fixed by the courts below.
Transcripts
- Hearing date 12 December 2006 (PDF, 332 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2007] NZSC 36 (PDF, 79 KB)
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Qiu Jian v The Queen
Case number
SC 41/2006
Summary
Criminal Appeal – appeal against conviction for blackmail – whether standard of proof required for Crown to satisfy co-conspirators rule of evidence is on balance of probabilities or reasonable evidence of common intention – whether failure to advise defendant to testify in her own defence amounted to a miscarriage of justice – whether trial judge failed to give sufficient direction to jury on use which could be made of threats made by alleged co-conspirators. CA 495/05 3 May 2006
Result
29 September 2006 – Application for leave to appeal granted.
_____________________
Appeal allowed, conviction is quashed. New Trial ordered.
5 July 2007
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Henkel Kgaa v Holdfast NZ Limited
Case number
SC 43/2006
Summary
Civil – copyright infringement – appellant, who was successful in High Court, a “world leader” in the industry using same copyright works throughout the world – whether Court of Appeal failed to take account of statutory presumptions in Copyright Act 1994, s 127 – whether Court of Appeal ignored relevant authorities and misapplied the tests for infringement of compilations and for work derived from admittedly infringing copies – whether Court of Appeal relied upon two erroneous findings about the appellant’ s case in the High Court, resulting in a substantial miscarriage of justice CA 248/04 17 May 2006
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
4 August 2006
______________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 plus disbursements.
30 November 2006
4 August 2006
______________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 plus disbursements.
30 November 2006
Judgment appealed from
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Zentrum Holdings Limited and Ngahemi Properties Limited v The Commmisioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 44/2006
Summary
Civil – tax administration – in Taxation Review Authority (“TRA”) CIR argued unsuccessfully that Zentrum had benefited by a tax avoidance arrangement – on appeal to High Court CIR sought to argue that relevant transactions were shams – whether jurisdictional bar to raising sham argument for first time in High Court – whether it would have been open to CIR to employ sham argument in TRA – whether CIR v VH Farnsworth Ltd [1984] 1 NZLR 428 applies – whether sham argument is subject to time bar in Tax Administration Act 1994, s 108CA 215/05 23 May 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
19 September 2006
_________________________
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
4 April 2007
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Page 73 of 80