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
Moshen Aghabiggi v The Queen
Case number
SC 45/2006
Summary
Criminal – appeal against conviction for sexual violation, attempted rape, and fraud – whether applicant should have been granted an adjournment to call a witness overseas and to allow exploration of potential defence – whether delay in police disclosure of complaint form, and the fact that complainant had not made complaint until later than originally thought, resulted in a miscarriage of justice – whether trial judge erred in directions to jury on defence to third count – whether overall a miscarriage of justice occurred.CA 408/05 31 May 2006
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
AGHABIGGI v R SC 45/2006 [5 October 2006] (PDF, 16 KB)
Additional document
AGHABIGGI V R SC 45/2006 [17 April 2007] (PDF, 15 KB)
Case name
Amaltal Corporation Limited v Maruha Corporation and Maruha (NZ) Corporation Limited
Case number
SC 46/2006
Summary
Civil – appeal against Court of Appeal judgment on the application of s 28 Limitation Act 1950 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in either applying the wrong legal test, or applying the correct test wrongly – tort of deceit – whether the respondents’ claim for deceit was statute barred – meaning of “reasonable diligence” in s 28 – whether, with reasonable diligence, the respondent could have discovered the deceit.Cross-appeal – commercial joint venture – whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the respondents’ action for breach of fiduciary duty – whether the Court of Appeal erred in reducing the amount of damages awarded to the respondents – correct method of calculating damages for deceit.CA 232/04 1 June 2006
Result
A. Amaltal’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents of $2,500.
B. Maruha Corporation and Maruha (NZ) are granted leave to appeal.
C. The approved grounds of the Maruha appeal are: (i) Whether Amaltal was in breach of any fiduciary duty owed by it to Maruha.
(ii) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reducing the damages awarded by the High Court to Maruha.
6 September 2006
___________________________
The appeal is allowed. The respondent is found to have breached a fiduciary duty owed to the appellants.
The judgment sum is increased to $5,832,214.92.
The respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs in this Court in the amount of $15,000 plus reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. The award of costs to the appellants in the Court of Appeal is increased to $40,000.
1 June 2007
B. Maruha Corporation and Maruha (NZ) are granted leave to appeal.
C. The approved grounds of the Maruha appeal are: (i) Whether Amaltal was in breach of any fiduciary duty owed by it to Maruha.
(ii) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reducing the damages awarded by the High Court to Maruha.
6 September 2006
___________________________
The appeal is allowed. The respondent is found to have breached a fiduciary duty owed to the appellants.
The judgment sum is increased to $5,832,214.92.
The respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs in this Court in the amount of $15,000 plus reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. The award of costs to the appellants in the Court of Appeal is increased to $40,000.
1 June 2007
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 February 2007 SC 46/2006 (PDF, 301 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2007] NZSC 40 (PDF, 88 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Susan Couch v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 49/2006
Summary
Civil – appeal against Court of Appeal judgment, striking out claims for misfeasance in public office and negligence – applicant surviving victim of attack in 2001 on Panmure RSA – Department of Corrections acknowledged errors undoubtedly occurred in the handling of attacker’s case – Attorney-General sued on behalf of Department of Corrections – whether Court of Appeal erred in striking out claim for negligence – applicant claiming assailant should not have been allowed or encouraged to work in an ‘inappropriate industry’ – whether Department of Corrections should have better monitored assailant – whether Court of Appeal erred in striking out claim for misfeasance in public office – whether restriction has been placed on state of mind requirement of misfeasance. CA 238/05 17 May 2006
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is whether the cause of action based on negligence was correctly struck out.
1 September 2006
_________________________
Appeal allowed. Order of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the proceedings are remitted to the High Court for hearing. Respondent to pay to the appellant costs of $27,5000 together with reasonable disbursements. Costs in the lower Courts to be fixed.
24 March 2010
The approved ground is whether the cause of action based on negligence was correctly struck out.
1 September 2006
_________________________
Appeal allowed. Order of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the proceedings are remitted to the High Court for hearing. Respondent to pay to the appellant costs of $27,5000 together with reasonable disbursements. Costs in the lower Courts to be fixed.
24 March 2010
Transcripts
- sc 49 2006 susan couch v agfebruary 2009 (PDF, 317 KB)
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
COUCH v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL SC 49/2006 [24 March 2010] (PDF, 625 KB)
Additional document
sc 49 2006 susan couch v ag (PDF, 63 KB)
Substantive judgment / Media release
Transcript
Leave judgment - leave granted
Appeal adjournment / Media release
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Patricia Lenine Mabel Walsh v The Queen
Case number
SC 54/2006
Summary
Criminal – appeal against convictions for forgery – appellant used fax machine to transmit, from overseas, copies of false documents to persons in New Zealand – whether a facsimile copy of a false document is itself a false document – Crimes Act 1961, former ss 263, 264 (ss 255, 256 as amended 2003) CA 208/05 26 June 2006
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
1 September 2006
____________________________
The 34 counts of forgery are amended, pursuant to s 335 of the Crimes Act 1961, to counts of uttering. The sentences on those counts are affirmed. The appeal is dismissed.
19 December 2006
1 September 2006
____________________________
The 34 counts of forgery are amended, pursuant to s 335 of the Crimes Act 1961, to counts of uttering. The sentences on those counts are affirmed. The appeal is dismissed.
19 December 2006
Media Releases
- patriciawalsh mediarelease (PDF, 86 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
WALSH v R SC 54/2006 [1 September 2006] (PDF, 12 KB)
Substantive judgment
WALSH v R SC 54/2006 [19 December 2006] (PDF, 202 KB)
Transcript
Substantive judgment / Media release
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Mission Bay Pharmacy Limited v Drive Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 55/2006
Summary
Civil – application for summary judgment – whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding High Court decision granting summary judgment – whether any oral agreement to lease was enforceable between the parties by virtue of s 47 Land Transfer (Computer Registers and Electronic Lodgement) Amendment Act 2002 – whether respondent had waived conditions as to time – whether a general contractual obligation of good faith exists – conduct of contractual negotiations. CA 98/05 29 June 2006
Result
Notice of Discontinuance being filed, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 28 August 2006
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Noel Clement Rogers v Television New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 68/2006
Summary
Civil – privacy – freedom of expression – order for permanent injunction, suppressing publication of video tape, made by High Court and quashed by Court of Appeal – tape contained reconstruction of murder by applicant – tape ruled inadmissible at murder trial due to breaches of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – applicant acquitted at trial – claim that publication of tape would constitute unlawful interference with applicant’s privacy – whether Court of Appeal erred in giving insufficient weight to principles of proper and fair administration of justice – applicability of defence of legitimate public concern – threshold for prior restraint. CA 12/06 7 August 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. 17 October 2006
___________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
16 November 2007
___________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
16 November 2007
Media Releases
- MR [2007] NZSC 91 (PDF, 89 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Brent John Gilchrist v The Queen
Case number
SC 69/2006
Summary
Criminal – Tax Administration Act – tax evasion – applicant convicted of knowingly failing to provide Commissioner of Inland Revenue with information when required to do so pursuant to a notice to furnish information – standard of proof of delegation of authority from Commissioner – standard of intent to evade payment of tax.CA 29/06 18 August 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
29 September 2006
________________
Appeal dismissed.
15 December 2006
Transcript
Substantive judgment / Media release
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind v Auckland City Council
Case number
SC 76/2006
Summary
Civil – local government – levying of rates – Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 1, Part 1, cl 5(e), Part 1 – whether relevant rating exemption does not apply to land owned by applicant for its purposes and not acquired or held as a gift but which is nevertheless let to commercial tenants – whether exemption should be construed to indicate and/or be applied in light of inferred legislative purpose that land not directly used to provide services of charitable nature should be rateable – whether the meaning of “except as an endowment” is relevant to the application of the rating exemption and informs the policy underpinning the exemption – whether anomalies arising from natural and ordinary interpretation of exemption should be left to Parliament to address (if at all).CA 171/05 29 August 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. 27 November 2006 _____________________ Appeal dismissed.
Costs to respondent $15,000 plus disbursements. 2 August 2007
Costs to respondent $15,000 plus disbursements. 2 August 2007
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment / Media release
Transcription
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Anthony Arbuthnot v Chief Executive of the Department of Work and Income
Case number
SC 82/2006
Summary
Civil – applicant was overpaid benefits – whether Court of Appeal erred in confusing review and appeal provisions under statute with administrative power of review – whether the decision of the Benefit Review Committee on the status of the beneficiary could only be reviewed by the Chief Executive on the basis of new information or some change in circumstance – whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that it would not be an abuse of process for the Chief Executive to be able to put an issue decided in the beneficiary’s favour before the Authority at the time the beneficiary appealed other issues – whether a decision of the BRC varying a decision of the Chief Executive creates an estoppel against the Chief Executive – whether the Court of Appeal erred in not distinguishing between the decision of the Chief Executive, and the decision as modified by the Authority. CA 256/05 3 October 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. 8 March 2007 _______________________ Appeal dismissed. Cost reserved.
19 July 2007
19 July 2007
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Substantive judgment / Media release
Transcript
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Prime Commercial Limited v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Limited
Case number
SC 85/2006
Summary
Summary Civil appeal – applicant unsuccessful participant in “ informal” tender process conducted by respondent – whether summary judgment should have been granted for respondent – whether Courts below erred in rejecting existence of process contract and thereby all other causes of action – whether duty of care or statutory duty owed by respondent to applicant in conducting sale process – whether Courts below erred in finding that representations by respondent were neither negligent nor (in terms of s 9 Fair Trading Act 1986) misleading or deceptive. CA 110/05 18 October 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
7 March 2007
7 March 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 74 of 80