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
Pawel Marian Misiuk v The Queen
Case number
SC 133/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 24(d) – Appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the applicant’s appeal against conviction and sentence – Whether there was a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 24(d) – Applicant claims not to have access to files and computer facilities[2011] NZCA  663   CA 307/2011
Hearing
Application for leave to appeal  dismissed.
21 June  2012.
Dates
Application for recall dismissed.
5 April 2012.
Case name
Daniel Thomas Spencer Riddiford and Yvonne Ada Riddiford an d another v Her Majesty’s Attorney-General
Case number
SC 21/2010
Summary
Civil – application for special leave to appeal High Court decision relating to a claim for compensation in respect of the acquisition of an esplanade reserve – Whether the High Court erred in not reversing an order of the Land Valuation Tribunal awarding costs against the applicant – Whether the High Court erred in declining to allow a rehearing – whether the High Court and the Tribunal erred in their determination of a number of other related mattersCiv 2006 485 833 – 22 May 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
RIDDIFORD And Anor v ATTORNEY-GENERAL SC 21/2010 [25 May 2010] (PDF, 10 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Costs $2.500 to the respondent.

26 May 2010.
Case name
Marlborough District Council v Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited and Ors
Case number
SC 33/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Negligence – Whether duty of care owed by local authority in issuing a Land Information Memorandum (LIM) inducing party to enter into contract to purchase land – Whether local authority protected from liability by s 41 of Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) when providing information in LIM in good faith – Whether s 44A of LGOIMA requires inclusion of information relating to water resource entitlements in a LIM – Whether loss is actually suffered in tort against a third party where compensatory damages under s 6 Contractual Remedies Act 1979 against a party to the contract have already offset financial loss suffered by misrepresentation.[2010] NZCA 104  CA 448/2008 and CA 215/2009   29 March 2010
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds are: (i) Whether a duty of care is owed by a local authority to the recipient of a Land Information Memorandum (LIM) issued under s 44A of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. (ii) If so, whether Altimarloch Joint Venture Ltd suffered any loss recoverable from the Council by reason of breach of that duty of care.
14 July 2010
_____________________
The appeal by the Marlborough District Council from the liability judgment given against it in favour of Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited is dismissed. The appeal by the Marlborough District Council from the contribution judgment given against it in favour of D S and J W Moorhouse is allowed.  That judgment is set aside and judgment in favour of the Council is entered in respect of that claim. Costs of $10,000 to Altimarloch.  Disbursements shall be added as agreed or fixed by the Registrar.
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL v ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED And Anor SC 33/2010 [14 July 2010] (PDF, 44 KB)
Additional document
MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL v ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED And Ors SC 33/2010 [20 October 2010] (PDF, 40 KB)
Substantive judgment
MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL v ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED SC 33/2010 [5 March 2012] (PDF, 595 KB)
Transcript

Hearing dates : 14 and 15 February 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
D A Constable Syndicate 386 v Auckland District Law Society
Case number
SC 65/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – contractual interpretation – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of an indemnity clause in the Auckland District Law Society’s standard professional indemnity policy, namely whether the word “negligent” should be read as qualifying only the word “act” in the phrase “negligent act, error or omission” .[2010] NZCA 237   CA 565/2008   8 June  2010
Result
Notice of Abandonment being filed, the appeal is deemed to  be dismissed.
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is granted. 

The approved ground of appeal is whether the word “negligent” qualifies the words “error or omission” in the indemnity clause.

8 September 2010.
Case name
Chesterfields Preschools Limited, D J Hampton, Chesterfields Partnership, Chesterfields Preschools Partnership & Anolbe Enterprises Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 96/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial review appeal – Taxation liabilities – Appellants were partly successful in the first judicial review proceedings against the Commissioner of Inland Revenue (Commissioner) and the Commissioner was ordered to reconsider a number of matters - Second judicial review proceedings held the Court would not enforce the debt owed to the Commissioner by the appellants until the Court was satisfied that the first judicial review had been complied with – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing to an extent the appeal by the Commissioner against the second judicial review judgment.[2010] NZCA 400 CA 607/2008, CA 800/2008, SC 271/2009, CA 156/2010  31 August 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LIMITED v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 96/2010 [16 December 2010] (PDF, 61 KB)
Dates

The application for leave to appeal and the associated application for directions are dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.

16 December 2010
Case name
Peter Muller v The Queen
Case number
SC 104/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s application to adduce fresh alibi evidence – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the admission of identification evidence at trial, while in error, did not amount to a miscarriage of justice requiring the setting aside of the verdict – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no miscarriage of justice arose from the failure to grant a stay due to delay[2010] NZCA 380 CA 439/2009  18 August 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MULLER v R SC 104/2010 [16 D ecember 2010 (PDF, 53 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

16 December 2010.
Case name
M D M v Serious Fraud Office
Case number
SC 112/2010
Summary
Refusal to grant name suppression.CRI 2010 404 338 19 October 2010
Dates

Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.

25 November 2010.
Case name
The Commerce Commission v Carter Holt Harvey Limited
Case number
SC 25/2009
Summary
Civil – Strike-out – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that for the purposes of s 43(5) of the Fair Trading Act 1986 the relevant knowledge was that of both the Commission and the person who had suffered loss – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to hold that knowledge of “likelihood of loss or damage” was sufficient for time to start running for a claim for relief under s 43(2)(c) and (d) of the Fair Trading Act – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to conflate discovery of a breach of the Fair Trading Act with discovery of loss or damage – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that only a minimal amount of knowledge is required to set the limitation period running under s 43 of the Fair Trading Act – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Commission discovered the loss or damage before the limitation date[2009] NZCA 40  CA 316/2007 27 February 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
25 May 2009
__________________________
Appeal allowed. The order of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the application to strike out the appellant’s proceeding is dismissed. The respondent is ordered to pay the appellant for its costs in this Court the sum of $15,000 plus disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.  The costs order made in the Court of Appeal is reversed and the costs order made in the High Court is reinstated.
27 November 2009
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
THE COMMERCE COMMISSION v CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED SC 25/2009 [25 May 2009] (PDF, 10 KB)
Substantive judgment
THE COMMERCE COMMISSION v CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED SC 25/2009 [27 November 2009] (PDF, 211 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
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Totara Investments Limited v Crismac Limited And Anor SC 75/2009 [20 October 2009] (PDF, 10 KB)
Substantive judgment
TOTARA INVESTMENTS LIMITED v CRISMAC LIMITED SC 75/2009 [16 April 2010] (PDF, 163 KB)
 Transcript

Hearing date : 16 March 2010

Elias CJ, Blanchard, McGrath, Wilson, Anderson JJ.
Case name
JD & CE Henson Partnership and others v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 95/2009
Summary
Civil – Tax Administration Act 1994 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining what is sufficient to constitute a statutory Notice of Assessment – Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly stated that the applicants’ assessments were subsequently amended – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that the Taxation Review Authority addressed the correctness of the assessments without objection from the applicants – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that the Taxation Review Authority had jurisdiction under the Notices of Assessment.[2009] NZCA 423   CA  661/2008   22 September    2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs to the respondents of $3,000 plus disbursements. 15 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
J D AND C E HENSON PARTNERSHIP AND ORS V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 95/2009 15 December 2009 (PDF, 42 KB)
Judgment appealed from

 
Page 16 of 17