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.
31 July 2026
Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 131 KB)
All years
Case name
Churchill Group Holdings Limited and others v Aral Property Holdings Limited and David Leung
Case number
SC 82/2010
Summary
Civil – Conflict of Interest – Whether employment of High Court Judge’s child within the respondent’s firm of solicitors gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias which meant Judge should not have sat or continued to sit on the case – Whether Court of Appeal should accordingly have recalled its judgment dismissing an appeal from the High Court’s decision not to stay the execution of a costs order against the appellant.[2010] NZCA 335 30 July 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
3 November 2010
Case name
Henry David Levin and Barry Philip Jordan v Patrick Ikiua, Kenti Apa, Tess Apa, Mark Crosbie, Andrew David Smith.
Case number
SC 123/2010
Summary
Civil – Liquidators’ right under s 298 of the Companies Act 1993 to recover property which a liquidated company has disposed of to certain entities – Whether the company must have had a proprietary interest in the property – Whether s 298 applies only to transactions where the directors are duty bound to obtain fair value in return for the disposition of property – Whether the company had legitimately transferred its assets – Whether the directors of the company had breached their duties by disposing of all profits.[2010] NZCA 509 CA 508/2009 12 November 2010
Dates
Notice of Abandonment being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.
Case name
David Cullen Bain v The Queen
Case number
SC 3/2009
Summary
[2008] NZCA 585 CA 572/2008, CA 672/2008 24 December 2008
Result
Notice of Abandonment of Appeal being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
9 February 2009
9 February 2009
Case name
David Cullen Bain v The Queen
Case number
SC 13/2009
Summary
[2009] NZCA CA 769/2008 30 January 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
24 February 2009
_______________________
A The appeal is allowed. B The disputed evidence is excluded and the material in issue is to be excised.
18 March 2009
24 February 2009
_______________________
A The appeal is allowed. B The disputed evidence is excluded and the material in issue is to be excised.
18 March 2009
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
BAIN V R SC 13/2009 [6 March 2009] (PDF, 12 KB)
Additional document
Transcript hearing date 2 March 2009 (PDF, 352 KB)
Substantive judgment
BAIN v R (REASONS) SC 13/2009 [6 March 2009] (PDF, 158 KB)
Recall judgment
BAIN v R SC 13/2009 [25 May 2009] (PDF, 11 KB)
Additional document
Transcript hearing date 11 June 2009 (PDF, 39 KB)
Supreme court decision
BAIN v R SC 13/2009 [11 June 2009] (PDF, 16 KB)
Case name
TFAC Limited, Geoffrey Alan Grisdale and Amanda May Grisdale v Susan Elizabeth David and UAR Limited
Case number
SC 26/2009
Summary
Civil – Fair Trading Act 1986 – Australian home services franchising operation – Applicants entered into a master franchise agreement covering Auckland’s eastern suburbs with the respondents, who owned the New Zealand master franchise – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and law in its finding that the respondents did not engage in misleading and deceptive conduct in breach of s 9 of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overlooking the High Court’s finding that the respondents had breached s 22(1) and (2) of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in treating a particular pleaded misrepresentation as a misrepresentation as to a future matter – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a particular opinion was honestly held by the first respondent and had a reasonable basis – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its finding that even if the respondents had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct the causal link necessary to justify relief under s 43 of the Act was doubtful – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its finding that the respondents were protected from liability by various disclaimer and acknowledgement clauses.[2009] NZCA 44 CA 26/2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
26 May 2009
26 May 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Peter David Buddle v The Queen
Case number
SC 43/2009
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction – Crimes Act 1961 – Sexual offending – Criminal procedure – Exercise of s 374 discretion to discharge jury without their giving of a verdict – Whether trial Judge had authority to discharge jury at first trial on “a hung jury aspect” – Whether second trial a nullity in respect of all charges – Whether miscarriage of justice established.[2009] NZCA 184 CA 416/2008 14 May 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
22 June 2009
22 June 2009
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
BUDDLE v R SC 43/2009 [22 June 2009] (PDF, 9 KB)
Substantive judgment
BUDDLE v R SC 43/2009 [26 November 2009] (PDF, 132 KB)
Result
Appeal allowed, Convictions set aside. New Trial ordered on three counts.
26 November 2009
Hearing
13 August 2009
Case name
David George Saggers v The Queen
Case number
SC 47/2009
Summary
Criminal Appeal – the appellant was convicted in the High Court for manufacturing methamphetamine and possessing equipment capable of being used in the manufacture of methamphetamine – Court of Appeal allowed the appellant’s appeal against conviction on the manufacturing charge and ordered a retrial but upheld the appellant’s conviction for possessing equipment capable of being used in the manufacture of methamphetamine – Appellant was found not guilty on the manufacturing charge at the retrial – Whether the guilty verdict on the charge of possessing equipment is inconsistent with the not guilty verdict on the manufacturing charge, amounting to a miscarriage of justice.[2008] NZCA 364 CA 121/2008 12 September 2008
Result
Application to leave to appeal dismissed. 30 July 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SAGGERS V R SC 47/2009 30 July 2009 (PDF, 14 KB)
Case name
Chesterfields Preschools Limited, David John Hampton and others v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 90/2009
Summary
Civil – GST Act 1995 - Costs awards – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the appeals of the Commissioner for a stay of payment of costs awards in favour of the applicant.[2009] NZCA 373 CA 607/2008 25 August 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $3,000 plus disbursements to the respondent. 8 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Moncello David Shirley v The Queen
Case number
SC 101/2009
Summary
Criminal appeal – convictions for wounding with intent, aggravated burglary and possession of a knife – whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the possibility of self-defence and provocation – whether the Court of Appeal gave insufficient weight to supplementary reports which indicated that certain of the appellant’s characteristics should have been seen as mitigating factors in sentencing – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider the possible application of section 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, given the applicant’s history and experiences in prison.[2009] NZCA 509 CA 57/2009 23 October 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 5 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SHIRLEY v R SC 101/2009 [5 March 2010] (PDF, 29 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
David McAlister v Air New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 49/2008
Summary
Civil – Employment Relations Act 2000 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the demotion of the appellant as flight instructor did not breach a prohibited ground of discrimination, namely his age, in terms of s 104(1) of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that flight instructors under the age of 60 and performing the same work as the appellant were not a relevant comparator group for the purposes of ss 104(1)(a) and (b) of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that being of a particular age was a genuine occupational qualification for the appellant’s employment as a flight instructor in terms of s 30(1) of the Human Rights Act 1993.[2008] NZCA 264 CA 216/07 30 July 2008
Transcripts
- Hearing 25 and 26 March 2009 SC 49/2008 (PDF, 530 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2009] NZSC 78 (PDF, 89 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 11 of 13