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
W v The Queen
Case number
SC 117/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Counsel error – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that trial counsel’s advice to the applicant not to give or call evidence was reasonably open to him in the circumstances – Whether or not the Court of Appeal adequately addressed the applicant’ s claim that acceptance of trial counsel’s advice not to give evidence was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of that part of his advice which was intended to inform the applicant of the advantages of giving evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal omitted or misstated evidence supporting the applicant’s allegations on appeal that the trial counsel gave advice in a manner that usurped the applicant’s right to make elections about evidence, impacting on the credibility of the decisions made by the Court of Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal’s decision that the result of the applicant’s trial could not possibly have been affected if the applicant or any other of the applicant’s witnesses had given evidence was available to it on the evidence.[2011] NZCA 529 CA 702/2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
W v R SC 117/2011 [13 February 2012] (PDF, 42 KB)
Case name
Josephine Takamore v Denise Clarke and Nehuata Takamore & Donald Takamore
Case number
SC 131/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Customary Law – Approach to determining whether Tūhoe burial custom forms part of the common law – Whether the Court of Appeal majority erred in its analysis of the reasonableness of the Tū hoe custom – Whether the Court of Appeal majority was wrong to hold that the Tūhoe custom was insufficiently certain to form part of the common law – Whether the Court of Appeal majority was correct to hold that Tū hoe custom was a relevant cultural consideration for an executor or executrix where one or more of the whānau pani of the deceased is Tūhoe and the deceased is Tūhoe under Tūhoe custom – Whether the Court of Appeal minority judgment raised important issues about the approach to findings of fact in the High Court[2011] NZCA 587 CA 525/2009
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds of appeal are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that New Zealand law entitled the executrix to determine disposal of the body of the deceased and whether it was correct to hold that the executrix is entitled to take possession of the body of the deceased notwithstanding its burial.
28 March 2012
________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The first respondent is entitled to proceed under the exhumation licence to have Mr Takamore reburied in a place of her choosing.
C The matter is remitted back to the High Court in case any consequential orders are necessary.
D Costs are reserved.
18 December 2012
B The approved grounds of appeal are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that New Zealand law entitled the executrix to determine disposal of the body of the deceased and whether it was correct to hold that the executrix is entitled to take possession of the body of the deceased notwithstanding its burial.
28 March 2012
________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The first respondent is entitled to proceed under the exhumation licence to have Mr Takamore reburied in a place of her choosing.
C The matter is remitted back to the High Court in case any consequential orders are necessary.
D Costs are reserved.
18 December 2012
Transcripts
- Hearing date 17-18 July 2012 SC 131/2011 (PDF, 1 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2012] NZSC 116 (PDF, 92 KB)
Substantive judgment
TAKAMORE v CLARKE SC 131/2011 [18 December 2012] (PDF, 556 KB)
Case name
Synlait Limited v Central Plains Water Trust and Ors
Case number
SC 9/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991 – Water rights - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that priority of hearing is determined in favour of the first applicant to file a complete application – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to give adequate consideration to whether changes to an application after lodgement could affect which test would be applicable to determine priority and whether priority is maintained irrespective of what changes are made subsequent to lodgement – Whether the Court of Appeal provided inadequate recognition of the fact that an application can lose priority due to unreasonable delay.[2009] NZCA 609 CA 544/2008. CA 588/2008 18 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave granted
Hearing
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.
22 June 2010.
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is how priority is determined as between competing applications under the Resource Management Act 1991 for a finite resource.
31 March 2010.
Case name
Valerie Morse v The Queen
Case number
SC 10/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 to a charge of ‘offensive behaviour’ under s4(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of ss5 and 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to consider art 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Whether the classification of behaviour as ‘offensive’ is a question of fact or law.[2009] NZCA 623 CA 530/2008 22 December 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. The approved ground is whether the District Court correctly interpreted and applied s 4(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981. 18 May 2010
_______________________
Appeal allowed. Conviction entered against the appellant in the District Court is set aside.
6 May 2011
_______________________
Appeal allowed. Conviction entered against the appellant in the District Court is set aside.
6 May 2011
Media Releases
- media release morse 1 (PDF, 89 KB)
Substantive judgment
MORSE v THE POLICE SC 10/2010 [6 May 2011] (PDF, 338 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
MORSE v THE POLICE SC 10/2010 [18 May 2010] (PDF, 9 KB)
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ
Case name
Ai Nee Chean v Herald Victor De Alwis and others
Case number
SC 18/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether summary judgment in High Court against Appellant in relation to sixth Respondent should be overturned – Whether Court of Appeal erred in affirming issue estoppel in respect of an original default judgment under s 37 Securities Act 1978 – Whether Court of Appeal misapplied the doctrine of issue estoppel by applying it to a default judgment, or holding that Appellant was a privy, or wrongly finding that the original Judge was not misled on facts, or failing to consider equitable doctrine of “clean hands” – Whether issue estoppel contrary to the NZ Bill of Rights Act.[2010] NZCA 30 CA 458/2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CHEAN v DE ALWIS And Ors SC 18/2010 [18 May 2010] (PDF, 16 KB)
Dates
Application for leave dismissed.
Costs $2,500 to the sixth respondent.
18 May 2010.
Case name
Telecom New Zealand Limited v Vodafone New Zealand Limited and Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 45/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Communications – Telecommunications Act 2001 – Whether the High Court erred in holding that there was no reviewable inconsistency or error of law in the Commerce Commission’s determination to reduce material input in its modelling methodology based on the removal from its modelling of a technological optimisation factor.Civ 2008 485 2194/295/ 2341 1 April 2010
Substantive judgment
Leave judgment - leave granted
Transcript
Hearing dates : 21 – 24 February
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Dates
Application for leave to appeal granted.
Approved ground of appeal is whether the Commerce Commission in making its determination complied with applicable statutory provsion.
14 May 2010
__________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order for costs.
17 November 2011
Case name
W and W v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 48/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Duty of Care and Limitation Act 1950 – State liability claim for historic abuse while appellants under social welfare supervision and in institutional care – Whether Court of Appeal erred in application of legal test for disability under Limitation Act – Whether limitation test of reasonable discoverability of harm too restrictive and inconsistent with precedent/international law – Whether test of reasonable discoverability should apply more widely than cases of sexual abuse cases – Whether reasonable discoverability requires recognition by complainant that assault wrongful/actionable – Whether Court of Appeal further erred in law as to: causation and material contribution to harm of vulnerable persons; scope of duty of care by Department and/or social workers; false imprisonment – Whether facts support an award of exemplary damages directly or vicariously or a finding of non-delegable duty of care.[2010] NZCA 139 CA 714/2007 23 April 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
W & W v ATTORNEY-GENERAL SC 48/2010 [29 June 2010] (PDF, 45 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
29 June 2010.
Case name
PT v The Queen
Case number
SC 50/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the evidence of a general practitioner was relevant and substantially helpful under ss 7 and 25 of the Evidence Act 2006 respectively; whether the trial judge erred in his directions to the jury and if so, whether the errors amount to a miscarriage of justice. [2010] NZCA 151 CA 604/2009 27 April 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
sc 50 2010 pt v the queen leave judgment (PDF, 46 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 July 2010
Case name
S v Airline Limited
Case number
SC 59/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Employment – Application for interim name suppression - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to find errors of law in the Employment Court judgment - Whether the Employment Court erred in declining to grant an interim order for non‑publication of the Applicant’ s name and identifying detailsARC 7/2010 9 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
C V AIR NELSON LIMITED SC 59/2010 [30 August 2010] (PDF, 70 KB)
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The interim order for suppression of the applicant’s name made by the Court of Appeal on 23 June 2010 is to continue in force until 5pm on 7 September 2010.
30 August 2010.
Case name
Ian David Penny and Gary John Hooper v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 62/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Income Tax Act 1994 – Applicant orthopaedic surgeons employed by family companies owned by family trusts – Applicants found by Court of Appeal to have breached general anti-avoidance provision s BG 1 of Income Tax Act as level of remuneration paid by family companies to surgeons not a “commercially realistic salary” in view of family companies’ after-tax profit and therefore artificial/contrived – Whether arrangement had purpose or effect of tax avoidance to benefit from “rate advantage” between personal income tax and company tax rates – Whether “commercially realistic salary” an appropriate concept to apply under the Income Tax Act to a family company – Whether Applicants in fact exercised control over family companies and family trusts as governing director and co-trustee – Whether Court of Appeal correct to consider use of trust capital as advances as evidence of tax avoidance arrangement – Whether Court of Appeal correct to make cost orders different from cost arrangements agreed to by parties.[2010] NZCA 231 CA 201/2009 4 June 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the appellants had failed to establish that their use of their corporate and family trust structures did not constitute taxable arrangements for the purposes of s BG1 of the Income Tax Act 1994.
2 August 2010
______________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellants must pay the respondent’ s costs in the sum of $25,000 together with his reasonable disbursements in connection with the appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
24 August 2011
2 August 2010
______________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellants must pay the respondent’ s costs in the sum of $25,000 together with his reasonable disbursements in connection with the appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
24 August 2011
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Substantive judgment / Media release
Transcript
Hearing date : 27, 28,29 June 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Young JJ.
Page 9 of 16