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
Right to Life New Zealand Inc v The Abortion Supervisory Committee
Case number
SC 73/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that none of statutory functions or powers of Abortion Supervisory Committee entitle or require Committee to scrutinise or review certifying consultants’ particular clinical decisions or diagnoses after the fact – Whether judicial review requires that applicant identify a decision challenged – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding counselling services provided under CSA Act were “adequate” – Whether Court of Appeal erred in implicitly finding no State and common law interest in preservation of life of unborn child which ought to influence interpretation of CSA Act.[2011] NZCA 246   CA 522/2009
Result

A. Leave to appeal is granted. 
B. The approved grounds are: 
(a) Whether the respondent Committee’s functions under ss 14(1)(a), (i) and (k) and 36 of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 empower it to review or scrutinise the decisions of certifying consultants and form its own view about the lawfulness of their decisions to the extent necessary to perform its functions.

(b) If so, whether there is any evidential foundation for the High
Court’ s finding that “the approval rates [for abortions] seems remarkably high, bearing in mind that under s 187(A) [of the Crimes Act 1961] the consultants must form a good faith opinion that continuance of the pregnancy would result in serious danger to the mother’s health”.

(c) Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to consider whether
certifying consultants are obeying the “abortion law” (as defined) and, if so, whether there is any evidential foundation for the High Court’s finding that “there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants”.

26 August 2011

_________________________________

The appeal is dismissed.

9 August 2012
Transcript

Hearing date : 13 March 2012

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Company v New Zealand Milk Brands Limited
Case number
SC 79/2011
Summary
Civil – Intellectual Property – Trademark registration – Trade Marks Act 2002 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in not allowing registration of appellant’s mark in relation to tea, cocoa, chocolate, artificial coffee, flavourings for beverages and non-dairy creamer – Whether Court of Appeal misdirected itself on “similar goods” in the context of s 25(1)(b) and (c) of the Trade Marks Act 2002 – Relevance of test in British Sugar Plc v James Robertson & Sons Ltd [1996] RPC 281 (Ch) under the Trade Marks Act 2002. [2011] NZCA 264   CA 25/2009
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $2,500. 

22 September 2011
Case name
Luaiava Fagalilo v Seneti Time
Case number
SC 102/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Trusts – The Green Valley Church Assembly formed in 1984 and was formally affiliated with Assemblies of God in New Zealand Incorporated (AOGNZ) – The church set up a trust to own their church property in 1985 – The Trust Deed specified that trustees could not act inconsistently with the AOGNZ Constitution and Rules – The Constitution stated that no member church could also hold a certificate of membership with another organised body with a distinct constitution – A schism in the church occurred in 2005 when the Samoan Assemblies of God New Zealand (SAOG), which some church members were affiliated with, incorporated – Trustees who were affiliated with the SAOG were not acting in accordance with the Trust Deed – Appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal requiring an election by the members of the church affiliated with the AOGNZ of persons to be nominated as trustees – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by effectively giving full control of church property to members affiliated with the AOGNZ – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not obliging the respondent to enter into dialogue aimed at settlement of the parties’ differences –   Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to consider the existence of constructive trusts whereby the Trust Board holds its assets in trust for the people who paid for them or otherwise contributed to them since acquisition.  [2010] NZCA 402   CA 191/2010
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs payable by the applicant to the respondent of $2,500.
16 April 2012.
Case name
Christine Mary Herron and another v Westpac New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 121/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of a witness’s credibility – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its treatment of evidence that was allegedly of a hearsay character – Whether the respondent breached any of its obligations in relation to putting relevant evidence (allegedly in its possession) before the Court.[2011] NZCA 544  CA 505/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs $2,500 to  the respondent.
17 February 2012.
Case name
Barry John Hart v Standards Committee of the New Zealand Law Society and the Lawyers and Conveyances Disciplinary Tribunal.
Case number
SC 129/2011
Summary
Civil – Name suppression – Legal professional conduct – Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 – Whether High Court and Court of Appeal, in declining to suppress applicant’s name, erred in their approaches to principles applicable to name suppression in context of disciplinary charges under Lawyers and Conveyancers Act – Significance of nature of charges against applicant – Weight to be given to inaccurate media reports of charges – Whether Court of Appeal’s orders sufficiently protect applicant – Effect of applicant’s high public profile and associated prejudicial effects arising from publication. [2011] NZCA   671   CA 839/2011
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
In place of the order made by McGrath J on 21 December 2011 in relation to the searching of court files, we order that the Supreme Court file in relation to the application not be searched without the permission of a Judge.
13 February 2012.
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
Transcripts
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
TAKAMORE v CLARKE SC 131/2011 [18 December 2012] (PDF, 556 KB)
Case name
Robert Erwood v Raylee Harley and the Official Assignee
Case number
SC 132/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Disbursements – Appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal which set aside the Registrar’s decision to award $1,000 in disbursements to the applicant – The Court of Appeal declined to recall the decision when presented with new information in relation to this matter – Whether an unrepresented litigant can be awarded costs or disbursements relating to legal advice obtained for the purposes of litigation when the order only covered “usual disbursements” as defined – Whether this matter should be remitted back to the Court of Appeal for full panel hearing.[2011] NZCA  370   CA 260/2009
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
24 April 2012.
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
RL And WL v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development and others.
Case number
SC 2/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reinstating the High Court’s decision to strike out the appellant’s proceedings for judicial review but with restrictions; whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 20 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, the Treaty of Waitangi and other international human rights obligations.      [2009] NZCA 596   CA 503/2008 15  December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
sc 2 2010 rl and anor v chief executive of the ministry of social development and ors leave application (PDF, 16 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with no order for costs.

10 March 2009
Case name
Vodafone New Zealand Limited v Telecom New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 4/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Communications - Telecommunications Act 2001 – Final Determination by Commerce Commission for Telecommunications Services Obligations Instrument for Local Residential Service - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in maintaining the Commerce Commission’s approach to the calculation of the costs of providing Telecommunications Services Obligations in accordance with the requirements of ‘net cost’ under s 5 of the Telecommunications Act 2001.[2009] NZCA 565  CA 192/2008    2 December 2009
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
sc 4 2010 vodafone new zealand ltd v telecom new zealand ltd (PDF, 256 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
VODAFONE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v TELECOM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED SC 4/2010 [30 March 2010] (PDF, 10 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal granted.

The approved ground is whether the Commerce Commission, in making its determination, complied with the applicable statutory provisions.

30 March 2010

_________________________

Appeal dismissed.  No order for costs.

17 November 2011
Transcript

Hearing date : 21 – 24 February 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Page 37 of 55