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
GE Free NZ in Food and Environment Incorporated v AgResearch Limited and Anor
Case number
SC 38/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether applications by AgResearch to import new genetically modified organisms were improperly registered for consideration by ERMA under s 40 of Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 – Whether applications so broad and generic as to be non-compliant with statutory information requirements – Whether applications must contain sufficient information at outset to allow meaningful public participation – Whether acceptance of applications a proper subject for judicial review.[2010] NZCA 89 CA 380/2009   23 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
G E FREE NZ IN FOOD AND THE ENVIRONMENT INCORPORATED v AGRESEARCH LIMITED And Anor SC 38/2010 [29 June 2010] (PDF, 41 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed  with costs $2,500 to each respondent.

29 June 2010.
Case name
Commerce Commission v Vodafone New Zealand Limited and Telecom New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 44/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Communications - Telecommunications Act 2001 - Whether the Commerce Commission erred in its calculation of the net cost of providing Telecommunications Services Obligation under the Act by ceasing to introduce new technology into the modelled network.Civ 2008 485 2194/295/ 2341    1 April  2010
Result
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
Substantive judgment
sc 4 2010 vodafone new zealand ltd v telecom new zealand ltd (PDF, 256 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
COMMERCE COMMISSION v VODAFONE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED AND TELECOM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED SC 44/2010 [14 May 2010] (PDF, 8 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 21 – 24 February 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
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
sc 4 2010 vodafone new zealand ltd v telecom new zealand ltd (PDF, 256 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
COMMERCE COMMISSION v VODAFONE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED AND TELECOM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED SC 44/2010 [14 May 2010] (PDF, 8 KB)
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
Telecom New Zealand Limited v Vodafone New Zealand  Limited and Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 46/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Communications - Telecommunications Act 2001 - Whether the Commerce Commission erred in its calculation of the net cost of providing Telecommunications Services Obligation under the Act by ceasing to introduce new technology into the modelled network.Civ 2008 485 2293/2205/2206    1 April  2010
Result
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
Substantive judgment
sc 4 2010 vodafone new zealand ltd v telecom new zealand ltd (PDF, 256 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
COMMERCE COMMISSION v VODAFONE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED AND TELECOM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED SC 44/2010 [14 May 2010] (PDF, 8 KB)
Transcript

21 – 24 February 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Case name
James Louis Mason v The Queen
Case number
SC 47/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in combining two allegations of criminal conduct to be included in a single count in the indictment.[2010] NZCA 170  CA 481/2009   5 May 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground of appeal is whether the combining in a single count in the indictment of the two allegations (punching the child and pulling his ear) resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
7 July 2010
___________________________
Appeal allowed and the conviction is quashed. No order for a new trial.
3 November 2010
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
MASON v R SC 47/2010 [7 July 2010] (PDF, 6 KB)
Substantive judgment
MASON v R SC 47/2010 [3 November 2010] (PDF, 66 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 19 October 2010

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
P v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 58/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Duty of Care – Accident Compensation Act 2001 – Appellant alleges mental injury/PTSD as a result of sexual assault and threats/intimidation during employment with Royal New Zealand Navy – Whether ACC bar applies to mental injury suffered as a result of threats and intimidation – Whether damage materially contributed to Appellant’ s mental injury –Whether non-delegable duty of care or fiduciary duty owed to the Appellant – Whether case merits award of exemplary or vindicatory damages – Whether case should be heard without prior appeal to the Court of Appeal in order for Supreme Court to hear case at the same time as another proposed appeal from W & W v Attorney-General [2010] NZCA 139.Civ 2006 485 874    16 June 2010
Dates

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

30 June 2010.
Case name
Justin Leigh Harney v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 64/2010
Summary
[2010] NZCA 264   CA 194/2010  1 July  2010
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. The approved grounds are: (i)      Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there was a “good reason” for not following a formal identification procedure pursuant to s 45(1) of the Evidence Act 2006? (ii)           If not, was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the circumstances in which the identification was made produced a reliable identification beyond reasonable doubt pursuant to s 45(2) of the Evidence Act? 13 August 2010 __________________ Appeal allowed. Convictions set aside. No order for a new trial.
16 September 2011
Leave judgment - leave granted
HARNEY V NEW ZEALAND POLICE SC 64/2010 13 August 2010 (PDF, 33 KB)
Substantive judgment / Media release

 
Transcript

Hearing date : 17 August 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Judgment appealed from

 
Case name
Tower Insurance Limited v ANZ National Bank Limited and ING (NZ) Limited
Case number
SC 68/2010
Summary
Civil – Disclosure of Information – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that Tower is obliged to deliver information on its insurance policies and client details to the respondents under its terminated agreements with the banks – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that Tower is not prevented by the Privacy Act 1993 and the law of confidentiality from delivering that information – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondents were entitled to pass that information on to Vero Insurance New Zealand Ltd.[2010] NZCA 267  CA 194/2009  25 June  2010
Dates

Notice of abandonment being lodged, the appeal and cross appeal are  deemed to be dismissed. By consent, no order as to costs.

20 September 2010
Case name
Philip John Smith v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 71/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal denied the appellant the right to a fair hearing on account of bias, hostility and predetermining the appellant’s recusal applications; whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that evidence tendered at the High Court was admissible; whether psychological reports of the appellant were obtained in breached s 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2010]  NZCA 258  23 June 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
PHILIP JOHN SMITH v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL SC 71/2010 [8 September 2010] (PDF, 63 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

8 September 2010
Case name
Rupinder Singh Chahil v The Queen
Case number
SC 79/2010
Summary
Criminal appeal – convictions for kidnapping after joint trial with three others – appeal against sentence and conviction – statement of co-accused used in evidence against the applicant – the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against sentence but declined to impose a sentence of home detention in place of imprisonment – Whether the applicant’s rights under section 25 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (minimum standards of criminal procedure) were breached by the Crown’s use of the co-accused’ s statement at trial – whether the Court of Appeal failed to identify the extent and impact of the inadmissible material – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider home detention as an option in terms of section 16 of the Sentencing Act 2002.[2010]  NZCA 331   27 July  2010
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dimissed.

28 September 2010
Page 39 of 55