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.
17 August 2026
Case information summary (as at 17 August 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 17 August 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 128 KB)
All years
Case name
Wyeth (NZ) Limited v Ancare New Zealand Limited and The Environmental Risk Management Authority
Case number
SC 57/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal - Statutory Interpretation - whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996; whether the Act requires or entitles the Environmental Risk Management Authority to refuse to disclose the identity of a hazardous substance and/or its chemical composition; whether the Act allows the Environmental Risk Management Authority to require that the identity of a hazardous substance and/or its chemical composition be provided on the basis of confidentiality undertakings. [2009] NZCA 211 CA 424/2007 27 May 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
25 September 2009
______________________
The appeal is dismissed with no order for costs.
23 April 2010
25 September 2009
______________________
The appeal is dismissed with no order for costs.
23 April 2010
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 February 2010 (PDF, 600 KB)
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Slawomir Ryszard Bujak v The District Court at Christchurch and The Republic of Poland
Case number
SC 64/2009
Summary
Civil – extradition - whether Court of Appeal erred in refusing to admit new evidence – whether Court of Appeal erred in determining that by joining an extradition Treaty New Zealand has accepted that the court system in the partner state is robust enough to grant a fair trial – whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that comity interest must be balanced against, and could somehow trump, an individual’s liberty rights – whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the ‘ copies’ provided by the second respondent sufficed for extradition from New Zealand purposes – whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the requisite authentication procedures were followed and that the evidence against the Appellant was not hearsay – whether the Court of Appeal failed to consider relevant case law provided by counsel. [2009] NZCA 257 CA 678/2008 19 June 2009.
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Any application for costs to be made within 10 working days.
15 September 2009
________________
Order for costs to the 2nd respondent in the sum of $2,000.
15 October 2009
15 September 2009
________________
Order for costs to the 2nd respondent in the sum of $2,000.
15 October 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Additional document
Case name
Maia Rongonui v The Queen
Case number
SC 66/2009
Summary
Criminal – Evidence Act 2006 – Mr Rongonui was convicted of one count of sexual violation by unlawful connection and one of assault with intent to commit rape – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the complainant’s evidence that she had told her friend what occurred after the incident did not fall within s 35 of the Evidence Act dealing with previous consistent statements because evidence was not given of anything actually said by the complainant – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the District Court Judge was correct to allow the prosecutor to use a witness statement to refresh the memory of a witness and to allow cross-examination of the witness on the grounds of hostility[2009] NZCA 279 CA 736/2008 2 July 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
21 September 2009
___________________________
Appeal allowed, convictions set aside. Order for new trial. Reasons to be given at a later date. 2
7 November 2009
_____________________________
Reasons given 23 July 2010
21 September 2009
___________________________
Appeal allowed, convictions set aside. Order for new trial. Reasons to be given at a later date. 2
7 November 2009
_____________________________
Reasons given 23 July 2010
Transcripts
- Hearing date 19 November 2009 (PDF, 504 KB)
Media Releases
- media release rongonui 23 july new release (PDF, 83 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Rongonui v R SC 66/2009 [21 September 2009] (PDF, 9 KB)
Substantive judgment
RONGONUI v R SC 66/2009 [27 November 2009] (PDF, 170 KB)
Case name
The Commerce Commission v Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Limited and Telecom New Zealand
Case number
SC 76/2009
Summary
Civil – alleged breach of s 36 of the Commerce Act 1986 – the Privy Council in Telecom Corporation of New Zealand v Clear Communications [1995] 1 NZLR 385 formulated a counterfactual test (whether a hypothetical firm, not in a dominant position but otherwise in the same circumstances, would have acted as the dominant firm did) to determine whether a firm has used its dominant position in breach of s 36 – whether this test is the appropriate and necessary test for determining a breach of s 36 – if the test is reconsidered, and if the question is assessed on a factual enquiry rather than solely by apply a counterfactual analysis, whether Telecom used its dominant position in the national retail market in breach of s 36 – alternatively, whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that, on application of the counterfactual test, the Commission had not demonstrated that Telecom had used its dominant market position in breach of s 36 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in not considering whether the High Court erred in finding that Telecom did not have an anticompetitive purpose under s 36(1) of the Act.[2009] NZCA 338 CA 288/2008 4 August 2009
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
30 October 2009
__________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant must pay the respondents costs of $50,000 plus disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
1 September 2010
Transcript
Hearing date : 21 – 24 June 2010
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ
Case name
Malcolm Albert Spark v The Queen
Case number
SC 77/2009
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 applies to private material that was never intended to be made public; whether the Court of Ap peal erred in determining that the possession of objectionable material for private use is a “publication” for the purposes of the Act; whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to apply the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 to interpretation of the word “publication”; whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that it was permissible to repeatedly question an accused when the accused has stated that he does not wish to provide the information sought.[2009] NZCA 345 CA 267/2009 6 August 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 16 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Air Nelson Limited v NZ Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union Inc
Case number
SC 78/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000 – Strikes and lockouts – legality – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that in s 97 of the ERA 2000 the words “the work of a striking or locked employee” mean “the work a striking or locked out employee would probably have been performing had he/she not been locked out – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that s 97 of the ERA 2000 applies in circumstances where the work in question is work which is being performed, or is intended to be performed, by a person who would normally or routinely perform such work.[2009] NZCA 349 CA 206/2008 7 August 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
27 October 2009
_____________________
The appeal is allowed with costs of $15,000 to be paid by the respondent to the appellant together with the appellant’s reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
17 May 2010
27 October 2009
_____________________
The appeal is allowed with costs of $15,000 to be paid by the respondent to the appellant together with the appellant’s reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
17 May 2010
Transcripts
- TS sc 78 2009 23 February 2010 (PDF, 225 KB)
Media Releases
- press release air nelson 17 may 2010 (PDF, 39 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Westpac Banking Corporation, Bank of New Zealand Limited, ANZ National Bank Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 83/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Banking and Finance – Unclaimed Money Act 1971 – meaning of terms: “money” “payable”, “has become owing” – Whether UMA applies to conditional transactional liabilities such as cheques, drafts or other bills of exchange – Bills of Exchange Act 1908 – nature of drawer’s liability – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Thomas Cook (New Zealand) Ltd [2005] 2 NZLR 722 (PC) applied – Whether Thomas Cook rightly decided.[2009] NZCA 376 CA 741/2008 26 August 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
4 December 2009
__________________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellants are ordered to pay the respondent costs of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
7 April 2011
4 December 2009
__________________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellants are ordered to pay the respondent costs of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
7 April 2011
Transcripts
- sc 83 2009 westpac ors v ird (PDF, 579 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Michael Wauchop Porter v The Queen
Case number
SC 85/2009
Summary
Criminal – s 361D Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 361D of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal had sufficient regard to ss 24(e) or 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 when interpreting s 361D.[2009] NZCA 380 CA 255/09 28 August 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 20 October 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Miles Gainsford Elliott v The Queen
Case number
SC 86/2009
Summary
Criminal – s 361D Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred n its interpretation of s 361D of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal had sufficient regard to ss 24(e) or 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 when interpreting s 361D.[2009] NZCA 380 CA 256/09 28 August 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 20 October 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Dharminder Singh v The Queen
Case number
SC 87/2009
Summary
Criminal – s 361D Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 361D of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal had sufficient regard to ss 24(e) or 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 when interpreting s 361D.[2009] NZCA 380 CA 273/09 28 August 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 20 October 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 43 of 55