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
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is whether the High Court and Court of Appeal correctly interpreted and applied s 361D of the Crimes Act 1961 in directing that the applicants be tried for the offences charged under indictment (Number CRI 2007-085-7842) before a Judge without a jury.
6 May 2011
__________________
Appeal allowed by consent. Orders for trial by judge alone set aside.
14 September 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is whether the High Court and Court of Appeal correctly interpreted and applied s 361D of the Crimes Act 1961 in directing that the applicants be tried for the offences charged under indictment (Number CRI 2007-085-7842) before a Judge without a jury.
6 May 2011
________________________
Appeal is deemed to be dismissed due to the death of the appellant.
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is whether the High Court and Court of Appeal correctly interpreted and applied s 361D of the Crimes Act 1961 in directing that the applicants be tried for the offences charged under indictment (Number CRI 2007-085-7842) before a Judge without a jury.
6 May 2011
______________________
Appeal allowed by consent. Orders for trial by judge alone set aside.
14 September 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Leave to appeal is granted on the following questions:
(1) Did the marketing by Blue Chip companies and sales agents of the Blue Chip investment products amount to offers to the public of equity and/or debt securities for the purposes of s 37 of the Securities Act 1978?
(2) If so, is the exemption in s 5(1)(b) applicable?
(3) If the answers to questions (1) and (2) are favourable to the investors, does this impeach the ability of the developers to enforce the agreements for sale and purchase on the basis that they (a) constituted part of the relevant allotments and were thus void and of no effect under s 37(4) or, (b) were tainted by their association with those allotments and thus illegal?
6 September 2011
________________________
A The appeals are allowed.
B The SPAs executed at the same time as, or after, the corresponding Blue Chip investment product agreements were entered into are declared to be unenforceable under s 37 of the Securities Act 1978.
C The High Court is to determine whether SPAs, entered into before the corresponding Blue Chip investment products were executed, were subscriptions for securities.
D The cases are otherwise generally remitted to the High Court to make such further orders as may be consistent with this judgment.
E The respondents are to pay the appellants costs $75,000 and usual disbursements.
F Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be as determined by those courts.
9 August 2012
______________________
Recall judgment
Former order F now replaced by orders F, G and H.
F The existing orders for costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.
G Other than those affected by timing issues (being Mr Hutchinson in the case of TWL, and in the case of Greenstone Barclay, Mr and Mrs Bogardus, Ms Janes, Mrs and Mrs Johnson, Mr Crawford-Greene, Mr and Mrs Dick and Mr and Mrs Lester) the appellants are to be awarded costs and disbursements in the High Court and Court of Appeal in sums to be determined by those Courts in light of the judgment of this Court.
H Costs and disbursements in relation to the appellants affected by timing issues are to be addressed in the High Court and Court of Appeal once those timing issues have been resolved.
11 December 1012
Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Anderson JJ.
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
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved grounds of appeal are whether the directions given to the jury before it delivered its verdicts were appropriate and, if not, whether this gave rise to a substantial miscarriage of justice?
9 February 2012
_______________________
Appeal dismissed.
23 July 2012
Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Chambers JJ
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved questions are whether, and if so to what extent, the multi-employer collective employment agreement precludes the second appellants from bargaining for redundancy entitlements under s 69N of the Employment Relations Act 2000.
28 February 2012
_________________________
The appeal is allowed.
The orders made by the Court of Appeal are set aside.
The orders made by the Employment Court are reinstated.
9 August 2012
Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Gault, Blanchard JJ.
Further evidence is admitted.
The appeal is allowed and the conviction is quashed.
A new trial is ordered.
17 December 2010.29 and 30 November 2010.
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJThe application for leave to appeal is granted
The approved ground is whether, in the light of the further evidence tendered in this Court and in the Court of Appeal, there has been a miscarriage of justice
18 June 2010
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds are:
(i) Whether and in what circumstances a local authority which performed regulatory functions under the Building Act 1991 in relation to construction of a multi-unit residential development owed a duty of care to purchasers of units in the building to ensure that it complied with the building code.
(ii) Assuming such a duty exists, whether it extends to:
(a) Such persons who did not themselves at the time of purchase intend personally to occupy their unit(s) (investor owners); and
(b) Persons who subsequently acquired such units from the first purchasers after a claim for breach of duty to their predecessors had accrued; and
(c) The body corporate.
(iii) Whether the conclusions which would otherwise be reached are affected in circumstances where the Council declined to issue a code compliance certificate.
(iv) In light of the conclusions reached on the foregoing grounds, how these issues should be determined in the particular cases.
13 July 2010
________________________
Appeal dismissed,
Costs to the respondents
17 December 2010
Hearing date : 8 – 10 November 2010
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ
B The approved ground is whether the award of damages against DS & JW Moorhouse (in respect of which they are entitled to be fully indemnified by Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks) was appropriately quantified on an expectation basis.
14 July 2010
_______________________________
Appeal dismissed.
Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks are to pay the Council costs of $5,000. They are to pay in the proportions fixed in the Court of Appeal, namely 60 per cent by Vining Realty and 40 per cent by Gascoigne Wicks.
Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks are to pay in the same proportions costs of $10,000 to Altimarloch.
In each case where costs are awarded, disbursements shall be added as agreed or fixed by the Registrar.
Hearing date : 14 and 15 February 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.