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

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
TMT v The Queen
Case number
SC 73/2010
Summary
Criminal – Admissibility of evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling video evidence taken on private property during an undercover operation admissible.[2010]  NZCA 287  5 July  2010
Result

Appeal dismissed.

17 December 2010
Dates

Application for leave to appeal granted.

13 August 2010
Hearing

2 December 2010.

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ
Case name
North Shore City Council v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 77/2010
Summary
Civil – Duty of care – Whether Building Industry Authority owed a duty of care to the Council in connection with 1995 review of Council’ s building regulatory operations and functions under Building Act 1991 – Whether case so untenable to justify striking out of third-party notice.[2010]  NZCA 324   26 July  2010
Result

A Leave to appeal is granted.

B  The approved grounds are:

(i) Whether it is reasonably arguable that the BIA owed a duty of care to the Council in relation to the Grange development in any of the respects pleaded (as described in para 13.1 – 13.3 of the Council’s submissions in support of its application for leave to appeal).

(ii) Whether it is reasonably arguable that the BIA owed a duty of care to the plaintiff body corporate and unit owners in the respect pleaded (as described in para 13.4 of the Council’s submissions in support of its application for leave to appeal).

13 October 2010

________________

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant is to pay the respondent costs of $40,000 and reasonable disbursements in connection with this appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.

27 June 2012

 
 
 
 

 
Transcript
Hearing date : 1 – 3 November 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard , Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
The Queen v GKB
Case number
SC 88/2010
Summary
Criminal – Admissibility of previous consistent statements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 35(2) of the Evidence Act 2006 is not engaged until a proposed witness gives evidence at trial – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 35(2) of the Evidence Act 2006 is not engaged by reference to an accused’s pre‑trial statement to the police.[2010] NZCA 326  CA 313/2010  27 August 2010.
Result

Appeal allowed.  Decision of the District Court reinstated.

17 December 2010
Hearing

7 December 2010.

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Dates

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that s 35(2) of the Evidence Act 2006 is only triggered by a challenge to veracity made at trial.

23 September 2010.
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
Matthew John Birchler v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 116/2009
Summary
Criminal – appeal directly from the High Court under s 144A(1)(a) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 – intended appeal against the determination of the High Court by way of case stated under s 107 of the Summary Proceedings Act – whether direct appeal to the Supreme Court appropriate given that the Court of Appeal has previously refused leave to appeal on this point on the basis that there were no grounds for challenge to the well established interpretation of s 108 of the Summary Proceedings Act in Davis v Mingins (HC, Rot, AP 48/91, 30/10/91, Fisher J). CRI 2009 485 83  25 November 2009
Result

Application for leave to appeal granted.

18 March 2010

_____________________________

Appeal allowed. Order made in the High Court remitting the matter for consideration in the District Court is quashed.

Reasons to be given later.
Leave judgment - leave granted
BIRCHLER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE SC 116/2009 [18 March 2010]
Substantive judgment / Media release
BIRCHLER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE SC 116/09 [11 August 2010]
Transcript

11 August 2010
Case name
Television  New Zealand Limited v Simunovich Fisheries Limited and others
Case number
SC 70/2008
Summary
Civil – Defamation – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the repetition and conduct rules of pleading apply to a defence of truth – whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that a defendant may not seek to prove the truth of imputations by reference to the opinions or assertions of others – did the Court of Appeal err in holding that s 38 does not permit third party assertions and opinion to be pleaded for the defence of truth – was the Court of Appeal wrong to find that a defendant is not entitled to rely on third party assertions as publication facts on which a defence of honest opinion is based, but must identify true statements of facts in the publication which may not include the fact that others made allegations or expressed opinions.[2008] NZCA  350  CA 447/07 CA 584/07     8 September  2008
Result

Application for leave to appeal granted.

1 December 2008

________________________

Appeal dismissed.

Costs $15,000 to the respondent jointly with one half of their disbursements.

26 August 2009
Transcript
Hearing date : 9 and 10 June 2009
Case name
Gisborne District Council v Port Gisborne Limited (now known as Tauwhareparae Farms Ltd) and Ors
Case number
SC 63/2007
Summary
Civil – strike-out – whether lower Courts erred in refusing to strike out cause of action in negligence – respondent company seeking contribution from applicant Council in proceedings against them arising from the Jody F Millennium grounding – whether Court of Appeal conflated negligence and statutory duty causes of action – whether there can be a duty of care to protect someone from loss arising from his or her legal liability for negligence – whether respondent entitled in these circumstances to claim that applicant owed parallel duties of care to other parties including the ship – whether Court of Appeal erred in awarding full costs against the applicant. CA 118/06 10 August 2007
Result

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

19 January 2008
Judgment appealed from

Gisborne District Council v Port Gisborne limited (now known as Tauwhareparae Farms Limited) and ors [2007] NZCA 344 (10 August 2007)
Case name
Lisa Kathryn Cropp v A Judicial Committee & Bryan Francis McKenzie
Case number
SC 68/2007
Summary
Civil – judicial review – respondents instituted disciplinary proceedings after applicant, a jockey, tested positive for controlled drugs – applicant invoking rights to bodily integrity, to avoid self-incrimination and to be free from unreasonable search and seizure – application of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – whether regulatory requirement that jockeys consent to random drug testing as condition of obtaining and retaining a jockey’s licence authorised by s 29 Racing Act 2003 – whether applicant consented to drug testing – whether prescribed procedure and requirements for drug testing lawful and reasonable.CA 203/07 [2007] NZCA 423 27 September 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted

29 November 2007

_________________________

Appeal dismissed. Costs $15,000 to the 2nd respondent
17 June 2008
Leave judgment - leave granted
CROPP v A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE AND ANOR SC 68/2007 [29 November 2007]
Judgment appealed from
Cropp v Judicial Committee [2007] NZCA 423; [2008] NZAR 50 (27 September 2007)
Substantive judgment / Media release
CROPP v A JUDICIAL COMMITTEE And Anor SC 68/2007 [17 June 2008]
Transcript
Hearing date : 13 March 2008
Case name
W v The Queen
Case number
SC 74/2007
Summary
Criminal – appeal against convictions for historical sexual offending – whether the admission of evidence in rebuttal to a recent complaint allegation, which evidence the Court of Appeal held to be inadmissible, created a miscarriage of justice. [2007] NZCA 408 CA 164/07 11 September 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed .

5 December 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
W V R SC 74/2007 5 December 2007
Judgment appealed from
R v W [2007] NZCA 408 (11 September 2007)
Page 39 of 41