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
John Anthony Waller and Richard Dale Agnew v Stephen John Davies and others
Case number
SC 20/2007
Summary
Civil – applicants were appointed statutory managers of CH Finance Ltd pursuant to the Corporations (Investigation and Management) Act 1989 – CH Finance had devised a money lending scheme targeted at homeowners – CH Finance had become the registered proprietor of twelve properties pursuant to this scheme – properties mortgaged variously to the second to sixth respondents – statutory managers applied to the High Court pursuant to s 58 of that Act for directions relating to the twelve properties – statutory managers appealed that decision, cross-appeal by first respondent – statutory managers seek leave to appeal Court of Appeal decision - whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the statutory managers’ application for directions under s 58 of the Corporations (Investigation and Management) Act 1989 without providing directions or without remitting the application to the High Court for further directions – whether homeowners have an equitable interest arising out of fraudulent misrepresentations made to them – whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that counsel for the first respondent had not conceded that fraudulent misrepresentations had been made – whether the homeowners have an equitable interest arising out of a common law mortgage or an option to purchase – whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that first respondent not guilty of fraud under the Land Transfer Act 1952 on the basis that homeowners had no equitable interest to defeat – whether the second to fifth respondents were guilty of fraud by way of imputation and/or attribution –whether costs in respect of the homeowners whose properties were transferred by forgery should be determined by the High Court or Court of Appeal. CA 65/05 7 March 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs of $2,000 to first respondent, and $2,000 to second to sixth respondents as a group, plus disbursements. 13 June 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Vincent Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassny & Ferrier Hodgson
Case number
SC 26/2007
Summary
Summary Civil appeal – breach of interim injunction restraining publication of certain material relating to respondent – applicant found guilty of contempt of court – nature of proceedings; whether arising from an originating or interlocutory application – evidential rules applicable to such proceedings – allegations of judicial bias. CA 55/06; CA 150/06 4 April 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs of $2,5000 to the respondents.
12 July 2007
12 July 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIEMER v STIASSNY AND ANOR SC 26/2007 [12 July 2007] (PDF, 24 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Kem Raju Samy v The Queen
Case number
SC 32/2007
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction - whether the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s appeal without allowing him to be properly heard – whether the appellant should have been permitted to return to New Zealand for the Court of Appeal hearing of his appeal against conviction - whether an adjournment should have been given to allow the appellant to be located and cross-examined via video-conference. CA 123/05 23 April 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SAMY v R SC 32/2007 [5 December 2007] (PDF, 19 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Georgina Kain, George Harry Couper Kain, George Charles Kain, George Thomas Carlton Kain and George Michael Kain and others v Jonathan Rhodes Hutton and others
Case number
SC 40/2007
Summary
Civil – dispute between family members over administration of a number of trusts – whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that resettlement of trust assets was valid – validity of exercise of power of appointment – power of advancement – s 41(c) of Trustee Act 1956 – whether appointment and settlement of shares was valid and not a fraud on the power – whether Court of Appeal erred in refusing to order the Second and Third Respondents to account to the trusts for profits made on the purchase of two farms – whether Court of Appeal erred in not finding a serious breach of trust – whether Court of Appeal erred in finding a particular part of consent order to be valid – interests of grandchildren – s 64A of Trustee Act 1956.CA 237/03, CA 271/04, CA 4/05 22 May 2007
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
20 November 2007
20 November 2007
Transcripts
- Hearing date 19 November 2007 SC 40/2007 (PDF, 128 KB)
- Hearing date 10 June 2008 SC 40/2007 (PDF, 281 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2008] NZSC 61 (PDF, 88 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
KAIN AND ORS v HUTTON AND ORS SC 40/2007 [7 August 2008] (PDF, 113 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Transpower New Zealand Limited v Todd Energy Limited
Case number
SC 55/2007
Summary
Civil Appeal – whether summary judgment should have been issued for the defendant – whether some or all of the actions against the applicant should be struck out – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that section 19 of the Electricity Amendment Act 2001 did not amount to an authorisation under section 43 of the Commerce Act 1986 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that long term infrastructure substitution between embedded generation and transmission is arguably contemplated by the Commerce Act 1986 definition of “market” – whether the respondent’s claim is a complaint that the applicant charges too much – whether such a complaint is capable of amounting to a breach of Part 2 of the Commerce Act 1986 – whether the Court of Appeal applied a more demanding standard for summary judgment – whether the Court of Appeal erred by finding that the respondent can choose between local and national electricity markets when presenting its case at trial – whether the Court of Appeal erred by allowing the argument that the respondent’s local electricity generation competes with the applicant’s transmission services to go to trial when that argument was struck out in another case – whether a claim that the applicant’ s “tying” or ”unbundling” of services has the purpose or likely effect of substantially lessening competition should go to trial where the services were not able to be tied or bundled and the claim is in substance a claim about overcharging. CA 80/05 and CA 177/06 20 July 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal and cross appeal dismissed. 13 December 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Michael Raymond Main v Kevin Evan Main
Case number
SC 56/2007
Summary
Civil appeal – Residential Tenancies Act 1986, s 2(3) – whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that the respondent had proved that the premises were let principally for purposes other than residential purposes – whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to make s 2(3) finding – whether the respondent had complied with the Court of Appeal’ s order as to the filing of additional evidence – whether the Court of Appeal failed to take into account evidence filed.CA 25/07 23 July 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to respondent. 8 October 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MAIN v MAIN SC 56/2007 [8 October 2007] (PDF, 13 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Saxmere Company Limited, The Escorial Company Limited, Richard King, Russell Stewart Emmerson and Forest Ramge Limited v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Limited
Case number
SC 64/2007
Summary
Civil – applicants challenged the Wool Board’s decisions allocating funding for wool marketing, seeking judicial review and restitution of levies paid and alleging breach of statutory duty (s 6(6) Wool Act 1997) and negligence – High Court Judge found the Board liable in damages for breach of statutory duty and negligence, in relation to one of their four decisions – Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the respondent and dismissed a cross-appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its analysis of the Board’ s decisions under s 6(6) of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal took proper account of the context and purpose of the Wool Act – whether the Court of Appeal failed to address the existence of a duty of care independent of s 6(6) – whether the Court of Appeal erred by making material factual findings which differed from the trial Judge and which were contrary to the evidence heard by the trial Judge – whether the High Court Judge erred in limiting his damages to only one of the four decisions, and in denying restitution of levies.CA 222/05 [2007] NZCA 349 15 August 2007 CIV 485 – 2003 – 2724 6 December 2005
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
12 November 2007
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
3 July 2009
__________________________
The judgment of this Court delivered on 3 July 2009 ([2009] NZSC 72) is recalled and the orders made in that judgment are set aside. The appeal is allowed and the proceeding remitted for rehearing in the Court of Appeal. Costs are reserved. Counsel should make written submissions directed to how costs should be borne for the previous hearing in the Court of Appeal and the two hearings in this Court.
27 November 2009
12 November 2007
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
3 July 2009
__________________________
The judgment of this Court delivered on 3 July 2009 ([2009] NZSC 72) is recalled and the orders made in that judgment are set aside. The appeal is allowed and the proceeding remitted for rehearing in the Court of Appeal. Costs are reserved. Counsel should make written submissions directed to how costs should be borne for the previous hearing in the Court of Appeal and the two hearings in this Court.
27 November 2009
Media Releases
- saxmere v wool board press release 3 july 2009 (PDF, 89 KB)
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Substantive judgment / Media release
Special leave judgment
Case name
James Arthur Rose v Karen Diane Rose
Case number
SC 73/2007
Summary
Civil – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – whether a partnership interest is an asset for the purposes of the Act – whether improvements to land that is relationship property form part of that land by operation of Land Transfer Act 1952 definition of “land” – whether increases in value to property caused by inflation are within the scope of claims under s 9A(1) or 9A(2) – whether s 9A(2) claim required evidence of an action by the respondent that had the effect of increasing the value of the property – whether s 2G requires assets and liabilities to be valued at the same date. [2007] NZCA 406 CA 212/06 11 September 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
6 December 2007
___________________________
Appeal and cross appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
19 May 2009
6 December 2007
___________________________
Appeal and cross appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
19 May 2009
Leave judgment - leave granted
ROSE V ROSE SC 73/2007 [6 December 2007] (PDF, 14 KB)
Substantive judgment / Media release
Transcript
Case name
Terrence Austin McFarland v The Queen
Case number
SC 79/2007
Summary
Criminal – appeal against conviction for maiming with intent to cause grievous bodily harm – applicant was unrepresented at trial – amicus curiae appointed without prior notice to the applicant, in his absence, and without his consent – whether the amicus made a substantial error in failing to advise the applicant against calling evidence from the former co-accused – whether the trial Judge erred by misdirecting the jury on the standard of proof and failing to provide directions on the cross-examination and the submissions made to the jury by crown counsel.[2007] NZCA 449 CA 385/06 18 October 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 5 March 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MCFARLAND v R SC 79/2007 [5 March 2008] (PDF, 19 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Bronwyn Estate Limited, Barry’s Car Sales, Patrick Antony Darby v Gareth Russel Hoole and Kevin David Pitfield as receivers of Hillcrest Services Limited (in receivership) and Hillcrest Services Limited
Case number
SC 81/2007
Summary
Civil appeal – costs awarded against applicants for Anton Pillar application – applicants appealed against cost award – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse to dispense with security for costs – whether this decision denies the applicants access to justice by preventing them from continuing with their appeal. CA 133/07 1 November 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed . Costs $1,500 to the respondents. 8 February 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 18 of 21