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.
2 April 2026
Case information summary 2025 (as at 2 April 2026) – Cases where leave granted (Currently unavailable)
Case information summary 2025 (as at 2 April 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 122 KB)
All years
Case name
The Canyon Vineyard Ltd v Central Otago District Council and Bendigo Station Limited
Case number
SC 46/2023
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay both the respondents' costs of $2,500.
17 August 2023
B The applicant must pay both the respondents' costs of $2,500.
17 August 2023
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Port Otago Limited v Environmental Defence Society Incorporated, Otago Regional Council, Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated and Marlborough District Council
Case number
SC 6/2022
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Port Otago Ltd v Environmental Defence Society Inc [2021] NZCA 638).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
17 March 2022
______________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The order remitting the matter to the Environment Court is set aside.
C The Otago Regional Council is directed to consult the parties and any other persons it considers appropriate on a redrafted policy 4.3.7(d)–(e) in the proposed Otago Regional Policy Statement either:
(a) along the lines in paragraph [87] of this judgment or to similar effect; or
(b) otherwise to give appropriate effect to the policies of the NZCPS and their inter-relationships.
D Costs are reserved.
24 August 2023
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
17 March 2022
______________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The order remitting the matter to the Environment Court is set aside.
C The Otago Regional Council is directed to consult the parties and any other persons it considers appropriate on a redrafted policy 4.3.7(d)–(e) in the proposed Otago Regional Policy Statement either:
(a) along the lines in paragraph [87] of this judgment or to similar effect; or
(b) otherwise to give appropriate effect to the policies of the NZCPS and their inter-relationships.
D Costs are reserved.
24 August 2023
Date of hearing
11 May 2022
- 12 May 2022
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 Appellant Port Otago submissions (PDF, 7.5 MB)
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 Appellant Port Otago oral outline (PDF, 747 KB)
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 First Respondent EDS submissions (PDF, 861 KB)
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 Second Respondent ORC submissions (PDF, 335 KB)
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 Second Respondent ORC oral outline (PDF, 693 KB)
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 Third Respondent FB submissions (PDF, 855 KB)
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 Fourth Respondent MDC submissions (PDF, 998 KB)
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 Interested Party FB submissions (PDF, 671 KB)
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 Interested Party NZTA submissions (PDF, 997 KB)
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 Interested Party NZTA oral outline (PDF, 1 MB)
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 Interested Party Auckland Council submissions (PDF, 9.2 MB)
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 Interested Party Mana Whenua Parties submissions (PDF, 815 KB)
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 Interested Party Mana Whenua Parties oral outline (PDF, 650 KB)
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 Interested Party Ngati Whatua Orakei submissions (PDF, 695 KB)
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 Interested Party Ngati Whatua Orakei oral outline (PDF, 705 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing 11 and 12 May 2022 (PDF, 867 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 (PDF, 198 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2023] NZSC 112 (PDF, 326 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Wellsford Properties Limited and Garry Edward Hannam v Peter Anthony Sullivan and Port Albert Investments Limited
Case number
SC 52/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find Mr Hannam personally liable under s 9 of the Fair Trading Act – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to order damages of $424,371 against the applicant and Mr Hannam – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the applicant breached the agreement for sale and purchase and the Fair Trading Act 1986.
Result
A Notice of withdrawal having been filed the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
3 July 2019
3 July 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Case name
Port Otago Limited v Environmental Defence Society Incorporated , Otago Regional Council, Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated and Marlborough District Council
Case number
SC 107/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,000 plus usual disbursements to each of the first, second and third respondents.
22 April 2020
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,000 plus usual disbursements to each of the first, second and third respondents.
22 April 2020
Transcripts
- Hearing date 18 March 2020 (PDF, 217 KB)
Additional document
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
ASG v Harlene Hayne
Case number
SC 61/2016
Summary
Civil appeal – Criminal procedure Act, s 200 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of "publication" under s 200 – Was information relied on by the employer obtained contrary to an order made under s 200 and if so, does it matter. [2016] NZCA 203 CA703/2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (ASG v Hayne [2016] NZCA 203)
B The approved questions are:
(i) Did the disclosure to the respondent of information relating to the applicant’s appearance in the District Court breach s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011? And, if so
(ii) Was it nonetheless open to the respondent to rely on and use that information in relation to the applicant?
18 August 2016
___________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay to the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary).
3 May 2017
B The approved questions are:
(i) Did the disclosure to the respondent of information relating to the applicant’s appearance in the District Court breach s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011? And, if so
(ii) Was it nonetheless open to the respondent to rely on and use that information in relation to the applicant?
18 August 2016
___________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay to the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary).
3 May 2017
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 February 2017 (PDF, 301 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2017] NZSC 59 (PDF, 266 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
New Zealand Fire Service Commission v Insurance Brokers Association of New Zealand Incorporated and Vero Insurance Limited
Case number
SC 57/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (New Zealand Fire Service Commission v Insurance Brokers Association of New Zealand Inc [2014] NZCA 179).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to affirm the declarations made by the High Court.
18 August 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A The appeal is allowed.
B The declaration made in the High Court and upheld with amendments by the Court of Appeal in relation to split tier policies is set aside.
C The declaration made in the High Court and upheld in the Court of Appeal in relation to the New Zealand Ports Collective policy is also set aside.
D We make no order for costs.
13 May 2015
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to affirm the declarations made by the High Court.
18 August 2014
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A The appeal is allowed.
B The declaration made in the High Court and upheld with amendments by the Court of Appeal in relation to split tier policies is set aside.
C The declaration made in the High Court and upheld in the Court of Appeal in relation to the New Zealand Ports Collective policy is also set aside.
D We make no order for costs.
13 May 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 15 December 2014 (PDF, 666 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 59 (PDF, 251 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Environmental Defence Society Inc v The New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited and others
Case number
SC 82/2013
Summary
Civil – whether the High Court misinterpreted or misapplied policies 8, 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 – whether the High Court erred in is assessment of the Board of Inquiries application of Brown v Dunedin City Council to a private plan for aquaculture, involving the exclusory use of public domain costal marine area. [2013] NZHC 1992 CIV 2013 406 056
Result
1. The application under s 149V of the Resource Management Act 1991 by the Environmental Defence Society for leave to appeal the decision of the High Court dated 8 August 2013 is granted. The questions of law for determination on the appeal are:
(a) Was the Board of Inquiry’s approval of the Papatua plan change one made contrary to ss 66 and 67 of the Act through misinterpretation and misapplication of Policies 8, 13, and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement? This turns on:
(i) Whether, on its proper interpretation, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement has standards which must be complied with in relation to outstanding coastal landscape and natural character areas and, if so, whether the Papatua Plan Change complied with s 67(3)(b) of the Act because it did not give effect to Policies 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
(ii) Whether the Board properly applied the provisions of the Act and the need to give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement under s 67(3)(b) of the Act in coming to a “balanced judgment” or assessment “ in the round” in considering conflicting policies.
(b) Was the Board obliged to consider alternative sites or methods when determining a private plan change that is located in, or results in significant adverse effects on, an outstanding natural landscape or feature or outstanding natural character area within the coastal environment? This question raises the correctness of the approach taken by the High Court in Brown v Dunedin City Council [2003] NZRMA 420 and whether, if sound, the present case should properly have been treated as an exception to the general approach. Whether any error in approach was material to the decision made will need to be addressed if necessary.
18 October 2013
_______________________
The appeal is allowed.
The plan change in relation to Papatua at Port Gore did not comply with s 67(3)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 as it did not give effect to policies 13(1)(a) and 15(a) of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
Costs are reserved.
(a) By consent, the Minister of Conservation and the Director General of Primary Industries must each pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $5,625 by way of costs.
(b) The New Zealand King Salmon Company Ltd must pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $23,650 by way of costs, together with disbursements of $4,764.
19 November 2014
(a) Was the Board of Inquiry’s approval of the Papatua plan change one made contrary to ss 66 and 67 of the Act through misinterpretation and misapplication of Policies 8, 13, and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement? This turns on:
(i) Whether, on its proper interpretation, the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement has standards which must be complied with in relation to outstanding coastal landscape and natural character areas and, if so, whether the Papatua Plan Change complied with s 67(3)(b) of the Act because it did not give effect to Policies 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
(ii) Whether the Board properly applied the provisions of the Act and the need to give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement under s 67(3)(b) of the Act in coming to a “balanced judgment” or assessment “ in the round” in considering conflicting policies.
(b) Was the Board obliged to consider alternative sites or methods when determining a private plan change that is located in, or results in significant adverse effects on, an outstanding natural landscape or feature or outstanding natural character area within the coastal environment? This question raises the correctness of the approach taken by the High Court in Brown v Dunedin City Council [2003] NZRMA 420 and whether, if sound, the present case should properly have been treated as an exception to the general approach. Whether any error in approach was material to the decision made will need to be addressed if necessary.
18 October 2013
_______________________
The appeal is allowed.
The plan change in relation to Papatua at Port Gore did not comply with s 67(3)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991 as it did not give effect to policies 13(1)(a) and 15(a) of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.
Costs are reserved.
(a) By consent, the Minister of Conservation and the Director General of Primary Industries must each pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $5,625 by way of costs.
(b) The New Zealand King Salmon Company Ltd must pay the Environmental Defence Society Inc $23,650 by way of costs, together with disbursements of $4,764.
19 November 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 October 2013 (PDF, 284 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 38 (PDF, 98 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Ports of Auckland Limited v Southpac Trucks Limited
Case number
SC 18/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Carriage of Goods Act 1979 – Statutory Interpretation – Proper meaning of s 6 “not liable as such” – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its application of the statutory exemption conferred in s 6 of the Carriage of Goods Act – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its conclusion that fork lift operator negligently driving into truck and causing $60,000 damage was exempt from liability under s 16(2) of the Carriage of Goods Act with the consequence that Ports of Auckland Ltd could not be held vicariously liable.[2008] NZCA 573 CA 355/2007 22 December 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
3 April 2009
__________________________
Appeal allowed and the judgment of the High Court is restored. Appellant awarded costs of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements. Costs order in the Court of Appeal is reversed.
30 October 2009
3 April 2009
__________________________
Appeal allowed and the judgment of the High Court is restored. Appellant awarded costs of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements. Costs order in the Court of Appeal is reversed.
30 October 2009
Transcripts
- Hearing date 6 October 2009 (PDF, 150 KB)
Media Releases
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
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
Case name
Otago Station Estates Limited v John Robert Parker; and David John Parker and Lorraine Maree Parker.
Case number
SC CIV 6/2004
Summary
Civil appeal - method of payment of a deposit in a conveyancing transaction where notice of intention to cancel for non-payment of deposit has been given - whether payment in law requires legal tender or whether tendering a personal cheque is sufficient. CA 158/03 10 June 2004
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
12 October 2004
_____________________
The appeal is dismissed. Costs in favour of the respondents are to be fixed following receipt of memoranda of counsel.
19 April 2005
12 October 2004
_____________________
The appeal is dismissed. Costs in favour of the respondents are to be fixed following receipt of memoranda of counsel.
19 April 2005
Transcripts
- Hearing date 12 October 2004 (PDF, 63 KB)
- Hearing date 15 March 2005 (PDF, 257 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Judgment appealed from