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
Vector Limited v Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 46/2012
Summary
[2012]NZCA 220  CA   702/2011
Result

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved grounds are whether under the Commerce Act 1986 the s 54K(3) power:

(i) is able to be exercised in the manner provided for in s 53P(3)(b) in the absence of a published input methodology (or methodologies) specific to starting price adjustment under s 53P(3)(b); and, if so:

(ii) permits change only to the extent necessitated by the newly published input methodology relied on by the Commission.

14 August 2012

__________________________

The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay the respondent costs of $40,000 together with disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar. 

15 November 2012
Transcript

Hearing dates : 9 and 10 October 2012

McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Blanchard, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Dorchester Finance Limited v Deloitte & Perpetual Trust Limited
Case number
SC 47/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contract Law –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the “Limit on Action” clause at issue in this case did not have the effect of extinguishing the underlying debt to which it applies – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to apply the fundamental principles of the law of contract – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that a limit on action clause did not have substantive effect – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its construction of the subject limit on action clause.[2012]NZCA 226  CA  57/2011
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 
The applicant is to pay costs of $5,000 to each respondent, plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. 

11 September 2012.
Case name
Christopher Edward Huggins v The Queen
Case number
SC 51/2012
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction – Crimes Act 1961, s 132(3) – Doing an indecent act on a child under 12 years – Unreasonable verdict – Insufficient evidence to convict – Court of Appeal erred in holding that lies told by the accused contributed to cogent circumstantial evidence of guilt.  [2012]NZCA 261  CA   768/2011
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

25 September 2012.
Case name
Arthur William Taylor v The Queen
Case number
SC 53/2012
Summary
Criminal Law – Appeal against Conviction and Sentence – Whether the Court of Appeal was in error in holding that there was a sufficient factual foundation for the charge to go to the jury – Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive (due to disproportionate uplift for previous offending or failure to take into account undue delay) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing interception evidence to be admitted – Whether the Applicant’s right of appeal was deprived (through failure to present to the Applicant a pre-trial ruling on admissibility and/or failure to offer an opportunity for the Applicant to make submissions after the hearing) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that there had been no breach of the Applicant’s right to trial without undue delay[2012]NZCA 332  CA  371/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 November 2012.
Case name
New Zealand Dairy Processing Limited v Schenker (NZ) Limited
Case number
SC 55/2012
Summary
Civil – Statutory demand – Companies Act 1993, s 290(4)(b) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that management services were provided under a logistics and warehouse agreement – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in implicitly holding that further terms could be imposed in relation to the provision of services by virtue of statements made in invoices issued after the terms on which the provision of services had been agreed – Whether the Court of Appeal set the evidential threshold for counterclaim too high. [2012]NZCA 343  CA  859/2011
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 

The applicant is to pay costs of $5,000 to the respondent, plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.

25 October 2012.
Case name
Visy Board Pty Limited v Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 63/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Competition Law – Commerce Act 1986, s 4 – Application of the Commerce Act 1986 to conduct outside New Zealand – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the phrase “to the extent that such conduct affects a market in New Zealand” in s 4(1) of the Act encompasses conduct that merely “relates to” a market in New Zealand – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that whether or not a person is “carrying on business in New Zealand” is a question of fact involving a wide variety of factors, not one of which is essential for marking a positive finding – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to interpret properly r 6.29 of the High Court Rules. [2012]NZCA 383   CA  312/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 November 2012.
Case name
Godfrey Waterhouse and Robert John Waterhouse v Contractors Bonding Limited
Case number
SC 66/2012
Summary
Civil appeal – Litigation funding agreement – Law of Maintenance and Champerty ¬– Extent of Court oversight over litigation involving such agreements –Whether Court of Appeal was correct to order disclosure to the defendant of particular details of the plaintiff’s agreement to prevent potential abuse of process ¬– Whether degree of disclosure was appropriate.  [2012]NZCA 399  CA  200/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved questions are:
(i) whether the appellants should be ordered to disclose the litigation agreement to the respondent; and
(ii) if so, on what terms.
14 November 2012
_____________________
tc
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
WATERHOUSE v CONTRACTORS BONDING LTD [2013] NZSC 89 [20 September 2013] (PDF, 255 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 19 March 2013
Case name
Ashley Dwayne Guy v The Queen
Case number
SC 67/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – evidence – Evidence Act 2006 – whether the transcript of an interview of the complainant (“the complainant transcript” ) was inadmissible as potentially prejudicial material – whether the complainant transcript was inadmissible as a prior inconsistent statement – whether the transcript of an interview with the accused (“the accused interview transcript”) was inadmissible – whether the trial Judge’s direction to the jury on evidence relating to the complainant was appropriate – whether the Court of Appeal erred in admitting the complainant and accused interview transcripts given the fact neither counsel nor the trial Judge had had the opportunity to address the jury on these materials.[2012]NZCA 416  CA  69/2012.
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred, notwithstanding the error in the jury being given and reading the two interview transcripts which had not been put into evidence.
20 December 2012.

10 April 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.Decision reserved.
Rehearing directed.
14 November 2013.

7 October 2014.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan  JJ.
Decision reserved.

Appeal allowed, conviction quashed,
New trial ordered.
19 November 2014
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
ASHLEY DWAYNE GUY v R [2014] NZSC 165 [19 November 2014] (PDF, 254 KB)
Case name
The Proprietors of Wakatu Incorporated and others v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 68/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Maori land – Whether, in the circumstances in which Maori land was acquired for the New Zealand Company’s Nelson settlement, the Crown was in breach of legally enforceable obligations owed to the owners from whom title was acquired – Whether the High Court erred in holding that no trust existed – Whether the High Court erred in finding that the Crown did not owe a fiduciary duty – Whether, if such obligations were owed, those owners have lost their right to enforce such obligations by reason of defences available to the Crown through lapse of time – Whether the High Court erred in finding that the appellants did not have standing to bring the proceeding.[2012]NZHC 1461  Civ 2010 442 181
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 November 2012.
Case name
Rajendra Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Limited and others
Case number
SC 69/2012
Summary
Civil appeal – Copyright Act 1994 – District Court Act 1947 - whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining the ownership of the copyright in dispute – whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining the correct court processes to be followed in relation to an order for costs and insolvency proceedings. [2012]NZHC  2582  CIV 2012 404 4172
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 plus disbursements to the respondents.
6 November 2012.
Page 51 of 78