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
Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited v The Grate Kiwi Cheese Company Limited & Kaimai Cheese Co Ltd
Case number
SC 38/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – the Commerce Commission made a final determination on 5 June 2009 that The Grate Kiwi Cheese Company Ltd and Kaimai Cheese Company Ltd were both entitled to raw milk from Fonterra under the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk) Regulations 2001 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Commerce Commission determination – whether an entity can be entitled to raw milk even though the entity does not itself process the milk[2011] NZCA 67   CA 223/2010
Result
Appeal dismissed. Costs $15,000 plus disbursements to the respondent. 15 March 2012
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
FONTERRA CO-OPERATIVE GROUP LIMITED v THE GRATE KIWI CHEESE COMPANY LIMITED SC 38/2011 [20 June 2011] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
FONTERRA CO-OPERATIVE GROUP LIMITED v THE GRATE KIWI CHEESE COMPANY LIMITED SC 38/2011 [15 March 2012] (PDF, 79 KB)
Transcription

Hearing date : 14 February 2012

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Maritime New Zealand v Survey Nelson Limited
Case number
SC 45/2011
Summary
Judicial Review – Direct appeal from High Court decision – Whether Court of Appeal decision which High Court interpreted correct (see SC 14/2011) – Accordingly, whether High Court decision correct – Whether failure to grant leave would result in substantial miscarriage of justice.   Civ  2011 485 391
Dates

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

8 June 2011.
Hearing
29 November 2011.
Elias CJ, Blanchard, McGrath, William Young, Gault JJ.
Decision reserved.
Case name
Neil Tony Hickman and others v Turn and Wave Limited, Greenstone Barclay Trustees Ltd and Iicon Central Ltd
Case number
SC 46/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Securities Act 1978 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 33 of the Securities Act, its interpretation of the term “debt security” under the Securities Act, and its interpretation of the scope of the exemption in s 5(1)(b) of the Securities Act – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that if the Blue Chip investment products were invalid, they were not interdependent with the sale and purchase agreements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the sale and purchase agreements were not tainted by illegality if in breach of s 33 of the Securities Act[2011] NZCA 100  CA 796/2009, CA 797/2009, CA 798/2009
Result

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
Transcript
Hearing date : 7 – 9 November 2011
Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Anderson JJ.
Case name
David Ingram Rowley and Barrie James Skinner v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 51/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Name Suppression – Interim name suppression order granted in the District Court, but overturned in High Court, with a Court of Appeal majority upholding the High Court’s decision – Whether Court of Appeal majority correctly applied the test for name suppression appeals – Whether Court of Appeal majority was right to uphold the view of the High Court Judge that the possible impact on financing of a defence was an irrelevant consideration – Whether Court of Appeal majority was correct in supporting the High Court Judge’s finding that the District Court Judge had failed to take into account a relevant consideration, namely the interest in clients of the appellants in knowing of the charges faced – Whether Court of Appeal majority was justified in holding that the High Court could make its own evaluation of the factors for and against name suppression if the District Court took into account irrelevant considerations or failed to take into account a relevant consideration.[2011] NZCA 160  CA 112/2011
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ROWLEY and SKINNER v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 51/2011 [7 July 2011] (PDF, 58 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is declined.
7 July 2011.
Case name
John George Russell v The Taxation Review Authority & Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 56/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Bias – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that any apparent bias on the part of Judge Barber in the Taxation Review Authority was “cured” by the effective rehearing held by Justice Wylie in the High Court – Whether the Court of Appeal took into account irrelevant matters or gave insufficient weight to relevant matters or made erroneous factual findings.[2011] NZCA 158  CA 65/2009
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 to the second respondent.
26 August 2011.
Case name
Warren Bruce Fenemor v The Queen
Case number
SC 60/2011
Summary
Criminal – Admissibility of propensity evidence –That some items of evidence admitted were inadmissible propensity evidence – That the trial Judge’s directions on the use of that evidence were inadequate – That the trial Judge erred in preventing the appellant from demonstrating his account of the incident.[2011] NZCA 206  CA 457/2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted in part. The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold, following R v Degnan that propensity evidence may be led by the Crown despite that evidence having previously been led at a trial which resulted in an acquittal.
We refuse leave to appeal on the other proposed grounds as they do not, in our view, meet the statutory criteria.
23 August 2011
_________________
Appeal dismissed.
21 October 2011
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
sc 60 2011 warren bruce fenemor v the queen (PDF, 130 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 4 October 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Pacific Farms Limited and Pacific Farms Development Limited v Palmerston North City Council and Palmerston North Industrial & Residential Developments Limited
Case number
SC 64/2011
Summary
Civil – Resource Management Act 1991 – Issue of consents without notice ¬– High Court declining to quash consents or grant declarations on terms sought by appellants – Whether Court of Appeal correct to set aside all of High Court’s declarations (and leave feasibility of a rehearing to the parties) on basis that late revelation of a relevant consent and regional plan meant that the critical issues were unable to be addressed in any meaningful way – Whether, in light of that finding, Court of Appeal correct to order parties to bear their own costs and set aside High Court costs orders – Extent of differentiation and/or overlap of functions and jurisdiction of Territorial Authorities and Regional Councils – Effect of regional plan on status of activity for notification purposes – Effect of principles of natural justice on Court of Appeal decision, particularly its decision to determine proceedings on a ground not the subject of pleadings or submissions by the parties.     [2011] NZCA 187    CA 116/2010
Dates
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
6 July 2011.
Case name
Sovereign Assurance Company Limited v Douglas Norman Scott
Case number
SC 69/2011
Summary
Civil – Insurance – Appeal against Court of Appeal decision holding High Court incorrect to strike out respondent’s proceeding – Whether proceeding out of time – Limitation Act 1950 – Whether Court of Appeal correct in finding it arguable that respondent’s cause of action accrued on or after 28 September 2000 – Distinction between occurrence of insured event and proof of insured event – Whether English authority on limitation and application of limitation statutes to insurance policies relevant in the context of contingency insurance policies for a fixed benefit payable under a critical illness policy in New Zealand – Relevance of respondent’s eventual cancellation of policy – Consistency of Court of Appeal’s decision with principles in Trustees Executors Ltd v Murray [2007] NZSC 27, [2007] 3 NZLR 721. [2011] NZCA 214   CA 452/2010
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $2,500.

22 September 2011
Case name
Right to Life New Zealand Inc v The Abortion Supervisory Committee
Case number
SC 73/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that none of statutory functions or powers of Abortion Supervisory Committee entitle or require Committee to scrutinise or review certifying consultants’ particular clinical decisions or diagnoses after the fact – Whether judicial review requires that applicant identify a decision challenged – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding counselling services provided under CSA Act were “adequate” – Whether Court of Appeal erred in implicitly finding no State and common law interest in preservation of life of unborn child which ought to influence interpretation of CSA Act.[2011] NZCA 246   CA 522/2009
Result

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
Transcript

Hearing date : 13 March 2012

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
David Mitchell v Bluestar Print Group (NZ) Limited
Case number
SC 74/2011
Summary
[2010] NZCA 385   CA 504/2009
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
22 September 2011.
Page 54 of 78