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
MFT Properties Limited v Country Club Apartments Limited
Case number
SC 123/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Leases – Contracts Enforcement Act 1956 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding a binding oral agreement to vary rental rate rather than indulgence revocable at will by lessor – Whether oral agreement constituted sufficient memorandum for purposes or Contracts Enforcement Act or whether alternatively doctrine of part performance could apply to agreement – Whether Court of Appeal erred in factual findings in respect of accommodation charge set-off and penalty interest liability.[2011] NZCA 560 CA 244/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed, costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
29 February 2012.
29 February 2012.
Case name
Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Inc and others v OCS Limited
Case number
SC 124/2011
Summary
Employment – Employment Relations Act 2000, ss 69N(3) and 69O – Relationship between the Act and the parties’ (collective) employment agreement – Express exclusion of monetary compensation for redundancy by terms of agreement, with alternative forms of entitlement also provided for – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that appellants are not entitled to seek (bargain for) appropriate redundancy entitlements under the Act [2011] NZCA 597 CA 865/2010
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved questions are whether, and if so to what extent, the multi-employer collective employment agreement precludes the second appellants from bargaining for redundancy entitlements under s 69N of the Employment Relations Act 2000.
28 February 2012
_________________________
The appeal is allowed.
The orders made by the Court of Appeal are set aside.
The orders made by the Employment Court are reinstated.
9 August 2012
Transcript
Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Gault, Blanchard JJ.
Case name
Xing Hua Du v Ming Gu
Case number
SC 127/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Joint Venture Agreement – The applicant and respondent were parties to a joint venture agreement, the terms of which were breached by the respondent, but the respondent raised a number of positive defences – The Court of Appeal held that the respondent was allowed to avoid the joint agreement because of the applicant’s failure to comply with ss 63 and 64 of the Real Estate Agents Act 1976 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the termination of the agency agreement between the applicant and a real estate agency required, by way of reasonable notice, not less than 14 days notice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that, because the agency agreement was still afoot, and because ss 63 and 64 of the Real Estate Agents Act were not complied with, the joint venture agreement was voidable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the respondent’s cancellation of the joint venture agreement was a valid exercise of her rights under s 63(3) of the Real Estate Agents Act.[2011] NZCA 577 CA 867/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the respondent.
6 March 2012.
6 March 2012.
Case name
Josephine Takamore v Denise Clarke and Nehuata Takamore & Donald Takamore
Case number
SC 131/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Customary Law – Approach to determining whether Tūhoe burial custom forms part of the common law – Whether the Court of Appeal majority erred in its analysis of the reasonableness of the Tū hoe custom – Whether the Court of Appeal majority was wrong to hold that the Tūhoe custom was insufficiently certain to form part of the common law – Whether the Court of Appeal majority was correct to hold that Tū hoe custom was a relevant cultural consideration for an executor or executrix where one or more of the whānau pani of the deceased is Tūhoe and the deceased is Tūhoe under Tūhoe custom – Whether the Court of Appeal minority judgment raised important issues about the approach to findings of fact in the High Court[2011] NZCA 587 CA 525/2009
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds of appeal are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that New Zealand law entitled the executrix to determine disposal of the body of the deceased and whether it was correct to hold that the executrix is entitled to take possession of the body of the deceased notwithstanding its burial.
28 March 2012
________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The first respondent is entitled to proceed under the exhumation licence to have Mr Takamore reburied in a place of her choosing.
C The matter is remitted back to the High Court in case any consequential orders are necessary.
D Costs are reserved.
18 December 2012
B The approved grounds of appeal are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that New Zealand law entitled the executrix to determine disposal of the body of the deceased and whether it was correct to hold that the executrix is entitled to take possession of the body of the deceased notwithstanding its burial.
28 March 2012
________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The first respondent is entitled to proceed under the exhumation licence to have Mr Takamore reburied in a place of her choosing.
C The matter is remitted back to the High Court in case any consequential orders are necessary.
D Costs are reserved.
18 December 2012
Transcripts
- Hearing date 17-18 July 2012 SC 131/2011 (PDF, 1 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2012] NZSC 116 (PDF, 92 KB)
Substantive judgment
TAKAMORE v CLARKE SC 131/2011 [18 December 2012] (PDF, 556 KB)
Case name
Vodafone New Zealand Limited v Telecom New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 4/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Communications - Telecommunications Act 2001 – Final Determination by Commerce Commission for Telecommunications Services Obligations Instrument for Local Residential Service - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in maintaining the Commerce Commission’s approach to the calculation of the costs of providing Telecommunications Services Obligations in accordance with the requirements of ‘net cost’ under s 5 of the Telecommunications Act 2001.[2009] NZCA 565 CA 192/2008 2 December 2009
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
Leave judgment - leave granted
Dates
Application for leave to appeal granted.
The approved ground is whether the Commerce Commission, in making its determination, complied with the applicable statutory provisions.
30 March 2010
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order for costs.
17 November 2011
Transcript
Hearing date : 21 – 24 February 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Case name
William Patrick Jeffries v The Privacy Commissioner
Case number
SC 5/2010
Summary
Civil – Litigation privilege – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that unsolicited communication does not attract litigation privilege under s56 of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the word ‘person’ in s91(4) of the Privacy Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to apply s74 of the Evidence Act 2006 to matters before the Privacy Commissioner – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to review the Privacy Commissioner’ s decisions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not addressing s27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2009] NZCA 567 CA 339/2008 3 December 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. The approved ground is whether unsolicited communications received by the applicant while acting as a barrister are capable of attracting litigation privilege.
31 March 2010
_______________________
The appeal is dismissed. Any claim of privilege must be referred for the determination of the Privacy Commissioner in accordance with this judgment. No order for costs is made.
12 August 2010
31 March 2010
_______________________
The appeal is dismissed. Any claim of privilege must be referred for the determination of the Privacy Commissioner in accordance with this judgment. No order for costs is made.
12 August 2010
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
DSL Logistics Limited v New Zealand Sports Merchandising Limited
Case number
SC 6/2010
Summary
Civil – Contract – Law of entire obligations – Termination of contract for the storage and dispatch of merchandise – whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the law of entire obligations to the contract – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its construction of Appendix B work as an entire obligation – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to take into consideration the substantial performance of the contract by the applicants – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of clause 7.5 of the standard form agreement[2009] NZCA 566 CA 691/2009 1 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the respondent.
30 March 2010.
Case name
John Hanita Paki and others v Attorney-General
Case number
SC 7/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “navigable river” in terms of s 14 of the Coal Mines Amendment Act 1903; whether the Waikato River was navigable for the purposes of s 14; whether, in the 1880s and 1890s, the Crown owed the appellants’ ancestors, as Maori and Treaty of Waitangi partners, a fiduciary duty or a relational duty of good faith not to acquire their land or taonga except with their full and informed consent, namely, whether the Crown owed an obligation to advise the original owners of the usque ad medium filum aquae principle (legal title to land runs to midpoint of riverbed) and, if so, whether the Crown breach either of those duties; whether the appellants’ ancestors had customary title to the river; whether the appellants (as representatives or otherwise of the Pouakani hapu) have standing to bring their claim; whether the appellants’ claim is time-barred under the Limitation Act 1950; whether the appellants’ claim is barred under s 12 of the Pouakani Claims Settlement Act 2000;[2009] NZCA 566 CA 691/2009 1 December 2009
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds are: (i) Did the applicants have standing to bring the proceeding in a representative capacity? (ii) Did s 14 of the Coalmines Amendment Act 1903 vest title in the riverbed adjoining the Pouakani lands in the Crown? (iii) If not, did the Crown acquire title to the claimed part of the riverbed through application of the presumption of riparian ownership ad medium filum aquae by reason of its acquisition of the riparian lands? (iv) If so, in the circumstances in which the Crown acquired the claimed part of the riverbed, was it in breach of legally enforceable obligations owed to the owners from whom title was acquired? (v) If so, have the applicants lost their right to enforce such obligations by reason of defences available to the Crown through lapse of time? (vi) If not, what relief is appropriate? C The Registrar is directed to set down the hearing of the first two questions only for hearing at a fixture of 2 days. Further timetabling and direction orders for hearing of the remaining Questions will be made at or following the first hearing. The Court may review the expression of grounds 3 to 6 if it considers it appropriate to do so after hearing the argument of questions 1 and 2.
21 July 2010
________________
The appellants have standing to bring the proceedings in a representative capacity. The riverbed adjoining the Pouakani lands is not vested in the Crown under s 261 of the Coal Mines Act 1979 and s 354 of the Resource Management Act 1991. Costs are reserved.
27 June 2012
_______________
Appeal dismissed.
29 August 2014
B The approved grounds are: (i) Did the applicants have standing to bring the proceeding in a representative capacity? (ii) Did s 14 of the Coalmines Amendment Act 1903 vest title in the riverbed adjoining the Pouakani lands in the Crown? (iii) If not, did the Crown acquire title to the claimed part of the riverbed through application of the presumption of riparian ownership ad medium filum aquae by reason of its acquisition of the riparian lands? (iv) If so, in the circumstances in which the Crown acquired the claimed part of the riverbed, was it in breach of legally enforceable obligations owed to the owners from whom title was acquired? (v) If so, have the applicants lost their right to enforce such obligations by reason of defences available to the Crown through lapse of time? (vi) If not, what relief is appropriate? C The Registrar is directed to set down the hearing of the first two questions only for hearing at a fixture of 2 days. Further timetabling and direction orders for hearing of the remaining Questions will be made at or following the first hearing. The Court may review the expression of grounds 3 to 6 if it considers it appropriate to do so after hearing the argument of questions 1 and 2.
21 July 2010
________________
The appellants have standing to bring the proceedings in a representative capacity. The riverbed adjoining the Pouakani lands is not vested in the Crown under s 261 of the Coal Mines Act 1979 and s 354 of the Resource Management Act 1991. Costs are reserved.
27 June 2012
_______________
Appeal dismissed.
29 August 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 19 July 2010 (PDF, 266 KB)
- Hearing date 15-16 March 2011 SC 7/2010 (PDF, 940 KB)
- Hearing date 19 and 20 February 2013 SC 07/2010 (PDF, 768 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2012 ] NZSC 50 (PDF, 87 KB)
- MR [2014] NZSC 118 (PDF, 102 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Case name
Synlait Limited v Central Plains Water Trust and Ors
Case number
SC 9/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991 – Water rights - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that priority of hearing is determined in favour of the first applicant to file a complete application – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to give adequate consideration to whether changes to an application after lodgement could affect which test would be applicable to determine priority and whether priority is maintained irrespective of what changes are made subsequent to lodgement – Whether the Court of Appeal provided inadequate recognition of the fact that an application can lose priority due to unreasonable delay.[2009] NZCA 609 CA 544/2008. CA 588/2008 18 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave granted
Hearing
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.
22 June 2010.
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is how priority is determined as between competing applications under the Resource Management Act 1991 for a finite resource.
31 March 2010.
Case name
Michael Shane McElroy and others as trustees of the Craigie Trust v Auckland International Airport Limited
Case number
SC 11/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Public Works Act 1981 – Respondent not subject to the obligation in s 40 of the Act to offer back to the applicant land no longer required for the public work for which it was held – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the word “required” in s 40 – whether the Court of Appeal misinterpreted the term “ aerodrome” or “airport” as defined by the Act and the Airport Authorities Act 1966 – whether the Court’s interpretation of “ aerodrome” or “airport” undermines the purposes of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the qualifications in s 40(2) of the Act would nonetheless apply to exclude the respondent from the requirement to offer back the land[2009] NZCA 621 CA 440/2008 23 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
9 June 2010.
Page 56 of 78