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
Gregory Campbell Oliver Nielsen v Body Corporate No. 199348 and Ors
Case number
SC 39/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Civil procedure - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the applicant had acted unreasonably in progressing his legal aid application – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding the appeal had been abandoned.[2010] NZCA 101  CA 43/2009   20 April 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
NIELSEN v BODY CORPORATE NO 199348 And Ors SC 39/2010 [29 June 2010] (PDF, 36 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed  with costs $2,500 to the respondents.

29 June 2010.
Case name
Vining Realty Group Limited v Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited and Ors
Case number
SC 40/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Misrepresentation – Quantification of Damages – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding inappropriate measure of expectation damages owed by Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks to Altimarloch Joint Venture in respect of purchase of land where water rights misrepresented – Whether proper measure of damages is difference between actual value and represented value not cost to remedy property to meet purchaser’ s original expectation.[2010] NZCA 104  CA 438/2008 and CA 213/2009   29 March 2010
Result
A The application for leave to appeal are granted.
B  The approved ground is whether the award of damages against DS & JW Moorhouse (in respect of which they are entitled to be fully indemnified by Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks) was appropriately quantified on an expectation basis.  
14 July 2010
______________________________
Appeal dismissed.
Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks are to pay the Council costs of $5,000.  They are to pay in the proportions fixed in the Court of Appeal, namely 60 per cent by Vining Realty and 40 per cent by Gascoigne Wicks.
Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks are to pay in the same proportions costs of $10,000 to Altimarloch.
In each case where costs are awarded, disbursements shall be added as agreed or fixed by the Registrar.
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
VINING REALTY GROUP LIMITED v ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED And Anor SC 40/2010 [14 July 2010] (PDF, 39 KB)
Substantive judgment
MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL v ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED SC 33/2010 [5 March 2012] (PDF, 595 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 14 and 15 February 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Gascoinge Wicks v Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited and Ors
Case number
SC 41/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Misrepresentation – Whether Court of Appeal wrong to find that Alitmarloch Joint Venture Ltd induced by representations made by Gascoigne Wicks and Vining Realty to enter into and confirm contract for sale and purchase – Whether reasonable in the circumstances for AJVL to act in reliance on representations.[2010] NZCA 104  CA 438/2008 and CA 213/2009   29 March 2010
Result
A The application for leave to appeal are granted.
B  The approved ground is whether the award of damages against DS & JW Moorhouse (in respect of which they are entitled to be fully indemnified by Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks) was appropriately quantified on an expectation basis.

 

14 July 2010

_______________________________

Appeal dismissed.
Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks are to pay the Council costs of $5,000.  They are to pay in the proportions fixed in the Court of Appeal, namely 60 per cent by Vining Realty and 40 per cent by Gascoigne Wicks.
Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks are to pay in the same proportions costs of $10,000 to Altimarloch.
In each case where costs are awarded, disbursements shall be added as agreed or fixed by the Registrar.
Transcript

Hearing date : 14 and 15 February 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Abdirazak Yussuf Mussa v The Queen
Case number
SC 43/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Appellant convicted in District Court on two counts of rape – Whether Court of Appeal and District Court erred in failing to properly weigh unfairly prejudicial effect of certain evidence against its probative effect – Whether trial Judge failed to give adequate directions as to limited use to which that evidence could be put.[2010] NZCA 123  CA 281/2009    1 April  2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MUSSA v R SC 43/2010 [5 July 2010] (PDF, 16 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

5 July 2010.
Case name
Commerce Commission v Vodafone New Zealand Limited and Telecom New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 44/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Communications - Telecommunications Act 2001 - Whether the Commerce Commission erred in its calculation of the net cost of providing Telecommunications Services Obligation under the Act by ceasing to introduce new technology into the modelled network.Civ 2008 485 2194/295/ 2341    1 April  2010
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. Approved ground of appeal is whether the Commerce Commission in making its determination complied with applicable statutory provsion.
14 May 2010
__________________________
Appeal dismissed.  No order for costs.
17 November 2011
Substantive judgment
sc 4 2010 vodafone new zealand ltd v telecom new zealand ltd (PDF, 256 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
COMMERCE COMMISSION v VODAFONE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED AND TELECOM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED SC 44/2010 [14 May 2010] (PDF, 8 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 21 – 24 February 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Case name
Telecom New Zealand Limited v Vodafone New Zealand  Limited and Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 45/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Communications – Telecommunications Act 2001 – Whether the High Court erred in holding that there was no reviewable inconsistency or error of law in the Commerce Commission’s determination to reduce material input in its modelling methodology based on the removal from its modelling of a technological optimisation factor.Civ 2008 485 2194/295/ 2341    1 April  2010
Substantive judgment
sc 4 2010 vodafone new zealand ltd v telecom new zealand ltd (PDF, 256 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
COMMERCE COMMISSION v VODAFONE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED AND TELECOM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED SC 44/2010 [14 May 2010] (PDF, 8 KB)
Transcript

Hearing dates : 21 – 24 February

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Dates

Application for leave to appeal granted.

Approved ground of appeal is whether the Commerce Commission in making its determination complied with applicable statutory provsion.

14 May 2010

__________________________

Appeal dismissed.  No order for costs.

17 November 2011
Case name
Telecom New Zealand Limited v Vodafone New Zealand  Limited and Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 46/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Communications - Telecommunications Act 2001 - Whether the Commerce Commission erred in its calculation of the net cost of providing Telecommunications Services Obligation under the Act by ceasing to introduce new technology into the modelled network.Civ 2008 485 2293/2205/2206    1 April  2010
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. Approved ground of appeal is whether the Commerce Commission in making its determination complied with applicable statutory provsion.
14 May 2010
________________________________
Appeal dismissed.  No order for costs.
17 November 2011
Substantive judgment
sc 4 2010 vodafone new zealand ltd v telecom new zealand ltd (PDF, 256 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
COMMERCE COMMISSION v VODAFONE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED AND TELECOM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED SC 44/2010 [14 May 2010] (PDF, 8 KB)
Transcript

21 – 24 February 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Case name
W and W v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 48/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Duty of Care and Limitation Act 1950 – State liability claim for historic abuse while appellants under social welfare supervision and in institutional care – Whether Court of Appeal erred in application of legal test for disability under Limitation Act – Whether limitation test of reasonable discoverability of harm too restrictive and inconsistent with precedent/international law – Whether test of reasonable discoverability should apply more widely than cases of sexual abuse cases – Whether reasonable discoverability requires recognition by complainant that assault wrongful/actionable – Whether Court of Appeal further erred in law as to: causation and material contribution to harm of vulnerable persons; scope of duty of care by Department and/or social workers; false imprisonment – Whether facts support an award of exemplary damages directly or vicariously or a finding of non-delegable duty of care.[2010] NZCA 139  CA 714/2007  23 April 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
W & W v ATTORNEY-GENERAL SC 48/2010 [29 June 2010] (PDF, 45 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

29 June 2010.
Case name
Alan Parekura Torohinga Haronga v Waitangi Tribunal and others
Case number
SC 54/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial Review – Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 – Whether Appellant should be granted urgent Waitangi Tribunal remedies hearing in respect of application for resumption of Crown forest land subject to current settlement negotiations – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that Crown Forests Assets Act 1989 did not substantively alter Waitangi Tribunal’s role in relation to making of binding recommendations in respect of Crown forest land – Whether Court of Appeal failed to take into account that circumstances meant Tribunal did not exercise its discretion and Appellant could never have gained remedies hearing – Whether Court of Appeal failed to take into account right of smaller claimants to seek a remedy under s 8HB of Treaty of Waitangi Act.[2010] NZCA 201   CA 73/2010   19 May 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether in making his decision of 21 October 2009 in Wai 1489 to decline an urgent remedies hearing, the presiding Judge in the Waitangi Tribunal erred in law.
10 August 2010
___________________________
A The appeal is allowed and the determination of Judge  Clark is quashed. B The matter is remitted to the Waitangi Tribunal with the direction that it must proceed urgently to hear the claim. C The second respondent must pay the appellant costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.  Costs in the Court of Appeal and High Court are to be fixed by those Courts
Transcripts
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
HARONGA v WAITANGI TRIBUNAL AND ORS SC 54/2010 [19 May 2011] (PDF, 469 KB)
Case name
Nathan Stanley Gedye v Colin Robert South, Diane Lee South and Richard James Bureel as Trustees of the South Family Trust
Case number
SC 56/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Building Act 1991 – Alleged breach of vendor warranty for compliance with the Act – interpretation of limitation defence in s 91(2) of the Act – the Court of Appeal held the “act or omission on which the proceedings are based” to be the giving of the contractual warranty rather than the building work itself – the 10 year limitation period in s 91(2) therefore did not bar the respondent’s claim – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding s 91(2) inapplicable[2010] NZCA 207   CA 567/2009   20 May 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GEDYE v SOUTH, SOUTH AND BURRELL (AS TRUSTEES OF THE SOUTH FAMILY TRUST) SC 56/2010 [5 August 2010] (PDF, 12 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

5 October 2010.
Page 58 of 78