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
S v Airline Limited
Case number
SC 59/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Employment – Application for interim name suppression - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to find errors of law in the Employment Court judgment - Whether the Employment Court erred in declining to grant an interim order for non‑publication of the Applicant’ s name and identifying detailsARC 7/2010 9 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
C V AIR NELSON LIMITED SC 59/2010 [30 August 2010] (PDF, 70 KB)
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The interim order for suppression of the applicant’s name made by the Court of Appeal on 23 June 2010 is to continue in force until 5pm on 7 September 2010.
30 August 2010.
Case name
A person or persons unknown and Ngai-Tupango-Hapu Inc v Tea Custodians (Bluestone) Ltd
Case number
SC 60/2010
Summary
Civil appeal – order in the High Court for vacant possession of a property against a person or persons unknown who were in unlawful occupation of it – Court of Appeal declined application for stay of the High Court judgment – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its refusal to grant an application for stay.[2010] NZCA 211 CA 280/2010 26 May 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 to be paid by the second applicant to the respondent.
25 August 2010.
Case name
Tannadyce Investments Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 63/2010
Summary
Civil – Statutory demand for tax arrears – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that conscious maladministration cannot justify judicial review unless it negated the assessment made by the CIR – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that Tannadyce had the opportunity to invoke the statutory challenge procedure – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to find that the CIR and its officers acted unacceptably in refusing Tannadyce access to documents relating to it.[2010] NZCA 233 CA 703/2008, CA 330/2009 4 June 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal erred in striking out as an abuse of process the remaining ground of the appellant’s judicial review proceeding in which it alleges conscious maladministration by the respondent in denying that it had possession of documents which the appellant alleges it needed in order to be able to file tax returns. 27 August 2010
________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $15,000 plus disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
20 December 2011
________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $15,000 plus disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
20 December 2011
Media Releases
- MR [2011] NZSC 158 (PDF, 84 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Hearing date : 25 August 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Case name
Tower Insurance Limited v ANZ National Bank Limited and ING (NZ) Limited
Case number
SC 68/2010
Summary
Civil – Disclosure of Information – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that Tower is obliged to deliver information on its insurance policies and client details to the respondents under its terminated agreements with the banks – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that Tower is not prevented by the Privacy Act 1993 and the law of confidentiality from delivering that information – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondents were entitled to pass that information on to Vero Insurance New Zealand Ltd.[2010] NZCA 267 CA 194/2009 25 June 2010
Dates
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the appeal and cross appeal are deemed to be dismissed. By consent, no order as to costs.
20 September 2010
Case name
Philip John Smith v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 71/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal denied the appellant the right to a fair hearing on account of bias, hostility and predetermining the appellant’s recusal applications; whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that evidence tendered at the High Court was admissible; whether psychological reports of the appellant were obtained in breached s 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2010] NZCA 258 23 June 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
8 September 2010
Case name
Graeme John Ingram and Elizabeth Knee & Kip Investments Limited v Patrcroft Investments Limited
Case number
SC 72/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contract – Respondent re-entered property on 14 June 2005, one day before entitled to cancel lease contract for failure by Appellants to pay rent arrears – Whether Respondent cancelled contract under s 8 Contractual Remedies Act 1979 on 15 June by remaining in occupation of the property – Whether Respondent must have been ready, willing and able to perform the contract when cancelling on 15 June – Whether Court of Appeal correct to say Appellants could have reserved their rights to cancel for Respondent’s repudiation by paying outstanding rent on 14 June.[2010] NZCA 275 29 June 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is: In circumstances in which the respondent’s re-entry into the premises on 14 June 2005 was invalid, whether, and when, either of the parties thereafter validly terminated the lease.
27 September 2010
______________________
A The appeal is allowed and the orders made by the High Court are restored.
B The appellants are awarded costs of $15,000 together with their reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
C The costs order made by the Court of Appeal is reversed. Any outstanding questions concerning interest and costs should be determined by the High Court.
19 May 2011
The approved ground is: In circumstances in which the respondent’s re-entry into the premises on 14 June 2005 was invalid, whether, and when, either of the parties thereafter validly terminated the lease.
27 September 2010
______________________
A The appeal is allowed and the orders made by the High Court are restored.
B The appellants are awarded costs of $15,000 together with their reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
C The costs order made by the Court of Appeal is reversed. Any outstanding questions concerning interest and costs should be determined by the High Court.
19 May 2011
Media Releases
- media release ingram v patcroft 10 may 2011 doc (PDF, 84 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Iowane Seru Sucuturaga v The Queen
Case number
SC 78/2010
Summary
Criminal – Appeal from conviction for sexual violation by rape – What is the proper test for admission of evidence concerning jury deliberations – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a witness had committed perjury when he had not faced a jury – What is the standard of proof for a finding of perjury – Whether a miscarriage of justice was caused by the admission of inadmissible evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the jury’s verdicts were not inconsistent – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the trial Judge’s misdirection on representative counts did not cause a miscarriage of justice.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
3 February 2011
Case name
Churchill Group Holdings Limited and others v Aral Property Holdings Limited and David Leung
Case number
SC 82/2010
Summary
Civil – Conflict of Interest – Whether employment of High Court Judge’s child within the respondent’s firm of solicitors gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias which meant Judge should not have sat or continued to sit on the case – Whether Court of Appeal should accordingly have recalled its judgment dismissing an appeal from the High Court’s decision not to stay the execution of a costs order against the appellant.[2010] NZCA 335 30 July 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
3 November 2010
Case name
Hi-Gene Limited v Swisher Hygiene Franchise Corporation
Case number
SC 87/2010
Summary
Civil – Arbitration Act 1996 – Respondent sought to register foreign arbitral award made in North Carolina against New Zealand-based appellant in High Court – Appellant not present at arbitration and adjournment refused by arbitrators – Whether recognition and enforcement of award should be refused in New Zealand on grounds appellant unable to present case at arbitration and rules of natural justice breached – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding same high threshold should apply to grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement of foreign arbitral award under r 36(1)(a)(ii) and (1)(b)(ii) of First Schedule to Arbitration Act – Whether Court of Appeal wrong to hold appellant had onus to seek formal decision from arbitrators on adjournment application – Whether Court of Appeal wrong in holding rr 18 and 24(2) had no application to foreign arbitral awards.[2010] NZCA 359 CA 346/2010 9 August 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
3 November 2010
Case name
Aldwyn John Cockburn, Janet Elizabeth Cockburn and Keith Ian Jeffries v C S Development No 2 Limited
Case number
SC 93/2010
Summary
Civil – GST due on sale of commercial property – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the sale of the property did not include the claimed supply of a going concern – Whether the Commissioner of Inland Revenue’s assessment that it was a going concern can only be questioned by challenge proceedings under the Tax Administration Act 1994.[2010] NZCA 373 CA 445/2009 16 August 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
16 November 2010.Page 59 of 78