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
Chesterfields Preschools Limited, D J Hampton, Chesterfields Partnership, Chesterfields Preschools Partnership & Anolbe Enterprises Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 96/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial review appeal – Taxation liabilities – Appellants were partly successful in the first judicial review proceedings against the Commissioner of Inland Revenue (Commissioner) and the Commissioner was ordered to reconsider a number of matters - Second judicial review proceedings held the Court would not enforce the debt owed to the Commissioner by the appellants until the Court was satisfied that the first judicial review had been complied with – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing to an extent the appeal by the Commissioner against the second judicial review judgment.[2010] NZCA 400 CA 607/2008, CA 800/2008, SC 271/2009, CA 156/2010 31 August 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
The application for leave to appeal and the associated application for directions are dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
16 December 2010
Case name
Westpac New Zealand Limited v Map & Associates Limited
Case number
SC 98/2010
Summary
Civil – Knowing assistance in breach of trust – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Westpac did not have reason to refuse to follow the instructions of its account holder – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 87 of the Judicature Act 1908.[2010] NZCA 404 CA 193/2009 6 September 2010.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that Westpac had breached its mandate.
C The application for leave to cross-appeal is refused.
2 February 2011
_______________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $15,000.00 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.
16 August 2011
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that Westpac had breached its mandate.
C The application for leave to cross-appeal is refused.
2 February 2011
_______________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $15,000.00 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.
16 August 2011
Transcripts
- Hearing date 31 May 2011 SC 98/2010 (PDF, 725 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2011] NZSC 89 (PDF, 85 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Arrow International Limited v QBE Insurance (International) Limited
Case number
SC 99/2010
Summary
Civil – Construction of insurance policy – Head contractor of leaky apartment complex made insurance claim in respect of compensation paid to the body corporate and unit owners for building defects – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant’s liability to pay compensation was not “consequent upon” damage happening during the relevant insurance period and therefore the applicant was not entitled to be indemnified for the compensation paid[2010] NZCA 408 CA 426/2009 8 September 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
15 December 2010
Case name
Thin Thi Vu v Ministry of Fisheries
Case number
SC 101/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reinstating the appellant’s conviction and sentence for aiding and encouraging the illegal purchase of paua from an undercover fisheries officer - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the transfer of paua by an undercover fisheries officer to the appellant was not a transaction with the Crown for the purposes of s 192(10)(c) of the Fisheries Act 1996. [2010] NZCA 469 CA 375/2010 15 October 2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
17 December 2010
Case name
Bostik New Zealand Limited v Stephen Graham Lockwood & Wadham Goodman Trustees Limited as trustees of the Island Trust.
Case number
SC 102/2010
Summary
Civil – Negligent misstatement – Respondent alleges misrepresentation in respect of waterproofing product suitability to waterproof large deck – Whether Court of Appeal erred in disturbing findings of fact in High Court as to falsity of representation and suitability of product and in remitting proceeding to High Court for reconsideration – Whether Court of Appeal gave undue weight to Bostik’s own technical literature regarding suitability of waterproofing product which post-dated the events in issue.[2010] NZCA 436 CA 381/2009 24 September 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
8 December 2010
Case name
R S v The Queen
Case number
SC 103/2010
Summary
Criminal – Exclusion of evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that what specific drug, if any, a police constable is searching for under s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 is a factual rather than legal issue - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that whether s 23(1)(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act had been breached is a factual rather than legal issue – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its deciding unlawfully obtained evidence was admissible under the balancing exercise in s 30(2) of the Evidence Act 2006.[2010] NZCA 434 CA 333/2010 22 September 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Not publicly available
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
16 November 2010.
Case name
DH v The Queen
Case number
SC 107/2010
Summary
Criminal – Summary Proceedings Act 1957 – Appellants charged with cultivation, supply and possession of cannabis – Whether Court of Appeal erred in not explicitly ruling that a search warrant issued under s 198 SPA cannot authorise the installation of covert video surveillance cameras – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding exclusion of surveillance evidence would be disproportionate to impropriety in obtaining it.[2010] NZCA 457 CA 221/2010 7 October 2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
2 December 2010
Case name
GB v The Queen
Case number
SC 108/2010
Summary
Criminal – Summary Proceedings Act 1957 – Appellants charged with cultivation, supply and possession of cannabis – Whether Court of Appeal erred in not explicitly ruling that a search warrant issued under s 198 SPA cannot authorise the installation of covert video surveillance cameras – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding exclusion of surveillance evidence would be disproportionate to impropriety in obtaining it.[2010] NZCA 457 CA 222/2010 7 October 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Not publicly available
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
2 December 2010
Case name
DJB v The Queen
Case number
SC 114/2010
Summary
Criminal – Evidence Act 2006 – Admissibility of prior consistent statements – whether the complainant’s prior consistent statements to third parties, led in evidence in chief within a video interview, were admissible in application of s 35(2) of the Act – Admissibility of statements made by the defendant – whether evidence given by the complainant’ s mother of a statement made by the defendant should have been excluded on the basis that the risk of an unfairly prejudicial effect on the proceeding outweighed its limited probative value pursuant to s 8 of the Act[2010] NZCA 493 CA 110/2010 29 October 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the evidence of complaints to two family members was admissible.
25 February 2011
____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
9 June 2011
25 February 2011
____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
9 June 2011
Media Releases
- sc114 2010 media release (PDF, 85 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
B v R SC 114/2010 [25 February 2011] (PDF, 137 KB)
Substantive judgment
B(SC 114/2010) v R SC 114/2010 [9 June 2011] (PDF, 66 KB)
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Wing Hung Printing Company Limited and others v Saito Offshore Pty Ltd
Case number
SC 118/2010
Summary
Civil – Conflict of laws – Whether New Zealand is the appropriate forum for trial of the dispute – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its calculus of the issues relevant to the appropriate forum choice – Whether the Court of Appeal had an evidential foundation for finding the business relationship was ‘predominately Australasian’ – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in extending the extraterritorial effect of the Fair Trading Act 1986 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in the exercise of its discretion to dismiss a protest to jurisdiction on terms.[2010] NZCA 502 CA 437/2009 5 November 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to the respondent.
15 March 2011.Page 60 of 78