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
Edin Bozz Boskovic  v The Queen
Case number
SC 20/2009
Summary
Criminal – Sexual violation by rape – Appeal against conviction - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the alleged incompetence of trial counsel did not cause a miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial Judge’s ruling on alibi evidence was correct.CA 33/2006  12 December 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
3 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BOSKOVIC v R SC 20/2009 [3 June 2009]  (PDF, 12 KB)
Judgment appealed from

R v Boskovic CA33/06 [2006] NZCA 519 (12 December 2006)
Case name
Ian Laywood and Gary Rees v Holmes Construction Wellington Limited
Case number
SC 23/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Construction Contracts Act 2002 – Statutory Interpretation – Enforcement of adjudicator’s determination by entry as judgment – Extent to which Construction Contracts Act judgments are to be treated differently as matter of law to non-Construction Contract Act judgments vis-à-vis Insolvency legislation – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding ss 73 and 74 of the Construction Contracts Act created a special regime for the enforcement of adjudicators’ determinations that is not subject to s 29 of the District Courts Act 1947 and that entry of a judgment pursuant to ss 73 and 74 was a final judgment for the purposes of s 19(1) of the Insolvency Act 1967 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding principles of natural justice and s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 did not entitle the Appellants to an oral hearing (as opposed to judgment being delivered on the papers).[2009] NZCA  35   CA 83/2008    25 February 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to respondent. 15 May 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
LAYWOOD AND REES V HOLMES CONSTRUCTION WELLINGTON LTD SC 23/2009 15 May 2009 (PDF, 15 KB)
Judgment appealed from

 
Case name
The Commerce Commission v Carter Holt Harvey Limited
Case number
SC 25/2009
Summary
Civil – Strike-out – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that for the purposes of s 43(5) of the Fair Trading Act 1986 the relevant knowledge was that of both the Commission and the person who had suffered loss – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to hold that knowledge of “likelihood of loss or damage” was sufficient for time to start running for a claim for relief under s 43(2)(c) and (d) of the Fair Trading Act – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to conflate discovery of a breach of the Fair Trading Act with discovery of loss or damage – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that only a minimal amount of knowledge is required to set the limitation period running under s 43 of the Fair Trading Act – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Commission discovered the loss or damage before the limitation date[2009] NZCA 40  CA 316/2007 27 February 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
25 May 2009
__________________________
Appeal allowed. The order of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the application to strike out the appellant’s proceeding is dismissed. The respondent is ordered to pay the appellant for its costs in this Court the sum of $15,000 plus disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.  The costs order made in the Court of Appeal is reversed and the costs order made in the High Court is reinstated.
27 November 2009
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
THE COMMERCE COMMISSION v CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED SC 25/2009 [25 May 2009] (PDF, 10 KB)
Substantive judgment
THE COMMERCE COMMISSION v CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED SC 25/2009 [27 November 2009] (PDF, 211 KB)
Case name
TFAC Limited, Geoffrey Alan Grisdale and Amanda May Grisdale v Susan Elizabeth David and UAR Limited
Case number
SC 26/2009
Summary
Civil – Fair Trading Act 1986 – Australian home services franchising operation – Applicants entered into a master franchise agreement covering Auckland’s eastern suburbs with the respondents, who owned the New Zealand master franchise – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and law in its finding that the respondents did not engage in misleading and deceptive conduct in breach of s 9 of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overlooking the High Court’s finding that the respondents had breached s 22(1) and (2) of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in treating a particular pleaded misrepresentation as a misrepresentation as to a future matter – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a particular opinion was honestly held by the first respondent and had a reasonable basis – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its finding that even if the respondents had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct the causal link necessary to justify relief under s 43 of the Act was doubtful – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its finding that the respondents were protected from liability by various disclaimer and acknowledgement clauses.[2009] NZCA 44 CA 26/2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
26 May 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TFAC LIMITED AND ORS V SUSAN ELIZABETH DAVID AND ANOR SC 26/2009 26 May 2009 (PDF, 14 KB)
Case name
Ivan Vladimir Joseph Erceg v Balenia Limited
Case number
SC 27/2009
Summary
Civil appeal – alleged contractual breach by the appellant – clause A4(a) of the contract stipulates that the appellant’s former solicitors are to be satisfied that the respondent has clear title to the super-yachts which form the subject of the contract – the appellant’s former solicitors have not certified the respondent’s title to the super-yachts – whether the respondent is required to give notice to the appellant of its intention to rely on his alleged breach – whether the respondent is entitled to sue before making time of the essence for performance of the contract – whether the respondent bears the onus of proving that it would have been able to show clear title to the super-– whether the respondent can treat clause A4(a) as being fulfilled for the purposes of obtaining relief – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to order specific performance of the contract.[2009] NZCA 48  CA 553/2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
27 May 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ERCEG V BALENIA LIMITED SC 27/2009 27 May 2009 (PDF, 11 KB)
Case name
Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated v Kapiti Coast District Council and Kotuku Parks Limited
Case number
SC 29/2009
Summary
Civil appeal – ss 94A(c) & 93 Resource Management Act 1991 – application for resource consent to subdivide land adjacent to the Waikanae River Estuary Scenic Reserve – Department of Conservation gave written approval to the application – decision taken to proceed to hear the application without notification – Court of Appeal held that the approval of the Department of Conservation did not allow the first respondent to disregard the effects of the application on the Reserve when deciding whether to notify – whether the first respondent is required to consider the effects of the application on the Reserve when making the notification decision under s 93 – whether the first respondent must be “satisfied” that the adverse effects of the activity on the Reserve will be minor – whether the Court of Appeal correctly applied ss 94A(c) & 93[2009] NZCA 73  CA 695/07
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondents jointly. 16 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED V KAPITI COAST DISTRICT COUNCIL AND ANOR SC 29/2009 16 June 2009 (PDF, 15 KB)
Case name
Elias Akle v The Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 30/2009
Summary
Civil – Commerce Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that s 4 is not the repository of the extraterritorial reach of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that proof of personal conduct in New Zealand is not critical to establishing jurisdiction in respect of overseas residents – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that conduct in New Zealand could be attributed or imputed to overseas parties in the absence of a recognised legal basis, or the requirements of s 90 being met – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that the application to set aside the protest to jurisdiction against Mr Akle should succeed in the absence of any allegation that he communicated with or directed any New Zealand actor to do any impugned act while the New Zealand actor was overseas.
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
16 June 2009
_____________________________________
It was adjudged that a notice of abandonment having been lodged the appeal is dismissed.
13 July 2009
Leave judgment - leave granted
AKLE V COMMERCE COMMISSION SC 30/2009 16 June 2009 (PDF, 12 KB)
Case name
A R Poynter v The Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 32/2009
Summary
Civil – Commerce Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that s 4 is not an exhaustive statement of the circumstances in which the provisions of the Act apply to overseas conduct – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that the conduct of another foreign resident who acted in New Zealand could be attributed to the Appellant so as to treat the Appellant as having acted within New Zealand through that other person – Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly imported the jurisdictional reach of conspiracy in s 310 of the Crimes Act 1961 into s 80(1)(f) of the Act.[2009] NZCA 84  CA 257/2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
16 June  2009
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
POYNTER v COMMERCE COMMISSION SC 32/2009 [16 April 2010] (PDF, 265 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
AKLE v COMMERCE COMMISSION SC 30/2009 [16 June 2009] (PDF, 12 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 17 November 2009

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and Wilson JJ.
Case name
Arthur William Taylor v The Department of Corrections and another.
Case number
SC 35/2009
Summary
Civil – Disciplinary proceedings - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the decision of the Hearing Adjudicator to refer a charge to a Visiting Justice was not subject to s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly found the decision of the Hearing Adjudicator did not breach natural justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that s 134 of the Corrections Act 2004 does not require a Hearing Adjudicator to provide notice to a prisoner that his or her charge is being referred to a Visiting Justice, or to allow the prisoner the opportunity to be heard on that referral – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Hearing Adjudicator had not taken into account irrelevant circumstances – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to hold that s 134(2)(a) of the Corrections Act does not exclude consideration of a prisoner’ s past disciplinary record.[2009] NZCA 129   CA  318/2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
24 July 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TAYLOR V THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SC 35/2009 24 July 2009 (PDF, 12 KB)
Case name
Shane Charles Wenzel  v The Queen
Case number
SC 38/2009
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against decision of District Court Judge ordering trial by Judge alone under s 361D of the Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the incorporation into s 361D(3)(b) of an accused’s right to trial by jury requires an assessment of the weight of an accused’s right to jury trial in the circumstances of the case and the potential length of any sentence that might be imposed on conviction – Whether the s 361D limit on an accused’s right to jury trial can be demonstratively justified under s 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. [2009] NZCA 130   CA  31/2009   8 April 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 9 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
WENZEL V R SC 38/2009 9 June 2009 (PDF, 14 KB)
Page 62 of 78