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
Tasman Orient Line CV v New Zealand China Clays Limited and others
Case number
SC 39/2009
Summary
Civil appeal – application of the Protocol to Amend the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Bills of Lading (“the Hague-Visby Rules”) to a grounding of a ship owned by the appellant – whether by reason of the conduct of the master of the vessel the appellant is not entitled to rely on the protection of Article IV Rule 2(a) – whether the Hague-Visby Rules depart from the prior common law – whether the history behind the Hague-Visby Rules is relevant to interpretation – whether the interpretation of Article IV Rule 2(a) should have regard to the factual context – whether the factual context warrants an interpretation of Article IV Rule 2(a) that results in the appellant being liable – whether an interpretation of Article IV Rule 2(a) which results in the appellant being liable is consistent with purpose and policy of the Hague-Visby Rules – whether an interpretation of Article IV Rule 2(a) which results in the appellant being liable is consistent with Article III Rule 2[2009] NZCA 135   CA  519/2007   9 April 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
1 July 2009
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
TASMAN ORIENT LINE CV v NEW ZEALAND CHINA CLAYS LIMITED AND OTHERS SC 39/2009 [1 July 2009] (PDF, 12 KB)
Substantive judgment
TASMAN ORIENT LINE CV v NEW ZEALAND CHINA CLAYS LIMITED AND OTHERS SC 39/2009 [16 April 2010] (PDF, 77 KB)
Case name
William Patrick Jeffries v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 41/2009
Summary
Civil – Judicial Review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that as the Appellant was not a participant in the statutory scheme under review the Appellant did not possess public interest standing to review the identified pleaded decisions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 27(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 has no application to decision making under the Official Information Act 1982CIV 2006 – 485-2161  20 May 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal refused.  Costs $2,500 plus disbursements to the respondent.
3 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JEFFRIES V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL SC 41/2009 3 June 2009 (PDF, 12 KB)
Case name
William Patrick Jeffries v The Privacy Commissioner
Case number
SC 42/2009
Summary
Civil – Judicial Review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a barrister may not invoke the privilege of general immunity against civil liability in respect of his participation in court proceedings against the Privacy Commissioner in relation to the barrister’s preparation and conduct of court proceedings and thereafter – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that a barrister conducting litigation before a court comes within the definition of “agency” in s 2 of the Privacy Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that “any person” in s 91(4) of the Act includes persons who are not “agencies” pursuant to s 2 of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that the Privacy Commissioner’s failure to abide her notice obligations under ss 70 and 73 of the Act was understandable and not a relevant consideration in assessing her decision-makingCIV 2006 – 485-860  22 May 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal refused.  Costs $2,500 plus disbursements to the respondent. 3 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JEFFRIES V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL SC 41/2009 3 June 2009 (PDF, 12 KB)
Case name
Cashmere Capital Limited v Patrick Kevin Carroll and others
Case number
SC 46/2009
Summary
Civil – Retirement Villages Act 2003 – retrospective operation of the Act – the Court of Appeal held that when there has been an Order in Council under s 103, the Registrar-General must note on the certificate of title to the land comprising the village that it is subject to s 22 of the Act, and that the expressed intention of Parliament was that the Act should operate retrospectively to 31 December 2002 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of ss 103 and 21 of the Act - whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that if the Registrar-General has registered Crossdale Village under s 21 of the Act then s 22 applied to the appellant and if the Registrar-General has not done so it should be performed forthwith.[2009] NZCA  185   CA 190/2007    15 May 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
24 July 2009
______________________
Appeal allowed, judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aisde. Costs of $5,000 plus disbursements to the appellant.
4 December 2009
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
CASHMERE CAPITAL LIMITED v CROSSDALE PROPERTIES LIMITED AND ORS SC 46/2009 [24 July 2009] (PDF, 10 KB)
Substantive judgment
CASHMERE CAPITAL LTD v PATRICK KEVIN CARROLL AND ORS SC 46/2009 [4 December 2009] (PDF, 189 KB)
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Solicitor-General
Case number
SC 48/2009
Summary
Civil/Criminal Appeal – Offences – Contempt of Court – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Appeal against decision committing appellant to prison for contempt – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding contempt proceedings civil in nature – Whether appellant wrongly denied opportunity to elect trial by jury.[2009] NZCA  62   CA 447/2008    9 March 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
7 August 2009
______________________
The appeal is allowed and the order made by the Court of Appeal is quashed.  It is replaced by an order committing the appellant to prison for a term of a maximum of three months, subject to the proviso that the term of imprisonment will come to an immediate end if the appellant complies with the injunction issued on 5 May 2005 and made permanent on 23 December 2008 by the High Court at Auckland in the proceeding Korda Mentha v Siemer HC Auckland CIV-2005-404-1808, 23 December 2008 and if he also provides an undertaking to the High Court in a form approved by the High Court that he and Paragon Oil Services Ltd will continue to comply with that injunction for so long as it remains in force.  Mr Siemer is ordered to surrender to his bail at the High Court in Auckland no later than 4pm on 20 May 2010 unless by then he has complied with the injunction and provided that undertaking to the High Court in a form approved by it.
17 May 2010
____________________________
Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
11 June 2010
_____________________________
Further application for recall of judgment dismissed.
15 June 2010
Leave judgment - leave granted
SIEMER v SOLICITOR-GENERAL SC 48/2009 [7 August 2009] (PDF, 9 KB)
Substantive judgment
SIEMER v SOLICITOR-GENERAL SC 48/2009 [17 May 2010] (PDF, 159 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : recusal 26 February 2017

Hearing date : 2 March 2010

Elias CJ, Blanchard, McGrath, Wilson, Anderson JJ

Case Number
SC 48/2009
Case name
Wyeth (NZ) Limited v Ancare New Zealand Limited and The Environmental Risk Management Authority
Case number
SC 57/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal - Statutory Interpretation - whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996; whether the Act requires or entitles the Environmental Risk Management Authority to refuse to disclose the identity of a hazardous substance and/or its chemical composition; whether the Act allows the Environmental Risk Management Authority to require that the identity of a hazardous substance and/or its chemical composition be provided on the basis of confidentiality undertakings. [2009] NZCA 211  CA  424/2007    27 May 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
25 September 2009
______________________
The appeal is dismissed with no order for costs.
23 April 2010
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
WYETH (NZ) LIMITED v ANCARE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED AND ANOR SC 57/2009 [25 September 2009] (PDF, 12 KB)
Substantive judgment
WYETH (NZ) LIMITED v ANCARE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED AND ANOR SC 57/2009 [23 April 2010] (PDF, 178 KB)
Case name
Ngati Rangi Trust and others v Genesis Power Limited and Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council
Case number
SC 60/2009
Summary
Civil – Grant of resource consents – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to determine that the Environment Court had incorrectly directed itself as to the statutory purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to address who was burdened by an evidential onus to demonstrate appropriate measures to mitigate the adverse effects of a proposal.[2009] NZCA 222  CA  518/2007    2 June  2009
Result
Notice of Abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed. 21 December 2010
Case name
Talbot 2002 Underwriting Capital Limited v Maintenance Technology and Engineering Limited
Case number
SC 61/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing the applicant’s application for a priority fixture and/or for a stay pending determination of the appeal on the grounds of bias on the part of a Judge who has embarked upon the hearing of a case to which the appellant is a party in the High Court.CA  327/2009    16 June  2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to respondent. 14 July 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TALBOT 2002 UNDERWRITING CAPITAL LIMITED V MAINTENANCE TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING LIMITED SC 61/2009 14 July 2009
Case name
Maia Rongonui v The Queen
Case number
SC 66/2009
Summary
Criminal – Evidence Act 2006 – Mr Rongonui was convicted of one count of sexual violation by unlawful connection and one of assault with intent to commit rape – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the complainant’s evidence that she had told her friend what occurred after the incident did not fall within s 35 of the Evidence Act dealing with previous consistent statements because evidence was not given of anything actually said by the complainant – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the District Court Judge was correct to allow the prosecutor to use a witness statement to refresh the memory of a witness and to allow cross-examination of the witness on the grounds of hostility[2009] NZCA 279 CA 736/2008  2 July 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
21 September 2009
___________________________
Appeal allowed, convictions set aside. Order for new trial. Reasons to be given at a later date. 2
7 November 2009
_____________________________
Reasons given 23 July 2010
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Rongonui v R SC 66/2009 [21 September 2009] (PDF, 9 KB)
Substantive judgment
RONGONUI v R SC 66/2009 [27 November 2009] (PDF, 170 KB)
Case name
Conway Lewis and Johanna Lewis v Karen Betty Mason and Jeffrey Philip Meltzer as Liquidators of Global Print Strategies Limited (in Liquidation)
Case number
SC 71/2009
Summary
Civil – liquidation under s 301 of Companies Act 1993 – whether liabilities of a company in liquidation arising post-liquidation should be included in calculating the compensation payable under s 301 – whether the Court of Appeal adopted the correct legal approach in considering the issue of causation in respect of an order under s 301 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in considering the issues of culpability in respect of an order under s 301.[2009] NZCA 306  CA 676/2008   20 July 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs of  $2,500 to the respondents.
14 October 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
LEWIS V MASON AND MELTZER AS LIQUIDATORS OF GLOBAL PRINT STRATEGIES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) SC 71/2009 14 October 2009 (PDF, 16 KB)
Page 63 of 78