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
Ludgater Holdings Limited v Gerling Australia Insurance Company Pty Limited
Case number
SC 92/2009
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936, namely whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the respondent had a sufficient presence in New Zealand and whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction –  whether s 9 has an extraterritorial effect – whether, if the High Court does have jurisdiction, the Court in the exercise of its discretion should decline or allow jurisdiction[2009] NZCA 397  CA 546/2008   11 September   2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
16 December 2009
___________________________
Appeal dismissed. Cost to respondent $15,000 plus reasonable disbursements.
11 May 2010
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from

 

Case name
Greymouth Gas Kaimiro Limited and others v GXL Royalties Limited and Swift Energy New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 98/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management – Petroleum mining – Leases – Contract and interpretation – Equity – obligations – assignment – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that actual reasons for GXL Royalties Ltd’s refusal to consent to transfer of Swift Energy Ltd’s interests in a petroleum exploration permit, from Swift to Greymouth Gas Kaimiro Ltd, are irrelevant to the issue of whether consent was properly or improperly withheld – Whether Court of Appeal erred in confining the issue at trial to a purely objective test of whether it has been established that Greymouth has sufficient financial capability to meet the obligations under the permit and royalty deed – Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to account in the test for the requirement of reasonableness.[2009] NZCA 433   CA  100/2009   24 September 2009
Result
Leave to appeal is granted The approved ground is whether GXL is required to plead to an allegation that it refused consent to the transfer of Swift’s interest in the petroleum permit to Greymouth for collateral reasons unrelated to Greymouth’s financial capability to meet obligations under the permit and the deed reserving to GXL a royalty interest.
30 March 2010
_________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellants are ordered to pay the respondent costs of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
22 September 2010
Case name
Wei Feng Pan v The Queen
Case number
SC 100/2009
Summary
Criminal – Offences relating to Class A drug – Appeal against conviction and sentence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its findings about the applicant’s involvement in the importation of drugs – Whether the admission of cell-site evidence was inadmissible as being more prejudicial than probative – Whether the Court of Appeal were correct to find that the trial could proceed with 10 jurors – Whether the Court of Appeal were correct to hold that the trial Judge had not misdirected the jury on the onus of proof, or on the motive of co-accused to lie – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant had a central role in the overall crime for the purposes of sentencing – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to take into account mitigating factors – Whether the Court of Appeal had regard to principles of sentencing in the Sentencing Act 2002.[2009] NZCA 445   CA  770/2008  30 September  2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 9 February 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Mana PropertyTrustee Ltd v James Development Ltd
Case number
SC 105/2009
Summary
Civil – Interpreting terms of a sale and purchase agreement  – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by equating non-performance at the time of settlement with an automatic right to cancel – Whether the Court of Appeal were wrong to find that clause 18.3 of the agreement for sale and purchase was essential.[2009] NZCA 483    CA  241/2000  19 October  2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
1 March 2010
______________________
Appeal allowed. It is declared that the respondent’ s purported cancellation on 3 November 2008 of its contract with the appellant was of no effect.  The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for outstanding issues to be determined in light of this judgment.  The costs order made in the Court of Appeal is set aside. Costs are reserved.  Counsel should file memoranda. 
23 July 2010
Case name
Contract Pacific Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 114/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Taxation – Whether the Commissioner satisfied the time limits contained in s 46 of the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985 – Whether Contract Pacific had already been paid a refund for the purposes of s 241 (6) (a) of the Taxation (Taxpayer Assessment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2001. [2009] NZCA 568    CA  759/2009   4 December  2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
4 March 2010
__________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs $15,000 to the respondent, plus disbursements.
16 November 2010
Case name
The Attorney-General of New Zealand v Mervyn Chapman
Case number
SC 120/2009
Summary
Civil – Crown liability for judicial breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by holding that the Attorney-General is the correct defendant in an action alleging breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 by a Registrar and judges of the Court of Appeal – If not, whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by holding that the Attorney-General is not entitled to the same immunities as the person who committed the alleged breaches.[2009] NZCA 552 CA 245/2008  25 November 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. The approved ground is whether Bill of Rights damages can be ordered against the Attorney-General on behalf of the Crown for breach of fair trial rights by judicial conduct in respect of which the judicial officer is immune from liability. 
31 March 2010
Transcripts
Media Releases
Case name
Janice Mary Menere v Jackson Mews Management Limited
Case number
SC 121/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property Law Act 1952, s 81 – Property Law Act 2007, s 97 – Unit Titles – Mortgages – Whether relevant form of encumbrances can ever be discharged - Whether encumbrances in question ought to be discharged – Whether Court of Appeal was wrong to decide that the rights of the intended appellant to redemption under s 81 of the Property Law Act 1952 had been taken away by the repeal of the Act.[2009] NZCA 563 CA 690/2009   27 November 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 16 April 2010
Case name
John Bevan-Smith v Raupo Publishing (NZ) Limited
Case number
SC 2/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – breach of contract – book publication - whether Court of Appeal should have granted extension of time to file case on appeal – whether agreement between applicant and defendant void because of deceptive conduct – whether the defendant breached due diligence obligations in contract - whether the Court received misleading evidence regarding the motive’ s of the defendant – whether High Court made correct findings of fact especially regarding timing of events – whether the Court of Appeal should have reconsidered findings of fact made by the High Court – whether High Court correctly interpreted relevant clauses in contract –whether quantum of lost book sales correctly calculated – whether case should be remitted to the Court of Appeal to be reheard or to the High Court for a new trial.[2007] NZCA 579 CA 57/07 14 December 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $1,500 to the respondent.

9 April 2008

Case name
Shell (Petroleum Mining) Company Limited and others v Todd Petroleum Mining Company Limited and others
Case number
SC 6/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – Civil Procedure – Injunction – Contract – Breach – Remedies – Whether Court of Appeal correct to conclude overall contractual arrangements mean STOS not entitled to resign as Maui field Operator and Shell not entitled to encourage its STOS directors to vote in favour of resolution removing STOS as Operator – Whether Court of Appeal correct to conclude MDL/STOS contract of employment enforceable by Todd – Whether injunctive relief, rather than damages, correct remedy for any contract breach proved.[2007] NZCA 586 CA 144/06 18 December 2007Application for leave to appeal dismissed.Costs $2,500 to the first respondent.
Case name
Elders New Zealand Limited v PGG Wrightson Lmited
Case number
SC 7/2008
Summary
Civil – Contract Law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that an amalgamation approved under Part 15 of the Companies Act 1993 has the legal consequences provided for in s 219 of that Act – Whether an amalgamating company is entitled to “pick and choose” between Part 13 and Part 15 of the Companies Act 1993 – Whether the terms of the amalgamation order created the effect prescribed in Part 13 even though the order was made pursuant to Part 15 – Whether the applicant was bound by the Part 15 order although the order did not state that the applicant was bound.[2007] NZCA 596 CA 277/06 21 December 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
18 April 2008
_______________________
Appeal dismissed.Costs to respondent $15,000, together with reasonable disbursements.
5 December 2008