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
EW and PW v Attorney-General
Case number
SC 36/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – Appeal directly from High Court – Negligence – whether only nominal damages should be awarded for a breach of duty of care in child welfare cases unless the duty required the defendant to commence proceedings – whether there was a duty to commence proceedings – whether vicarious liability exists where child is placed back with family from whom they have been removed – whether test of causation correctly applied – Limitation Act 1950 – whether reasonable discoverability test should be expanded beyond sexual abuse cases – whether reasonable discoverability and disability tests were correctly applied – whether facts supported a finding of exemplary damages – whether a non-delegable duty of care existed – whether applicants were falsely imprisoned when held in secure units – whether applicants were required to prove a ‘ counter-factual’ to justify an award of damages – whether the ACC legislation barred the applicant’s claims – whether High Court made correct findings of fact – whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify an appeal directly to the Supreme Court.CIV 199-485-85 and CIV 2001 - 485 - 864 Wellington High Court28 November 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
15 August 2008
Case name
Commerce Commission v Infratil Limited
Case number
SC 37/2008
Summary
Civil – Appeal – Trade Practices – Competition – Appropriate test for accessory liability in context of Commerce Act 1986 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in departing from orthodox test for accessory liability in Commerce Act context and in applying a test that required knowledge of the facts at a higher level of detail than is required by the orthodox test – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in treating a defendant’ s belief that there was no breach of s 47 of the Commerce Act as a relevant factor in applying the orthodox test for accessory liability.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is refused, with costs $2,500 to the respondent.
19 September 2008
Case name
New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council and New Zealand Big Game Fishing Council Inc v Sanford Limited, Sealord Limited and others
Case number
SC 40/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – Fisheries Act 1996 – statutory interpretation issues arising from review of Minister of Fisheries’ exercise of statutory power to fix the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) – interpretation of the relationship between s 8 (providing that purpose of Act is to provide for utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability) and s 21 (providing for matters which the Minister must take into account in setting the Total Allowable Catch) – specifically, whether the TAC and TACC decisions can be characterised as sustainability and utilisation decisions respectively – whether a “global approach” should be taken to the purpose provision whereby it is a guide to government policy that decision-makers are to bear in mind generally, or whether the provision contains mandatory relevant considerations to be taken into account in relation to individual decisions – how the purpose of enabling people to “provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing” in s 8(2) is to be interpreted – whether the common law right to fish extends to commercial fishers.[2008] NZCA 160 CA 163/07 11 June 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
2 October 2008
__________________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
28 May 2009
2 October 2008
__________________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
28 May 2009
Media Releases
- big game fishing press release (PDF, 90 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcription
Case name
Thornton Estates Limited v Cavell Leitch Pringle & Boyle
Case number
SC 44/2008
Summary
Civil – Breach of fiduciary duty – Breach of duty of care – Negligence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no basis to intervene to remedy a breach of a fiduciary duty – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that there is no breach of duty or negligence where a solicitor fails to provide in a contract for passing of risk where the contract provides for a passing of risk when there is a transfer of property – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in finding that there was no breach of duty by the respondent when it failed to give advice to the appellant on the passing of risk.[2008] NZCA 191 CA 500/07 27 June 2008
Leave judgment - leave granted
Dates
Notice of Abandonment being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
2 February 2009
Case name
Pranfield Holdings Limited and United Fisheries Limited v Minister of Fisheries and others
Case number
SC 47/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – Commercial fishing – Licence and quota management system – Misfeasance in Public Office – Whether Court of Appeal correctly applied Garrett v Attorney-General [1997] 2 NZLR 332 – Breach of Statutory Duty – Fisheries Act 1983, s 63 – Whether Court of Appeal adopted correct approach toward exercise of discretion under Fisheries Act 1983 – Negligence – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding no duty of care breached – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 27 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding s 27 not engaged – Fisheries Act 1996, ss 308 and 329 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding Applicant’ s claims for damages and in tort barred by statute.[2008] NZCA 216 CA 48/07 CA 56/07 10 July 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Applications for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2500.00 and disbursements to the respondents
Costs $2500.00 and disbursements to the respondents
Case name
David McAlister v Air New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 49/2008
Summary
Civil – Employment Relations Act 2000 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the demotion of the appellant as flight instructor did not breach a prohibited ground of discrimination, namely his age, in terms of s 104(1) of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that flight instructors under the age of 60 and performing the same work as the appellant were not a relevant comparator group for the purposes of ss 104(1)(a) and (b) of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that being of a particular age was a genuine occupational qualification for the appellant’s employment as a flight instructor in terms of s 30(1) of the Human Rights Act 1993.[2008] NZCA 264 CA 216/07 30 July 2008
Transcripts
- Hearing 25 and 26 March 2009 SC 49/2008 (PDF, 530 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2009] NZSC 78 (PDF, 89 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Shane Huia Matenga v The Queen
Case number
SC 50/2008
Summary
Criminal appeal – Crimes Act 1961 s 385(1) – applicant was convicted of rape and unlawful sexual connection – at trial, inadmissible expert opinion evidence was given as to the central issue of consent – on appeal, the Court of Appeal held that, while there was a risk of a miscarriage of justice under s 385(1)(c), the proviso should be applied as no substantial miscarriage of justice had actually occurred – whether the Court of Appeal applied the correct principles in deciding to apply the proviso – whether the finding that there was a risk of a miscarriage of justice is incompatible with the holding that no substantial miscarriage of justice had actually occurred.[2008] NZCA 260 CA 216/07 28 July 2008
Leave judgment - leave granted
MATENGA v R SC 50/2008 [20 October 2008] (PDF, 12 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal granted.
20 October 2008.
20 October 2008.
Result
Appeal allowed. New Trial ordered.
13 March 2009.
Case name
Woolworths Limited v The Commerce Commission and others
Case number
SC 51/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – section 66 Commerce Act 1986 – acquisitions that will have or are likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition – whether Court of Appeal erred in its approach to giving clearance under s 66 – whether clearance can be declined on the grounds that it is uncertain whether the acquisition will cause a substantial lessening of competition – whether the approach to be adopted by the Court in s 66 cases is different to the balance of probabilities approach used in ordinary civil cases – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to take an approach to the term ‘likely’ which extended to scenarios that were merely possible or speculative – whether ‘substantial’ effects on competition include effects that are merely nominal or ephemeral – if Court of Appeal test was correct, whether Court of Appeal should have referred case back to High Court to apply correct test – whether Court of Appeal had proper regard to all the evidence when applying s 66.[2008] NZCA 276 CA 55/2008 1 August 2008
Dates
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
17 October 2008.
17 October 2008.
Case name
Wiilie Ye, Candy Ye and Tim Ye v Minister of Immigration and Yueing Ding
Case number
SC 53/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – immigration – removal order made under s 54 of the Immigration Act 1987 in respect of an overstayer mother whose children are New Zealand citizens – humanitarian interview conducted by Immigration Officer who determined not to exercise the power of cancellation of the removal order under s 58 of the Immigration Act – whether the Court of Appeal erred in not holding that the children’s welfare and best interests as New Zealand citizen children of an overstayer parent ought to have been directly addressed and taken into account by the Immigration Officer as the paramount or alternatively as a primary consideration in his decision making – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold that the applicants were entitled to be heard either prior to the decision to make the removal order or prior to the decision to proceed with the removal and thus to be accorded natural justice in their own right – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to uphold the applicants’ claim that the first respondent failed to properly take into account the applicants’ rights and New Zealand’ s obligations under international law - whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the appropriate relief was to remit the matter of the Immigration Service to be reconsidered “if it sees fit”.[2008] NZCA 291 CA 184/2006
Media Releases
Transcript
Dates
Application for leave to appeal granted
4 November 2008
Case name
Roderick William Nielsen v Dysart Timbers Limited
Case number
SC 54/2008
Summary
Civil – Costs – whether the Court of Appeal correctly applied an objective test to the issue of whether the appellant intended a settlement offer to remain open for acceptance after the Supreme Court had granted leave to appeal.[2008] NZCA 280 CA 630/07 6 August 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
28 October 2008
___________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
15 May 2009
28 October 2008
___________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
15 May 2009
Media Releases
- media release nielsen v dysart (PDF, 89 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Page 67 of 78