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
Tiny Intelligence Limited v Resport Limited
Case number
SC 55/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – Copyright Act 1994 – damages – the High Court found that Resport Ltd fragrantly breached the copyright of Tiny Intelligence Ltd in several toys and awarded Tiny Intelligence Ltd $50,000 by way of account of profits – whether additional damages are available under s 121(2) of the Copyright Act where the Court has awarded an account of profits – whether the House of Lords decision of Redrow Homes Ltd v Bett Brothers Plc [1999] 1 AC 197 should be applied to the New Zealand Copyright Act.[2008] NZCA 281 CA 270/2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
21 October 2008
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. Cost to the respondent $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
8 April 2009
21 October 2008
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. Cost to the respondent $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
8 April 2009
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Case name
Alan Qiuand Stanley Qiu v Minister of Immigration, He Qin Qiu and Ziao Yun Qiu
Case number
SC 56/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – immigration – removal order made under s 54 of the Immigration Act 1987 in respect of 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.[2008] NZCA 291 CA 192/2006
Media Releases
Transcription
Dates
Application for leave to appeal granted
4 November 2008
Case name
Vector Gas Limited v Bay of Plenty Electricity Limited
Case number
SC 65/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – contract interpretation – interpretation of an Interim agreement to preserve gas supply until decision made as to the validity of a termination of gas distribution agreement between the Vector Gas Limited (“NGC”) and Bay of Plenty Energy Limited (“BoPE” )– whether the Court of Appeal erroneously interpreted the terms of the interim agreement as meaning that the repeated phrase “6.50 per GJ” referred to a bundled price for not only the quantities of gas supplied but also transmission and network costs associated with delivery of such gas, rather than to a gas only price – whether the parties had given their own meaning to the phrase “6.50 per GJ” in prior correspondence – whether the Court of Appeal artificially excluded from consideration the bulk of relevant prior correspondence – whether the Court of Appeal disregarded the context of the agreement negotiations that the only other options for BoPE were cessation of gas supply or the giving of an undertaking as to market related damages – whether the Court of Appeal gave weight to unsupported and inherently implausible “reputational” speculation that NGC might not have pressed for a market comparable price in the interim agreement – whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to reach a decision whereby NGC was worse off than if BoPE had given an undertaking as to damages – whether the Court of Appeal’s decision is contrary business common sense and fundamental principles of contractual interpretation. [2008] NZCA 338 CA 679/2008 1 September 2008
Result
The appeal is allowed. The respondent is to pay to the appellant costs of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar. Costs in the lower Courts are to be fixed by those Courts in the light of this Court’ s judgment.
10 February 2010
10 February 2010
Media Releases
- sc 65 2008 vector gas ltd v bope ltd media (PDF, 53 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Dates
Application for leave to appeal granted. Respondents application for leave to cross appeal refused. 11 December 2008.
Case name
Westpac New Zealand Limited v Alan John Clark
Case number
SC 67/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property – Mortgages – Security – Fraud – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding, in effect, that Appellant’ s mortgage secured nothing – Whether Court of Appeal erred in rejecting Appellant’s submission that upon registration of a mortgage, charged property is rendered liable for the mortgage debt (monies advanced in terms of or in reliance upon the mortgage or monies secured by the mortgage) whatever the mortgage debt is established to be by the lender – Whether Court of Appeal erred in rejecting Appellant’s submission that for purposes of determining what monies are secured by a mortgage, there is no difference between an acknowledgment contained in a mortgage of a particular sum lent with a covenant to repay that sum and an acknowledgment of an unparticularised sum (“all monies”) with a covenant to repay those monies – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that a personal covenant to pay contained in a mortgage is independent of the charged created by the mortgage and does not attract indefeasibility on registration – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that the terms of the loan agreement between the Appellant and a fraudster were not incorporated into the registered mortgage – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding Appellant suffered no loss as a result of the Respondent’s breach of undertaking to register the Appellant’ s mortgage “promptly”.[2008] NZCA 346 CA 172/06 5 September 2008
Media Releases
- sc 67 2008 westpac v alan john clark press release (PDF, 88 KB)
Substantive judgment
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is granted.
27 November 2008
Transcript
Case name
Julian Paul Burke and Gillian Elizabeth Burke v Advances Securities Limited
Case number
SC 68/2008
Summary
Civil – Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, s 13 – Court of Appeal considered that certain evidence operated to rebut the presumption of a consumer credit contract under s 13 – whether Court of Appeal’ s conclusion was supported by the evidence. [2008] NZCA 93 CA 696/07 18 April 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed, with costs $2,000 to the respondent.
17 November 2008
Case name
APN New Zealand Limited v Simunovich Fisheries Limited and others
Case number
SC 69/2008
Summary
Civil – Defamation – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the obligation in s 38 of the Defamation Act 1992 applies to the pleading of a stand alone defence of truth – whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that the “repetition rule” and the “ conduct rule” apply to pleadings of truth - whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the change in approach to admissibility of hearsay evidence in the Evidence Act 2006 does not affect the applicability of the “repetition rule” to a pleading of truth – was the Court of Appeal wrong to hold that it is not open to a defendant to plead the opinions and statements of third parties in support of a truth defence, or in support of an honest opinion defence.[2008] NZCA 350 CA 447/07 CA 584/07 8 September 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted
1 December 2008
________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs $15,000 to the respondent jointly with one half of their disbursements.
26 August 2009
1 December 2008
________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs $15,000 to the respondent jointly with one half of their disbursements.
26 August 2009
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Case name
Television New Zealand Limited v Simunovich Fisheries Limited and others
Case number
SC 70/2008
Summary
Civil – Defamation – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the repetition and conduct rules of pleading apply to a defence of truth – whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that a defendant may not seek to prove the truth of imputations by reference to the opinions or assertions of others – did the Court of Appeal err in holding that s 38 does not permit third party assertions and opinion to be pleaded for the defence of truth – was the Court of Appeal wrong to find that a defendant is not entitled to rely on third party assertions as publication facts on which a defence of honest opinion is based, but must identify true statements of facts in the publication which may not include the fact that others made allegations or expressed opinions.[2008] NZCA 350 CA 447/07 CA 584/07 8 September 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
1 December 2008
________________________
Appeal dismissed.
Costs $15,000 to the respondent jointly with one half of their disbursements.
26 August 2009
Transcript
Case name
B and others v Crown Health Financing Agency
Case number
SC 72/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – Mental Health – Treatment – Statutory Interpretation – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding all informal patients in psychiatric hospitals were within leave and immunity provisions contained in s 6 of the Mental Health Act 1935 and s 124 of the Mental Health Act 1969 (“leave and immunity provisions”) – Whether, alternatively, Court of Appeal erred in holding leave and immunity provisions apply to all informal patients after 1 April 1972.[2008] NZCA 362 CA 173/07 16 September 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
1 December 2008
___________________________
Appeal allowed. Proceedings that were before the Court of Appeal referred back to High Court. Costs $15,000 to appellant, together with reasonable disbursements.
17 September 2009
1 December 2008
___________________________
Appeal allowed. Proceedings that were before the Court of Appeal referred back to High Court. Costs $15,000 to appellant, together with reasonable disbursements.
17 September 2009
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
sc 72 2008 p and b v crown healthfinancing agency (PDF, 12 KB)
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Case name
Diagnostic Medlab Limited v Auckland District Health Board and others
Case number
SC 80/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – judicial review – the Auckland region District Health Boards (ARDHBs) put out to tender the provision of its community laboratory services – the successful tenderer was Lab Tests Auckland Limited (Lab Tests) and the incumbent provider, Diagnostic Medlab Limited (DML), applied to the High Court for judicial review of the ARDHBs’ decision on the basis that the decision was procedurally flawed – the application was successful in the High Court and but an appeal to the Court of Appeal by Lab Tests was allowed – whether the Court of Appeal failed to interpret the provisions of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 (PHDA) as contemplating and requiring supplementing by principles of natural justice – whether the Court of Appeal applied a wrong and unduly restrictive approach to judicial review in the context of a contracting decision for an essential public health service – whether the Court of Appeal sanctioned a result which undermined the principles of natural justice, compromised the integrity of the relevant contracting process, and eroded public trust and confidence in decision-making by DHBs generally – whether the Court of Appeal failed to recognise that the PHDA contemplates a significant community voice in decisions affecting public health, including by way of meaningful consultation in accordance with expectations established by documents required by the PHDA – whether the Court of Appeal failed to apply any or an appropriate level of scrutiny to the DHBs’ decision on the grounds of unreasonableness – whether the Court of Appeal failed to pay any or proper respect to the High Court’s identification and evaluation of the relevant factual context, and that Court’s advantages as a primary fact-finder and adjudicator of mixed questions of law and fact. [2008] NZCA 385 CA 154/07 25 September 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,5000 to the first respondents (jointly) and $2,500 to the second respondent.
Case name
Property Ventures Investments Limited v Regalwood Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 85/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – property – validity of settlement notice and notice of cancellation of an agreement for sale and purchase – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondent had validly cancelled the agreement for sale and purchase when the Court had held that essentiality of time under the respondent’s earlier settlement notice had been waived – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that cl 5.4 of the standard ADLS/REINZ form (7th ed, July 1999) applies only to misdescription about the property at the time of the agreement and not to a breach of warranty under cl 6.2 – accordingly, whether the respondent’s settlement notice under cl 6.5 requiring the purchaser to settle for the full price was valid.[2008] NZCA 422 CA 43/2008 16 October 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
4 February 2009
_______________________
Appeal allowed. Orders made in the High Court set aside. Summary Judgment application dismissed. Proceeding remitted to the High Court. Costs of $15,000 to the appellant.
28 April 2010
4 February 2009
_______________________
Appeal allowed. Orders made in the High Court set aside. Summary Judgment application dismissed. Proceeding remitted to the High Court. Costs of $15,000 to the appellant.
28 April 2010
Transcripts
- Hearing date 25 June 2009 SC 85/2008 (PDF, 345 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2010] NZSC 47 (PDF, 37 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 68 of 78