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
Campbell Robert Thom v Davys Burton
Case number
SC 62/2007
Summary
Civil appeal – negligence action against firm of solicitors – prenuptial agreement invalidly executed – as a result, property which was separate property under the prenuptial agreement was included in the matrimonial property division – whether the claim is barred by s 4(1) Limitation Act 1950 – whether the doctrine of reasonable discoverability applies, so that the damage was first suffered when the Family Court declined to give effect to the prenuptial agreement.CA 3/06 30 May 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. _________________ Appeal dismissed.
Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
18 August 2008
Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
18 August 2008
Leave judgment - leave granted
THOM v DAVYS BURTON SC 62/2007 [13 December 2007] (PDF, 18 KB)
Substantive judgment / Media release
Transcription
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Gisborne District Council v Port Gisborne Limited (now known as Tauwhareparae Farms Ltd) and Ors
Case number
SC 63/2007
Summary
Civil – strike-out – whether lower Courts erred in refusing to strike out cause of action in negligence – respondent company seeking contribution from applicant Council in proceedings against them arising from the Jody F Millennium grounding – whether Court of Appeal conflated negligence and statutory duty causes of action – whether there can be a duty of care to protect someone from loss arising from his or her legal liability for negligence – whether respondent entitled in these circumstances to claim that applicant owed parallel duties of care to other parties including the ship – whether Court of Appeal erred in awarding full costs against the applicant. CA 118/06 10 August 2007
Result
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.
19 January 2008
Case name
Saxmere Company Limited, The Escorial Company Limited, Richard King, Russell Stewart Emmerson and Forest Ramge Limited v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Limited
Case number
SC 64/2007
Summary
Civil – applicants challenged the Wool Board’s decisions allocating funding for wool marketing, seeking judicial review and restitution of levies paid and alleging breach of statutory duty (s 6(6) Wool Act 1997) and negligence – High Court Judge found the Board liable in damages for breach of statutory duty and negligence, in relation to one of their four decisions – Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the respondent and dismissed a cross-appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its analysis of the Board’ s decisions under s 6(6) of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal took proper account of the context and purpose of the Wool Act – whether the Court of Appeal failed to address the existence of a duty of care independent of s 6(6) – whether the Court of Appeal erred by making material factual findings which differed from the trial Judge and which were contrary to the evidence heard by the trial Judge – whether the High Court Judge erred in limiting his damages to only one of the four decisions, and in denying restitution of levies.CA 222/05 [2007] NZCA 349 15 August 2007 CIV 485 – 2003 – 2724 6 December 2005
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
12 November 2007
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
3 July 2009
__________________________
The judgment of this Court delivered on 3 July 2009 ([2009] NZSC 72) is recalled and the orders made in that judgment are set aside. The appeal is allowed and the proceeding remitted for rehearing in the Court of Appeal. Costs are reserved. Counsel should make written submissions directed to how costs should be borne for the previous hearing in the Court of Appeal and the two hearings in this Court.
27 November 2009
12 November 2007
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
3 July 2009
__________________________
The judgment of this Court delivered on 3 July 2009 ([2009] NZSC 72) is recalled and the orders made in that judgment are set aside. The appeal is allowed and the proceeding remitted for rehearing in the Court of Appeal. Costs are reserved. Counsel should make written submissions directed to how costs should be borne for the previous hearing in the Court of Appeal and the two hearings in this Court.
27 November 2009
Media Releases
- saxmere v wool board press release 3 july 2009 (PDF, 89 KB)
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Substantive judgment / Media release
Special leave judgment
Case name
ANZ National Bank Limited, UDC Finance Limited and Tui Endeavour Limited v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 67/2007
Summary
Civil appeal – disclosure of documents in tax avoidance litigation – Commissioner of Inland Revenue is challenging on grounds of sham and illegitimate tax avoidance several structured financing arrangements entered into by a number of banks – litigation is to proceed against each bank separately – whether, in litigation against each bank, the Commissioner can rely on documents associated with similar transactions entered into by other banks – whether such reliance is prevented by either s 81 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 or the application of public interest immunity. CA 280/06 [2007] NZCA 356 CA 280/06 21 August 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
18 October 2007
_________________________
The appeals are dismissed with costs to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar, and to be borne as to 40% each by Westpac and ANZ National and as to 20% by ASB Bank.
14 April 2008
18 October 2007
_________________________
The appeals are dismissed with costs to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar, and to be borne as to 40% each by Westpac and ANZ National and as to 20% by ASB Bank.
14 April 2008
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment / Media release
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Case name
Attorney-General v X and Refugee Status Appeal Authority
Case number
SC 69/2007
Summary
Civil – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that where the particulars of a claim for refugee status disclose information relating to the possible commission of a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity (in terms of the international Convention relating to the Status of Refugees), the confidentiality requirements in s 129T of the Immigration Act 1987 prevent the disclosure of those particulars by refugee status officers, the Refugee Status Appeal Authority, and other relevant persons, to those who are concerned with the investigation, prosecution or extradition of any such crime – whether New Zealand’s international legal obligations require the opposite conclusion.[2007] NZCA 388 CA 166/06 5 September 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
14 December 2007
14 December 2007
Leave judgment - leave granted
Transcription
Judgment appealed from
Substantive judgment / Media releaes
Case name
Regal Castings Limited v G M and G N Lightbody and others
Case number
SC 72/2007
Summary
Civil appeal – whether transfer of property from first respondents to second respondent trustees should have been set aside under section 60 Property Law Act 1952 – whether the transfer amounted to fraud - whether Freeman v Pope (1870) 5 LR Ch App 538 represents the correct law where an insolvent debtor transfers property – whether there is a conclusive presumption of fraud in such situations– whether the High Court should have inferred an intention to defraud even if Freeman v Pope does not represent the law – whether the Court of Appeal erred by requiring the appellant to show that prejudice to the creditor was the purpose of the transaction – whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by overlooking relevant objective factors – whether the Court of Appeal erred by putting weight on subjective factors.[2007] NZCA 396 CA 234/05 7 September 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
13 December 2007
_______________________________
Appeal allowed. Cost to the appellant.
23 October 2008
13 December 2007
_______________________________
Appeal allowed. Cost to the appellant.
23 October 2008
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 April 2008 SC 72/2007 (PDF, 355 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2008] NZSC 87 (PDF, 89 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Bronwyn Estate Limited, Barry’s Car Sales, Patrick Antony Darby v Gareth Russel Hoole and Kevin David Pitfield as receivers of Hillcrest Services Limited (in receivership) and Hillcrest Services Limited
Case number
SC 81/2007
Summary
Civil appeal – costs awarded against applicants for Anton Pillar application – applicants appealed against cost award – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse to dispense with security for costs – whether this decision denies the applicants access to justice by preventing them from continuing with their appeal. CA 133/07 1 November 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed . Costs $1,500 to the respondents. 8 February 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Minister of Fisheries and The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Fisheries v Antons Trawling Limited, Esperance Fishing Co Limited and Orneagan Developments Limited
Case number
SC 84/2007
Summary
Summary Civil – appeal from a Court of Appeal decision which granted interim relief to the Respondents against a decision, of the Minister of Fisheries, to reduce the Total Allowable Catch/Total Allowable Commercial Catch for an Orange Roughy fish stock – Applicant claims that the Court of Appeal erred in law, by failing to follow the test in Carlton & United Breweries v Minister of Customs [1986] 1 NZLR 423 when determining the scope of the remedy under s 8 Judicature Amendment Act 1972 and the approach to be adopted – Applicant also claims that the Court of Appeal erred by granting interim relief in the absence of evidence, and by determining that any level of likely monetary loss was sufficient to meet the test of necessity. Application made for urgent hearing, given the practical consequences of the decision for the Orange Roughy population and the potentially wide-ranging effects of the decision on appeal. [2007] NZCA 512 CA 101/07 19 November 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the respondents jointly. 6 December 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Geoffrey Charles Dury and others v Palmerston North City Council and others
Case number
SC 91/2007
Summary
Civil appeal – Resource Management Act 1991 – application by third respondent (an orthodontist) for consent to use a dwelling in a residential area for a non-residential purpose – proposal failed to comply with conditions of District Plan and required a restricted discretionary resource consent, which Council granted without requiring notification – High Court quashed Council’s consent – Court of Appeal overturned High Court decision and restored resource consent – in the meantime, third respondent had applied for and been granted a second resource consent, subject to more restrictive conditions than the first – whether second consent replaced first consent in toto in accordance with Sutton v Moule (1992) 2 NZRMA 41 – whether third respondent may be deemed to have abandoned first consent by making and proceeding with second application and complying with its conditions – alternatively, whether the two consents coexist and third respondent must comply with the conditions of both – whether the consent that is later in time should prevail – whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that it had no discretion as to the available remedy – whether the Court of Appeal correctly applied the principles of the Discount Brands case ([2005] 2 NZLR 597) in relation to dispensing with public notification – application for stay of execution of Court of Appeal’s costs orders.[2007] NZCA 521 CA 198/06 CA 211/06 20 November 2007
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $1,000 to the first respondent and $1,000 jointly to the second and third respondents.
1 April 2008
1 April 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Colin Todd Parker v The Queen
Case number
SC 92/2007
Summary
Criminal – appeal against conviction of indecently assaulting a girl under 12 years – whether the Court of Appeal erred by holding that the fact the defence had not produced evidence of a motive for the complainant to give false evidence was relevant to the jury’s assessment of her credibility – whether the trial judge’s summing up conformed with R v T [1998] 2 NZLR 257 - whether R v T should represent the law in New Zealand insofar as it allows juries to regard a complainant’s evidence as more likely to be true where the defence has not offered any evidence for why the defendant might lie – whether R v T reverses the onus of proof in breach of sections 25(c) and (d) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. [2007] NZCA 534 CA 479/07 CA 572/07 CA 211/06 22 November 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 15 April 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
PARKER v R SC 92/2007 [15 April 2008] (PDF, 20 KB)
Page 71 of 78