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.

17 August 2026

Case information summary (as at 17 August 2026) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 17 August 2026)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 128 KB) 

All years

Case name
Vince and Jane Siemer and Paragon Services Limited v Kate Fardell, Executrix for Robert Fardell
Case number
SC 93/2007
Summary
Summary Civil – interlocutory – applicants seeking trial by jury in proceedings for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty – whether Court of Appeal erred in confirming decision of High Court to grant respondent’ s application for an order that the trial be held before a Judge alone – applicability of s 19A(5)(a) and/or (b) Judicature Act 1908 – applicants alleging conflicts of interest on part of High Court and Court of Appeal Judges.[2007] NZCA 530 CA 171/07 22 November 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $1500 to respondent. 28 February 2008
Case name
Jeffrey George Lopas and Lorraine Elizabeth McHerron v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 2/2006
Summary
Civil - tax - whether "the amount specified for the purposes of s 51(1)" in the Goods and Services Tax Act 1986, s 52(1) refers only to the monetary sum specified in s 51(1)(a) or to s 51(1) as a whole (including the exclusions in paras (c) and (d)) - whether the Commissioner of Inland Revenue can advance submissions contrary to propositions of law contained in the Commissioner's Statement of Position. CA 253/04 30 November 2005
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $1,500.00.
2 August 2006
Case name
Taunoa and Others v Attorney-General and Another
Case number
SC 6/2006
Summary
Civil - prisoners claims for compensation for mistreatment by the Department of Corrections - whether Department breached the First, Second and Fourth appellants' rights not to be subjected to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment under New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (" NZBORA"), s 9 - whether Department breached the appellants' right to natural justice under NZBORA, s 27(1) - whether the Department breached the appellants' equivalent rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR") and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ("CAT") - whether Attorney-General's failure to hold a prompt and impartial investigation of the complaints breached NZBORA, s 9 or CAT or ICCPR - whether Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners 1955 form part of customary international law - whether Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Act 2005 is inconsistent with NZBORA ss 9, 23(5), 27(1); CAT arts 2, 14, 16; ICCPR arts 10(1), 14, 26 - whether Victims' Special Claims Tribunal is independent and impartial or breaches the principles of separation of powers and equality before the law. CA 82/04 8 December 2005
Result

Leave to Appeal granted.

12 April 2006

_________________________

The appeals are dismissed.

The cross-appeals are allowed to the following extent:
1. The damages awarded to Mr Taunoa are reduced to $35,000.
2. The damages awarded to Mr Robinson are reduced to $20,000.
3. The damages awarded to Mr Kidman are reduced to $4,000.

The cross-appeal in relation to Mr Gunbie is dismissed.

Costs are reserved.

31 August 2007

Case name
Alan John Shirley v Wairarapa District Health Board
Case number
SC 10/2006
Summary
Civil - costs - defendant in negligence proceedings persuaded plaintiff to join second defendant - plaintiff discontinued proceedings against first defendant after accepting settlement offer - second defendant successfully defended claim in full hearing - whether second defendant entitled to costs against first defendant. CA 43/05 7 December 2005
Result
Leave to Appeal granted.
21 March 2006
_______________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 plus disbursements.
23 August 2006
Case name
AMP v MacAlister Todd
Case number
SC 13/2006
Summary
Civil – insurance – solicitor trustee negligently failed to recognise that GST was payable on sale of trust assets – whether solicitor’ s firm entitled to indemnity from insurer – whether Court of Appeal failed to address a principal ground of appeal – whether claim against firm arose “from a trading loss or trading liability incurred by a business managed by or carried on by the insured” – whether claim against own firm by solicitor in capacity as trustee is a claim “made against” the firm – whether causation between solicitor’s negligence and loss – which party has onus to show causation – whether evidential basis to find that trustees would have secured indemnity from trust funds had solicitor not been negligent CA 108/05 15 December 2005
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
4 July 2006
_________________________
Appeal allowed, Judgment entered for the appellant on the respondents claim. No award of costs.
8 December 2006
Case name
Gillian Moana Buchanan and Lynette Catherine Symes v Chief Executive of the Department of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 16/2006
Summary
Civil appeal – employees dismissed for breach of Inland Revenue Code of Conduct - Court of Appeal dismissed personal grievances and orders for reinstatement made in the Employment Relations Authority and upheld in the Employment Court - whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that ignorant non-compliance with Code does not give rise to presumption that actions do not constitute serious misconduct – whether the Court of Appeal erred in stating the test for disparity of treatment by including a third element that the dismissal must be justified notwithstanding the disparity for which there is no adequate explanation – whether the Court of Appeal’ s decision to determine whether there was disparity of treatment on the facts rather than refer the matter back to the Employment Court constituted a substantial miscarriage of justice. CA 2/05 22 December 2005
Result
Leave to Appeal dismissed, costs of $2,500 to respondent.
6 June 2006
Case name
Fiona Prasad v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
Case number
SC 18/2006
Summary
Civil – social security – beneficiary owner and mortgagor of two flats on same property – beneficiary living in one flat and renting the other out – whether beneficiary’s “accommodation costs” encompasses total outgoings on the property, or only that portion of the outgoings referable to the flat occupied as a home – meaning of “premises” – Social Security Act 1964, s 61E CA 119/04 22 December 2005
Result
Leave to Appeal dismissed.
10 April 2006
Case name
Marlene Patricia Te Wii Haggie v Piki Tawhaki Haggie
Case number
SC 20/2006
Summary
Civil – appeal against Family Court decision on division of relationship property – whether Family Court had jurisdiction to make the orders it did – land listed as general land on certificate of title – argued by applicant in Family Court and High Court that land is customary Maori land and that both courts lacked jurisdiction to determine the issue – whether Privy Council retains inherent jurisdiction under Article the Third of the Treaty of Waitangi or under ss5 and 6 of the Imperial Laws Application Act to determine the status of land – whether status of the land is in question because Crown never “acquired tenure by fair purchase” – whether the extinguishment of the right of appeal to the Privy Council was in breach of Article the Third of the Treaty of Waitangi and the principles of equity in s99 Judicature Act 1908 – whether applicant entitled to appeal to the Privy Council for status orders declaring land in question Maori land – whether Privy Council remains the “court of last resort for native sovereign proprietors” of land – applicant seeks declaration that abolition of appeals to Privy Council ineffective in respect of “native sovereign proprietors”.
Result
Application for leave to amend the application for leave to appeal and Leave to Appeal both dismissed. Costs to respondent of $2,500.
10 May 2006
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Aotearoa International Limited v Paper Reclaim Limited
Case number
SC 28/2006
Summary
Civil – exclusion from export venture – whether Court of Appeal erred in its determination of an appropriate notice-of-termination period – whether Court of Appeal wrong to interfere with trial Judge’s finding that respondent’s sales of waste paper to third party for export was in breach of its contract with the applicant – whether Court of Appeal wrong to deny applicant equitable relief for loss arising from breach of fiduciary duty – whether Court of Appeal wrong to interfere with trial Judge’ s finding that respondent’s principals made false affidavits and gave false evidence in denying existence of contract and therefore whether Court of Appeal erred in setting aside costs awarded on an indemnity basis. CA 70/04 14 March 2006
Result
Leave to Appeal granted.
2 June 2006
Case name
Brett Ronald Larsen v Rick Dees Limited
Case number
SC 29/2006
Summary
Civil appeal – agreement for sale and purchase of ten residential units – delays in settlement - vendor issued settlement notice - notice specified that on receipt from purchaser of faxed bank cheque for settlement figure, title documents would be delivered – purchaser transferred funds electronically before the time limit but confirmation fax only received after time limit – Court of Appeal allowed appeal from decision of High Court in which purchaser’s claim for specific performance was dismissed on basis that purchaser had not settled in accordance with the settlement notice – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the purchaser had fulfilled its obligation to settle in terms of the settlement notice -  whether the Court of Appeal applied the correct provision of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979 with respect to the vendor’s entitlement to cancel.   CA 82/05 13 March 2006
Result
Leave to Appeal granted. 2 June 2006 ____________________ The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court dismissing the respondent’s claim is restored.
The appellant is awarded costs in this Court of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. The appellant is also awarded costs in the Court of Appeal of $6,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar of that Court. 1 June 2007