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.
19 June 2026
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 89 KB)
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 126 KB)
All years
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
10 May 2006
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
HAGGIE V HAGGIE SC 20/2006 [10 May 2006] (PDF, 19 KB)
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
2 June 2006
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 March 2007 SC 25/ and SC 282006 (PDF, 604 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2007] NZSC 26 (PDF, 89 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
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
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
Leave judgment - leave granted
LARSEN V RICK DEES LIMITED SC 29/2006 [2 June 2006] (PDF, 13 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Transcript
Judgment appealed from
Substantive judgment / Media release
Case name
Michael David Kidd v Alexander Pieter Van Heeren
Case number
SC 32/2006
Summary
Civil – partial stay of proceedings – principles to be applied in lifting a discretionary stay – whether Court of Appeal erred in stating the test – issue estoppel, forum conveniens, and conflict of laws issues. CA 191/05 23 March 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2000 plus disbursements to the respondent.
26 June 2006
26 June 2006
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
KIDD V VAN HEEREN SC 32/2006 [26 June 2006] (PDF, 94 KB)
Case name
The Secretary for Justice As the New Zealand Central Authority v HJ
Case number
SC 36/2006
Summary
Summary Civil appeal * Care of Children Act 2004 * children wrongfully removed to New Zealand by one parent * other parent made application for an order for children to be returned to Australia * statutory defence to an order available under s 106(1)(a) - whether the Court of Appeal erred in its construction of s 106(1)(a) * whether the Court of Appeal erred in its exercise of discretion under s 106(1)(a).
CA 149/04 11 April 2006
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
27 June 2006
___________________________
The appeal is dismissed. Costs are reserved
16 November 2006
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Case name
Commerce Commission v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Limited
Case number
SC 39/2006
Summary
Civil – dairy industry restructuring – raw milk regulations – whether “cost of capital rate” refers to cost of equity capital rate or to “Weighted Average Cost of Capital” – Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk) Regulations 2001, reg 9(1) CA 175/05 4 May 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
17 August 2006
_____________________
The appeal is allowed and all relevant orders made in the courts below are set aside. A. The Court declares that the capital referred to in reg 9(1) of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk) Regulations 2001 is the respondent’s equity capital.
B. The respondent is to pay the appellant costs of $15,000 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar. In the absence of agreement costs below are to be fixed by the courts below.
17 August 2006
_____________________
The appeal is allowed and all relevant orders made in the courts below are set aside. A. The Court declares that the capital referred to in reg 9(1) of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk) Regulations 2001 is the respondent’s equity capital.
B. The respondent is to pay the appellant costs of $15,000 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar. In the absence of agreement costs below are to be fixed by the courts below.
Transcripts
- Hearing date 12 December 2006 (PDF, 332 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2007] NZSC 36 (PDF, 79 KB)
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Henkel Kgaa v Holdfast NZ Limited
Case number
SC 43/2006
Summary
Civil – copyright infringement – appellant, who was successful in High Court, a “world leader” in the industry using same copyright works throughout the world – whether Court of Appeal failed to take account of statutory presumptions in Copyright Act 1994, s 127 – whether Court of Appeal ignored relevant authorities and misapplied the tests for infringement of compilations and for work derived from admittedly infringing copies – whether Court of Appeal relied upon two erroneous findings about the appellant’ s case in the High Court, resulting in a substantial miscarriage of justice CA 248/04 17 May 2006
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
4 August 2006
______________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 plus disbursements.
30 November 2006
4 August 2006
______________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 plus disbursements.
30 November 2006
Judgment appealed from
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Amaltal Corporation Limited v Maruha Corporation and Maruha (NZ) Corporation Limited
Case number
SC 46/2006
Summary
Civil – appeal against Court of Appeal judgment on the application of s 28 Limitation Act 1950 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in either applying the wrong legal test, or applying the correct test wrongly – tort of deceit – whether the respondents’ claim for deceit was statute barred – meaning of “reasonable diligence” in s 28 – whether, with reasonable diligence, the respondent could have discovered the deceit.Cross-appeal – commercial joint venture – whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the respondents’ action for breach of fiduciary duty – whether the Court of Appeal erred in reducing the amount of damages awarded to the respondents – correct method of calculating damages for deceit.CA 232/04 1 June 2006
Result
A. Amaltal’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents of $2,500.
B. Maruha Corporation and Maruha (NZ) are granted leave to appeal.
C. The approved grounds of the Maruha appeal are: (i) Whether Amaltal was in breach of any fiduciary duty owed by it to Maruha.
(ii) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reducing the damages awarded by the High Court to Maruha.
6 September 2006
___________________________
The appeal is allowed. The respondent is found to have breached a fiduciary duty owed to the appellants.
The judgment sum is increased to $5,832,214.92.
The respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs in this Court in the amount of $15,000 plus reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. The award of costs to the appellants in the Court of Appeal is increased to $40,000.
1 June 2007
B. Maruha Corporation and Maruha (NZ) are granted leave to appeal.
C. The approved grounds of the Maruha appeal are: (i) Whether Amaltal was in breach of any fiduciary duty owed by it to Maruha.
(ii) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reducing the damages awarded by the High Court to Maruha.
6 September 2006
___________________________
The appeal is allowed. The respondent is found to have breached a fiduciary duty owed to the appellants.
The judgment sum is increased to $5,832,214.92.
The respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs in this Court in the amount of $15,000 plus reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. The award of costs to the appellants in the Court of Appeal is increased to $40,000.
1 June 2007
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 February 2007 SC 46/2006 (PDF, 301 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2007] NZSC 40 (PDF, 88 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Khyentse Rinpoche Lama v Ross Hope and others
Case number
SC 48/2006
Summary
Civil – religious purpose trust – lay trustees to be supervised by Karmapa (head of Karma Kagyu School of Buddhism) – appellant, not a trustee, appointed by Karmapa as spiritual director – longstanding, international dispute within School over identity of Karmapa’s new incarnation – Court of Appeal recognised non-justiciability of religious and spiritual issues – correct approach to interpreting and enforcing purpose trusts – whether Court of Appeal erred in interpreting trust deed – whether trust deed gave appellant power to remove trustees – whether alternative application by appellant to remove trustees limited to Trustee Act 1956, s 51 or invoked the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to remove – the scope of that inherent jurisdiction – whether Court of Appeal wrong to conclude that appellant had not alleged improper conduct or breaches of trust deed by trustees – whether reinstatement of trustees by Court of Appeal gave rise to an ‘impossible situation’ inimical to attainment of the trust’s objects. CA 51/05 CA 119/05 7 June 2006
Result
Applications for leave to appeal by both the appellant and respondent are dismissed, with cost to the respondent $1,000.
19 September 2006
19 September 2006
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Susan Couch v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 49/2006
Summary
Civil – appeal against Court of Appeal judgment, striking out claims for misfeasance in public office and negligence – applicant surviving victim of attack in 2001 on Panmure RSA – Department of Corrections acknowledged errors undoubtedly occurred in the handling of attacker’s case – Attorney-General sued on behalf of Department of Corrections – whether Court of Appeal erred in striking out claim for negligence – applicant claiming assailant should not have been allowed or encouraged to work in an ‘inappropriate industry’ – whether Department of Corrections should have better monitored assailant – whether Court of Appeal erred in striking out claim for misfeasance in public office – whether restriction has been placed on state of mind requirement of misfeasance. CA 238/05 17 May 2006
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is whether the cause of action based on negligence was correctly struck out.
1 September 2006
_________________________
Appeal allowed. Order of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the proceedings are remitted to the High Court for hearing. Respondent to pay to the appellant costs of $27,5000 together with reasonable disbursements. Costs in the lower Courts to be fixed.
24 March 2010
The approved ground is whether the cause of action based on negligence was correctly struck out.
1 September 2006
_________________________
Appeal allowed. Order of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the proceedings are remitted to the High Court for hearing. Respondent to pay to the appellant costs of $27,5000 together with reasonable disbursements. Costs in the lower Courts to be fixed.
24 March 2010
Transcripts
- sc 49 2006 susan couch v agfebruary 2009 (PDF, 317 KB)
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
COUCH v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL SC 49/2006 [24 March 2010] (PDF, 625 KB)
Additional document
sc 49 2006 susan couch v ag (PDF, 63 KB)
Substantive judgment / Media release
Transcript
Leave judgment - leave granted
Appeal adjournment / Media release
Judgment appealed from
Page 103 of 107