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
James Charles Morris Parlane v Waipa District Council
Case number
SC 53/2006
Summary
Criminal – third appeal against conviction and sentence – breaches of fire control bylaw – reference in bylaw to incinerator standard “withdrawn” by Standards New Zealand before bylaw passed – whether this reference invalidated part or whole of bylaw or took applicant outside its reach – severability of subparagraph including reference – whether Court of Appeal wrong to hold that a local authority may consider a revoked standard to be appropriate for its practical purposes – Court of Appeal emphasised that applicant has brought separate public law proceedings seeking quashing of bylaw – whether Court of Appeal wrong to conclude that severance of subparagraph by High Court, whether or not appropriate, unnecessary because bylaw valid on evidence before it – applicant also seeking reversal of costs order in District Court under Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967. CA 319/05 6 July 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs of $1,000 to the respondent.
19 September 2006
19 September 2006
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Yi Hua Jiao and others v Ivan Barge
Case number
SC 61/2006
Summary
Civil appeal – dispute concerning sale and purchase of commercial property – appellant found to have committed tort of inducing breach of contract and tort of an unlawful means conspiracy – whether errors of fact and/or law were made by the Court of Appeal with respect to the validity of a sale and purchase agreement.CA 236/05 19 July 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs t0 Respondent of $2,500. Application for leave to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
2 October 2006
2 October 2006
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Keith Hugh Nicholas Berryman and Margaret Berryman v The New Zealand Defence Force
Case number
SC 62/2006
Summary
Civil – costs award – whether Court of Appeal erred in finding an allegation of misconduct against a non-party was irrelevant to a costs order – allegation against armed forces of negligence in the construction of the applicants’ bridge – allegation that armed forces have abused the process of the Court – applicants held not to be entitled to documents sought in application for non-party discovery – costs principles. CA 95/05 13 July 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
31 October 2006
31 October 2006
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Kahala Holdings Limited (formerly Nalder & Biddle (Nelson) Limited v C & F Fishing Ltd
Case number
SC 67/2006
Summary
Civil – contract – incorporation of exclusion clauses – whether Court of Appeal erred in finding clauses had not been sufficiently brought to the attention of the respondent – whether Court of Appeal erred in effectively applying a two-stage test to the incorporation of the conditions in question – whether conditions were unusual or onerous in the circumstances. CA 145/05 31 July 2006
Result
Applications for leave to appeal and cross appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 plus disbursements to the respondent. 21 November 2006
Costs $2,500 plus disbursements to the respondent. 21 November 2006
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Noel Clement Rogers v Television New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 68/2006
Summary
Civil – privacy – freedom of expression – order for permanent injunction, suppressing publication of video tape, made by High Court and quashed by Court of Appeal – tape contained reconstruction of murder by applicant – tape ruled inadmissible at murder trial due to breaches of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – applicant acquitted at trial – claim that publication of tape would constitute unlawful interference with applicant’s privacy – whether Court of Appeal erred in giving insufficient weight to principles of proper and fair administration of justice – applicability of defence of legitimate public concern – threshold for prior restraint. CA 12/06 7 August 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. 17 October 2006
___________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
16 November 2007
___________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
16 November 2007
Media Releases
- MR [2007] NZSC 91 (PDF, 89 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Alain Michael Yves Mafart and Dominique Angela Francoise Prieur v Television New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 70/2006
Summary
Civil – Criminal Proceedings (Search of Court Records) Rules 1974 – video footage of guilty pleas in 1985 trial for bombing of Rainbow Warrior – whether Court of Appeal erred in failing adequately to take account of the administration of justice – whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to protect privacy interests of appellants, or in balancing those interests with freedom of information – whether Court of Appeal erred in departing from previous decisions in respect of the footage – whether Court of Appeal and High Court erred in failing to uphold assurance given to counsel by Judge in 1985 in respect of footage – whether assurance overtaken by consent orders.CA 92/05 7 and 10 August 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs of $2,500 to respondent. 26 September 2006
Judgment appealed from
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Kimberley Birkenfeld v Yachting New Zealand Inc
Case number
SC 72/2006
Summary
Civil – application by respondent for decree limiting its liability – whether Court of Appeal was correct in holding that a rigid inflatable boat (under 24m in length) is a ‘ship’ for the purposes of the application of s 85 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 – whether purpose of Limitation Convention to facilitate commercial shipping – application of the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships.CA 171/05 9 August 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $1,500 to respondent. 10 November 2006
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Hayden Matthew Johnston & Earnscleugh Vineyard Ltd v Schist Mountain Orchards Litd
Case number
SC 75/2006
Summary
Civil – contract – interpretation of agreement for sale and purchase - whether Court of Appeal erred in determining that the agreement permitted the respondent to obtain consent for a subdivision that contained a right of way with dimensions fixed by the territorial authority and not limited to the minimum standards in the relevant District Plan and/or did not require the respondent to obtain the minimum dimensions acceptable to the territorial authority – whether Court of Appeal erred in determining the width of easement in question “of no real moment” – whether applicant able to insist on conditions that limit respondent’s use of easementCA 99/05 24 August 2006
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicants are to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $2,500 plus disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
The applicants are to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $2,500 plus disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
13 November 2006
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind v Auckland City Council
Case number
SC 76/2006
Summary
Civil – local government – levying of rates – Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 1, Part 1, cl 5(e), Part 1 – whether relevant rating exemption does not apply to land owned by applicant for its purposes and not acquired or held as a gift but which is nevertheless let to commercial tenants – whether exemption should be construed to indicate and/or be applied in light of inferred legislative purpose that land not directly used to provide services of charitable nature should be rateable – whether the meaning of “except as an endowment” is relevant to the application of the rating exemption and informs the policy underpinning the exemption – whether anomalies arising from natural and ordinary interpretation of exemption should be left to Parliament to address (if at all).CA 171/05 29 August 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. 27 November 2006 _____________________ Appeal dismissed.
Costs to respondent $15,000 plus disbursements. 2 August 2007
Costs to respondent $15,000 plus disbursements. 2 August 2007
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment / Media release
Transcription
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Anthony Arbuthnot v Chief Executive of the Department of Work and Income
Case number
SC 82/2006
Summary
Civil – applicant was overpaid benefits – whether Court of Appeal erred in confusing review and appeal provisions under statute with administrative power of review – whether the decision of the Benefit Review Committee on the status of the beneficiary could only be reviewed by the Chief Executive on the basis of new information or some change in circumstance – whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that it would not be an abuse of process for the Chief Executive to be able to put an issue decided in the beneficiary’s favour before the Authority at the time the beneficiary appealed other issues – whether a decision of the BRC varying a decision of the Chief Executive creates an estoppel against the Chief Executive – whether the Court of Appeal erred in not distinguishing between the decision of the Chief Executive, and the decision as modified by the Authority. CA 256/05 3 October 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. 8 March 2007 _______________________ Appeal dismissed. Cost reserved.
19 July 2007
19 July 2007
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Substantive judgment / Media release
Transcript
Leave judgment - leave granted
Page 104 of 107