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
Gascoinge Wicks v Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited and Ors
Case number
SC 41/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Misrepresentation – Whether Court of Appeal wrong to find that Alitmarloch Joint Venture Ltd induced by representations made by Gascoigne Wicks and Vining Realty to enter into and confirm contract for sale and purchase – Whether reasonable in the circumstances for AJVL to act in reliance on representations.[2010] NZCA 104 CA 438/2008 and CA 213/2009 29 March 2010
Result
A The application for leave to appeal are granted.
B The approved ground is whether the award of damages against DS & JW Moorhouse (in respect of which they are entitled to be fully indemnified by Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks) was appropriately quantified on an expectation basis.
B The approved ground is whether the award of damages against DS & JW Moorhouse (in respect of which they are entitled to be fully indemnified by Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks) was appropriately quantified on an expectation basis.
14 July 2010
_______________________________
Appeal dismissed.
Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks are to pay the Council costs of $5,000. They are to pay in the proportions fixed in the Court of Appeal, namely 60 per cent by Vining Realty and 40 per cent by Gascoigne Wicks.
Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks are to pay in the same proportions costs of $10,000 to Altimarloch.
In each case where costs are awarded, disbursements shall be added as agreed or fixed by the Registrar.
Transcript
Hearing date : 14 and 15 February 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Commerce Commission v Vodafone New Zealand Limited and Telecom New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 44/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Communications - Telecommunications Act 2001 - Whether the Commerce Commission erred in its calculation of the net cost of providing Telecommunications Services Obligation under the Act by ceasing to introduce new technology into the modelled network.Civ 2008 485 2194/295/ 2341 1 April 2010
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. Approved ground of appeal is whether the Commerce Commission in making its determination complied with applicable statutory provsion.
14 May 2010
__________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order for costs.
17 November 2011
14 May 2010
__________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order for costs.
17 November 2011
Substantive judgment
Leave judgment - leave granted
Transcript
Hearing date : 21 – 24 February 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Case name
Telecom New Zealand Limited v Vodafone New Zealand Limited and Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 46/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Communications - Telecommunications Act 2001 - Whether the Commerce Commission erred in its calculation of the net cost of providing Telecommunications Services Obligation under the Act by ceasing to introduce new technology into the modelled network.Civ 2008 485 2293/2205/2206 1 April 2010
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. Approved ground of appeal is whether the Commerce Commission in making its determination complied with applicable statutory provsion.
14 May 2010
________________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order for costs.
17 November 2011
14 May 2010
________________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order for costs.
17 November 2011
Substantive judgment
Leave judgment - leave granted
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Case name
GE Custodians v Bruce Leonard Bartle and Dorothy Judith Bartle and others
Case number
SC 52/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the credit contracts entered into by the appellant and the respondents were oppressive in terms of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003; Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “oppression”; whether it is possible for a contract to be oppressive despite independent legal advice being received: whether knowledge of a third party could be attributed to the appellant in the absence of a relationship of agency.[2010] NZCA 174 CA 627/2009 6 May 2010
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground of appeal is whether the credit contracts were oppressive in terms of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003.
5 August 2010
______________________
The appeal is allowed and the orders made by the Court of Appeal are set aside. The case is remitted to the High Court for determination of issues reserved by that Court for further consideration. The appellant is awarded costs in this Court against the first and second respondents of $25,000 together with its reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar. The costs order made by the Court of Appeal is reversed.
3 December 2010
5 August 2010
______________________
The appeal is allowed and the orders made by the Court of Appeal are set aside. The case is remitted to the High Court for determination of issues reserved by that Court for further consideration. The appellant is awarded costs in this Court against the first and second respondents of $25,000 together with its reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar. The costs order made by the Court of Appeal is reversed.
3 December 2010
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20-21 October 2010_SC 52/2010 (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2010] NZSC 146 (PDF, 86 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Alan Parekura Torohinga Haronga v Waitangi Tribunal and others
Case number
SC 54/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial Review – Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 – Whether Appellant should be granted urgent Waitangi Tribunal remedies hearing in respect of application for resumption of Crown forest land subject to current settlement negotiations – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that Crown Forests Assets Act 1989 did not substantively alter Waitangi Tribunal’s role in relation to making of binding recommendations in respect of Crown forest land – Whether Court of Appeal failed to take into account that circumstances meant Tribunal did not exercise its discretion and Appellant could never have gained remedies hearing – Whether Court of Appeal failed to take into account right of smaller claimants to seek a remedy under s 8HB of Treaty of Waitangi Act.[2010] NZCA 201 CA 73/2010 19 May 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether in making his decision of 21 October 2009 in Wai 1489 to decline an urgent remedies hearing, the presiding Judge in the Waitangi Tribunal erred in law.
10 August 2010
___________________________
A The appeal is allowed and the determination of Judge Clark is quashed. B The matter is remitted to the Waitangi Tribunal with the direction that it must proceed urgently to hear the claim. C The second respondent must pay the appellant costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. Costs in the Court of Appeal and High Court are to be fixed by those Courts
10 August 2010
___________________________
A The appeal is allowed and the determination of Judge Clark is quashed. B The matter is remitted to the Waitangi Tribunal with the direction that it must proceed urgently to hear the claim. C The second respondent must pay the appellant costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. Costs in the Court of Appeal and High Court are to be fixed by those Courts
Transcripts
- Hearing date 11 and 12 October 2010 (PDF, 1.1 MB)
- Hearing date 6 August 2010 (PDF, 306 KB)
Media Releases
- Media release dated 19 May 2011 (PDF, 67 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
Ian David Penny and Gary John Hooper v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 62/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Income Tax Act 1994 – Applicant orthopaedic surgeons employed by family companies owned by family trusts – Applicants found by Court of Appeal to have breached general anti-avoidance provision s BG 1 of Income Tax Act as level of remuneration paid by family companies to surgeons not a “commercially realistic salary” in view of family companies’ after-tax profit and therefore artificial/contrived – Whether arrangement had purpose or effect of tax avoidance to benefit from “rate advantage” between personal income tax and company tax rates – Whether “commercially realistic salary” an appropriate concept to apply under the Income Tax Act to a family company – Whether Applicants in fact exercised control over family companies and family trusts as governing director and co-trustee – Whether Court of Appeal correct to consider use of trust capital as advances as evidence of tax avoidance arrangement – Whether Court of Appeal correct to make cost orders different from cost arrangements agreed to by parties.[2010] NZCA 231 CA 201/2009 4 June 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the appellants had failed to establish that their use of their corporate and family trust structures did not constitute taxable arrangements for the purposes of s BG1 of the Income Tax Act 1994.
2 August 2010
______________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellants must pay the respondent’ s costs in the sum of $25,000 together with his reasonable disbursements in connection with the appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
24 August 2011
2 August 2010
______________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellants must pay the respondent’ s costs in the sum of $25,000 together with his reasonable disbursements in connection with the appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
24 August 2011
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Substantive judgment / Media release
Transcript
Hearing date : 27, 28,29 June 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Young JJ.
Case name
Tannadyce Investments Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 63/2010
Summary
Civil – Statutory demand for tax arrears – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that conscious maladministration cannot justify judicial review unless it negated the assessment made by the CIR – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that Tannadyce had the opportunity to invoke the statutory challenge procedure – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to find that the CIR and its officers acted unacceptably in refusing Tannadyce access to documents relating to it.[2010] NZCA 233 CA 703/2008, CA 330/2009 4 June 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal erred in striking out as an abuse of process the remaining ground of the appellant’s judicial review proceeding in which it alleges conscious maladministration by the respondent in denying that it had possession of documents which the appellant alleges it needed in order to be able to file tax returns. 27 August 2010
________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $15,000 plus disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
20 December 2011
________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $15,000 plus disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
20 December 2011
Media Releases
- MR [2011] NZSC 158 (PDF, 84 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Hearing date : 25 August 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Case name
Robert Erwood v Janet Maxted and others
Case number
SC 66/2010
Result
The appeal is allowed.
The appeal to the Court of Appeal is reinstated. The proceeding is remitted to the Court of Appeal for hearing.
The costs order in the Court of Appeal is set aside.
18 March 2011
____________________________
The application by the first respondents for recall is dismissed.
15 July 2011
____________________________
Application by the appellant for recall is dismissed.
25 November 2015
The appeal to the Court of Appeal is reinstated. The proceeding is remitted to the Court of Appeal for hearing.
The costs order in the Court of Appeal is set aside.
18 March 2011
____________________________
The application by the first respondents for recall is dismissed.
15 July 2011
____________________________
Application by the appellant for recall is dismissed.
25 November 2015
Recall judgment
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Graeme John Ingram and Elizabeth Knee & Kip Investments Limited v Patrcroft Investments Limited
Case number
SC 72/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contract – Respondent re-entered property on 14 June 2005, one day before entitled to cancel lease contract for failure by Appellants to pay rent arrears – Whether Respondent cancelled contract under s 8 Contractual Remedies Act 1979 on 15 June by remaining in occupation of the property – Whether Respondent must have been ready, willing and able to perform the contract when cancelling on 15 June – Whether Court of Appeal correct to say Appellants could have reserved their rights to cancel for Respondent’s repudiation by paying outstanding rent on 14 June.[2010] NZCA 275 29 June 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is: In circumstances in which the respondent’s re-entry into the premises on 14 June 2005 was invalid, whether, and when, either of the parties thereafter validly terminated the lease.
27 September 2010
______________________
A The appeal is allowed and the orders made by the High Court are restored.
B The appellants are awarded costs of $15,000 together with their reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
C The costs order made by the Court of Appeal is reversed. Any outstanding questions concerning interest and costs should be determined by the High Court.
19 May 2011
The approved ground is: In circumstances in which the respondent’s re-entry into the premises on 14 June 2005 was invalid, whether, and when, either of the parties thereafter validly terminated the lease.
27 September 2010
______________________
A The appeal is allowed and the orders made by the High Court are restored.
B The appellants are awarded costs of $15,000 together with their reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
C The costs order made by the Court of Appeal is reversed. Any outstanding questions concerning interest and costs should be determined by the High Court.
19 May 2011
Media Releases
- media release ingram v patcroft 10 may 2011 doc (PDF, 84 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
North Shore City Council v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 77/2010
Summary
Civil – Duty of care – Whether Building Industry Authority owed a duty of care to the Council in connection with 1995 review of Council’ s building regulatory operations and functions under Building Act 1991 – Whether case so untenable to justify striking out of third-party notice.[2010] NZCA 324 26 July 2010
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds are:
(i) Whether it is reasonably arguable that the BIA owed a duty of care to the Council in relation to the Grange development in any of the respects pleaded (as described in para 13.1 – 13.3 of the Council’s submissions in support of its application for leave to appeal).
(ii) Whether it is reasonably arguable that the BIA owed a duty of care to the plaintiff body corporate and unit owners in the respect pleaded (as described in para 13.4 of the Council’s submissions in support of its application for leave to appeal).
13 October 2010
________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay the respondent costs of $40,000 and reasonable disbursements in connection with this appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
27 June 2012
Transcript
Hearing date : 1 – 3 November 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard , Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Elias CJ, Blanchard , Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Page 91 of 107