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
Churchill Group Holdings Limited and others v Aral Property Holdings Limited and David Leung
Case number
SC 82/2010
Summary
Civil – Conflict of Interest – Whether employment of High Court Judge’s child within the respondent’s firm of solicitors gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias which meant Judge should not have sat or continued to sit on the case – Whether Court of Appeal should accordingly have recalled its judgment dismissing an appeal from the High Court’s decision not to stay the execution of a costs order against the appellant.[2010] NZCA 335 30 July 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
3 November 2010
Case name
Neil Martin Clarke v Corey Daniel Watts
Case number
SC 83/2010
Summary
Civil – Security for costs on appeal – Whether the Registrar of the Court of Appeal failed to provide the appellant with information relating to the requirements for a dispensation of costs within time – Whether a miscarriage of justice would be caused by the release of monies held by the High Court in execution of the costs order to the respondent.[2010] NZCA 322 27 July 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CLARKE v WATTS SC 83/2010 [7 October 2010] (PDF, 46 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
7 October 2010
Case name
Peter Hardie McNamara and Patrick Sturgeon McNamara as Trustees of the PH McNamara Family Trust v Auckland City Council
Case number
SC 85/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondent did not owe a duty of care to the appellant; whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the building certificate issued by a third party was invalid under the Building Act 1991.[2010] NZCA 345 CA 457/2009 3 August 2010.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds are: Whether a local authority: (i) owes a duty of care to purchasers of units in a residential development for which a code compliance certificate was issued by a private certifier which was acting outside of its authority to issue such certificates; and/or (ii) was immunised by s 50(3) of the Building Act 1991 against liability in relation to its actions in reliance on such a certificate.
30 November 2010
____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
The appellants are to pay the respondent costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements in connection with this appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
9 May 2012
B The approved grounds are: Whether a local authority: (i) owes a duty of care to purchasers of units in a residential development for which a code compliance certificate was issued by a private certifier which was acting outside of its authority to issue such certificates; and/or (ii) was immunised by s 50(3) of the Building Act 1991 against liability in relation to its actions in reliance on such a certificate.
30 November 2010
____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
The appellants are to pay the respondent costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements in connection with this appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
9 May 2012
Transcripts
- sc 85 2010 mcnamara family trust v auckland cc (PDF, 983 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2012] NZSC 34 (PDF, 95 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
R I G v Chief Executive Officer, Ministry of Social Development and others
Case number
SC 90/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to waive security for costs for the applicant’s appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal. [2010] NZCA 362 CA 261/2009 10 August 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
17 November 2010
Case name
Westpac New Zealand Limited v Map & Associates Limited
Case number
SC 98/2010
Summary
Civil – Knowing assistance in breach of trust – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Westpac did not have reason to refuse to follow the instructions of its account holder – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 87 of the Judicature Act 1908.[2010] NZCA 404 CA 193/2009 6 September 2010.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that Westpac had breached its mandate.
C The application for leave to cross-appeal is refused.
2 February 2011
_______________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $15,000.00 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.
16 August 2011
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that Westpac had breached its mandate.
C The application for leave to cross-appeal is refused.
2 February 2011
_______________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $15,000.00 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.
16 August 2011
Transcripts
- Hearing date 31 May 2011 SC 98/2010 (PDF, 725 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2011] NZSC 89 (PDF, 85 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v The Solicitor-General
Case number
SC 116/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – costs – whether costs should have been awarded against the applicant when the respondent discontinued contempt of court proceedings – whether the Judge was biased.[2010] NZCA 549 CA 126/2010 23 November 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2500 to the respondent.
7 February 2010.
Application for recall dismissed.
1 April 2011.
Case name
Karen McGrath v Accident Compensation Corporation
Case number
SC 127/2010
Summary
Civil – Accident Compensation Act 2001 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that the ACC had a reasonable basis under s 110(3) Accident Compensation Act to require the Applicant to undergo a vocational independence assessment.[2010] NZCA 535 CA 302/2009 19 November 2010
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal in [2010] NZCA 535 has correctly interpreted and applied s 110(3) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001.
8 March 2011
___________________
A The appeal is allowed and the notice given on 9 September 2008 by the Accident Compensation Corporation is quashed.
B Costs are reserved. Counsel may file memoranda if necessary.
7 July 2011
B The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal in [2010] NZCA 535 has correctly interpreted and applied s 110(3) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001.
8 March 2011
___________________
A The appeal is allowed and the notice given on 9 September 2008 by the Accident Compensation Corporation is quashed.
B Costs are reserved. Counsel may file memoranda if necessary.
7 July 2011
Media Releases
- sc 127 2010 karen mcgrath v acc press release (PDF, 84 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young J.
Case name
Evgeny Orlov v Anza Distributing NZ Limited and USG Interiors Pacific Limited
Case number
SC 136/2010
Summary
Civil – costs – whether Court of Appeal with jurisdiction to strike out appeal against costs judgment in circumstances where no dispute between parties and main purpose of appeal to challenge legal basis of decision and factual findings that counsel had failed to reach minimum standard of competence that should be attained by officers of the Court – whether appropriate for appellant to pay for an amicus to act as contradictor – whether Court of Appeal decision contravened appellant’s rights under New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights; and United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers. [2010] NZCA 536 CA 683/2009 22 November 2010
Additional document
sc 136 2010 orlov v anza fees review (PDF, 21 KB)
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. No order for costs.
29 March 2011.
Case name
Michael Gregory v Thomas Patrick Joseph Gollan and others
Case number
SC 4/2009
Summary
Civil appeal - application for proceeding to trial by judge and jury – alleged wrongful arrest – whether proceedings involve mainly questions of law – whether discretion to allow trial by judge has been properly exercised - whether trial by judge denies the appellant of constitutional rights – whether c.29 Magna Carta applies to civil proceedings concerning wrongful arrest.[2008] NZCA 568 CA 699/2007 19 December 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to respondent.
30 March 2009
30 March 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GREGORY v GOLLAN AND ORS SC 4/2009 [30 March 2009] (PDF, 15 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Beverley Rawleigh v Derek Maxwell Tait
Case number
SC 6/2009
Summary
Civil – Breach of fiduciary duty – Liability – Solicitor acted for both husband and wife in a transaction without informed consent of wife – Whether a solicitor is liable for losses flowing from a transaction in which he acted for a client in breach of his fiduciary duty to avoid conflicts of interest where the client would have entered into the transaction in any event.[2008] NZCA 525 CA 609/2007 3 December 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the respondent.
17 February 2009
17 February 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Rawleigh v Tait SC 6/2009 [17 February 2009] (PDF, 16 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Page 92 of 107