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
Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated v Kapiti Coast District Council and Kotuku Parks Limited
Case number
SC 29/2009
Summary
Civil appeal – ss 94A(c) & 93 Resource Management Act 1991 – application for resource consent to subdivide land adjacent to the Waikanae River Estuary Scenic Reserve – Department of Conservation gave written approval to the application – decision taken to proceed to hear the application without notification – Court of Appeal held that the approval of the Department of Conservation did not allow the first respondent to disregard the effects of the application on the Reserve when deciding whether to notify – whether the first respondent is required to consider the effects of the application on the Reserve when making the notification decision under s 93 – whether the first respondent must be “satisfied” that the adverse effects of the activity on the Reserve will be minor – whether the Court of Appeal correctly applied ss 94A(c) & 93[2009] NZCA 73 CA 695/07
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondents jointly. 16 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Ian Russell Geary v The Psychologists Board and another
Case number
SC 36/2009
Summary
Civil – cross-examination of witnesses in judicial review proceedings – application by Mr Geary for leave to cross-examine witnesses who had provided affidavits on behalf of the Psychologists Board in a judicial review of decisions of the Board in disciplinary matters concerning Mr Geary – whether the rule imposing a requirement of leave to cross-examine witnesses in applications for judicial review is contrary to statute, and is not a rule that can be made by a Court – whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to re-examine the validity of the rule – whether there was a proper basis for the High Court to deny the plaintiff the ability to cross-examine the first respondent’s witness.[2009] NZCA 134 CA 818/2008 9 April 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed, with costs $2,500 to the first respondent.
24 June 2009
24 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Christopher Bede Ward v Diane Mary Ward
Case number
SC 40/2009
Summary
Civil – Family – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that an agreement for the sale and purchase of shares was a settlement for the purposes of s 182(1) of the Family Proceedings Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that for the purposes of s 182(6) of the Act a matrimonial property agreement was to be considered by itself and not as part of an overall transaction – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that access to s 182(1) could be gained where it was necessary in the interests of fairness and justice to do so, and thereafter the remedial discretion was a broad one to be exercised in the manner which achieved a fair result taking into account the total background – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to disallow Mr W’s separate property interests subsumed by the overall transaction.[2009] NZCA 139 CA 309/2008 9 April 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted in part.
1 July 2009.
________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs of $15,000 to the respondent plus disbursements.
8 December 2009
1 July 2009.
________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs of $15,000 to the respondent plus disbursements.
8 December 2009
Transcripts
- Hearing date 03 November 2009 (PDF, 586 KB)
Media Releases
- media release ward (PDF, 85 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
WARD v WARD SC 40/2009 [1 July 2009] (PDF, 12 KB)
Substantive judgment
WARD v WARD SC 40/2009 [8 December 2009] (PDF, 225 KB)
Case name
William Patrick Jeffries v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 41/2009
Summary
Civil – Judicial Review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that as the Appellant was not a participant in the statutory scheme under review the Appellant did not possess public interest standing to review the identified pleaded decisions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 27(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 has no application to decision making under the Official Information Act 1982CIV 2006 – 485-2161 20 May 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal refused. Costs $2,500 plus disbursements to the respondent.
3 June 2009
3 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
William Patrick Jeffries v The Privacy Commissioner
Case number
SC 42/2009
Summary
Civil – Judicial Review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a barrister may not invoke the privilege of general immunity against civil liability in respect of his participation in court proceedings against the Privacy Commissioner in relation to the barrister’s preparation and conduct of court proceedings and thereafter – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that a barrister conducting litigation before a court comes within the definition of “agency” in s 2 of the Privacy Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that “any person” in s 91(4) of the Act includes persons who are not “agencies” pursuant to s 2 of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that the Privacy Commissioner’s failure to abide her notice obligations under ss 70 and 73 of the Act was understandable and not a relevant consideration in assessing her decision-makingCIV 2006 – 485-860 22 May 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal refused. Costs $2,500 plus disbursements to the respondent. 3 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Cashmere Capital Limited v Patrick Kevin Carroll and others
Case number
SC 46/2009
Summary
Civil – Retirement Villages Act 2003 – retrospective operation of the Act – the Court of Appeal held that when there has been an Order in Council under s 103, the Registrar-General must note on the certificate of title to the land comprising the village that it is subject to s 22 of the Act, and that the expressed intention of Parliament was that the Act should operate retrospectively to 31 December 2002 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of ss 103 and 21 of the Act - whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that if the Registrar-General has registered Crossdale Village under s 21 of the Act then s 22 applied to the appellant and if the Registrar-General has not done so it should be performed forthwith.[2009] NZCA 185 CA 190/2007 15 May 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
24 July 2009
______________________
Appeal allowed, judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aisde. Costs of $5,000 plus disbursements to the appellant.
4 December 2009
24 July 2009
______________________
Appeal allowed, judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aisde. Costs of $5,000 plus disbursements to the appellant.
4 December 2009
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 November 2009 (PDF, 559 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2009] NZSC 123 (PDF, 58 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Benjamin Morland Easton v Broadcasting Commission and Broadcasting Standards Authority
Case number
SC 55/2009
Summary
Civil – Security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in requiring security for costs before hearing – Whether the Court of Appeal’s requirement for security of costs amounts to an unreasonable barrier to Court access and is discriminatory – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss allegedly “uncontested evidence”[2009] NZCA 252 CA 793/2008 17 June 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 5 August 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Wyeth (NZ) Limited v Ancare New Zealand Limited and The Environmental Risk Management Authority
Case number
SC 57/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal - Statutory Interpretation - whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996; whether the Act requires or entitles the Environmental Risk Management Authority to refuse to disclose the identity of a hazardous substance and/or its chemical composition; whether the Act allows the Environmental Risk Management Authority to require that the identity of a hazardous substance and/or its chemical composition be provided on the basis of confidentiality undertakings. [2009] NZCA 211 CA 424/2007 27 May 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
25 September 2009
______________________
The appeal is dismissed with no order for costs.
23 April 2010
25 September 2009
______________________
The appeal is dismissed with no order for costs.
23 April 2010
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 February 2010 (PDF, 600 KB)
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Talbot 2002 Underwriting Capital Limited v Maintenance Technology and Engineering Limited
Case number
SC 61/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing the applicant’s application for a priority fixture and/or for a stay pending determination of the appeal on the grounds of bias on the part of a Judge who has embarked upon the hearing of a case to which the appellant is a party in the High Court.CA 327/2009 16 June 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to respondent. 14 July 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Slawomir Ryszard Bujak v The District Court at Christchurch and The Republic of Poland
Case number
SC 64/2009
Summary
Civil – extradition - whether Court of Appeal erred in refusing to admit new evidence – whether Court of Appeal erred in determining that by joining an extradition Treaty New Zealand has accepted that the court system in the partner state is robust enough to grant a fair trial – whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that comity interest must be balanced against, and could somehow trump, an individual’s liberty rights – whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the ‘ copies’ provided by the second respondent sufficed for extradition from New Zealand purposes – whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the requisite authentication procedures were followed and that the evidence against the Appellant was not hearsay – whether the Court of Appeal failed to consider relevant case law provided by counsel. [2009] NZCA 257 CA 678/2008 19 June 2009.
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Any application for costs to be made within 10 working days.
15 September 2009
________________
Order for costs to the 2nd respondent in the sum of $2,000.
15 October 2009
15 September 2009
________________
Order for costs to the 2nd respondent in the sum of $2,000.
15 October 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Additional document
Page 94 of 107