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
Lewtyn Michael Scott v Rosemary Ann Scott and others
Case number
SC 65/2009
Summary
Civil – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its exercise of discretion declining the application for grant of an extension under r 43 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 – Whether the Court of Appeal was entitled to make that decision in the absence of the applicant or his counsel.[2009] NZCA 255 CA 634/2008 19 June 2009.
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs of $7,500 and disbursements to the respondents. 29 October 2009
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Transcript
Case name
John Carr Laidlaw and Carol Anne Laidlaw v Geoffret Francis Parsonage and Timothy John Goulding
Case number
SC 67/2009
Summary
Civil appeal – contract law - Whether a nominee is entitled to enforce a contract; Whether the phrase "or nominee" is a sufficient designation for purposes of s 4 of the Contracts (Privity) Act 1982.[2009] NZCA 291 CA 304 /2008 9 July 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the respondents. 21 September 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassney and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 69/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – natural justice – orders were made in the High Court against the applicant, the publisher of several websites, in respect of a defamation claim – whether the High Court judge was correct to allow an amended statement of claim to be filed and proceed to an ex parte hearing on 8 October 2008 – whether the High Court judge erred in awarding the respondent $940,000 in damages plus costs and issuing a permanent injunction against the applicant prohibiting several defamatory publications – whether the High Court judge misrepresented evidence in finding against the applicant.Civ 2005 404 001808 23 December 2009
Result
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed
Case name
Conway Lewis and Johanna Lewis v Karen Betty Mason and Jeffrey Philip Meltzer as Liquidators of Global Print Strategies Limited (in Liquidation)
Case number
SC 71/2009
Summary
Civil – liquidation under s 301 of Companies Act 1993 – whether liabilities of a company in liquidation arising post-liquidation should be included in calculating the compensation payable under s 301 – whether the Court of Appeal adopted the correct legal approach in considering the issue of causation in respect of an order under s 301 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in considering the issues of culpability in respect of an order under s 301.[2009] NZCA 306 CA 676/2008 20 July 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
14 October 2009
14 October 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Red Eagle Corporation Limited v Richard John Otley Ellis
Case number
SC 72/2009
Summary
Civil appeal – whether the respondent is liable under s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 for passing on information about a third party which induced the appellant to enter into a contact with that third party[2009] NZCA 320 CA 713/2008 24 July 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
7 October 2009
____________________
Appeal allowed and the judgment of the High Court is restored. Costs $15,000 plus reasonable disbursements in this Court. Order for costs in the Court of Appeal is reversed. HighCourt to fix costs that that has not already been done.
12 March 2010
7 October 2009
____________________
Appeal allowed and the judgment of the High Court is restored. Costs $15,000 plus reasonable disbursements in this Court. Order for costs in the Court of Appeal is reversed. HighCourt to fix costs that that has not already been done.
12 March 2010
Transcripts
- sc 72 2009 red eagle corporation limited v ellis (PDF, 377 KB)
Media Releases
- press release red eagle corp ltd (PDF, 40 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Hearing date : 10 February 2010
Elias CJ, Blanchard, McGrath, Wilson, Anderson JJ.
Case name
The Commerce Commission v Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Limited and Telecom New Zealand
Case number
SC 76/2009
Summary
Civil – alleged breach of s 36 of the Commerce Act 1986 – the Privy Council in Telecom Corporation of New Zealand v Clear Communications [1995] 1 NZLR 385 formulated a counterfactual test (whether a hypothetical firm, not in a dominant position but otherwise in the same circumstances, would have acted as the dominant firm did) to determine whether a firm has used its dominant position in breach of s 36 – whether this test is the appropriate and necessary test for determining a breach of s 36 – if the test is reconsidered, and if the question is assessed on a factual enquiry rather than solely by apply a counterfactual analysis, whether Telecom used its dominant position in the national retail market in breach of s 36 – alternatively, whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that, on application of the counterfactual test, the Commission had not demonstrated that Telecom had used its dominant market position in breach of s 36 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in not considering whether the High Court erred in finding that Telecom did not have an anticompetitive purpose under s 36(1) of the Act.[2009] NZCA 338 CA 288/2008 4 August 2009
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
30 October 2009
__________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant must pay the respondents costs of $50,000 plus disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
1 September 2010
Transcript
Hearing date : 21 – 24 June 2010
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ
Case name
Air Nelson Limited v NZ Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union Inc
Case number
SC 78/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000 – Strikes and lockouts – legality – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that in s 97 of the ERA 2000 the words “the work of a striking or locked employee” mean “the work a striking or locked out employee would probably have been performing had he/she not been locked out – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that s 97 of the ERA 2000 applies in circumstances where the work in question is work which is being performed, or is intended to be performed, by a person who would normally or routinely perform such work.[2009] NZCA 349 CA 206/2008 7 August 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
27 October 2009
_____________________
The appeal is allowed with costs of $15,000 to be paid by the respondent to the appellant together with the appellant’s reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
17 May 2010
27 October 2009
_____________________
The appeal is allowed with costs of $15,000 to be paid by the respondent to the appellant together with the appellant’s reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
17 May 2010
Transcripts
- TS sc 78 2009 23 February 2010 (PDF, 225 KB)
Media Releases
- press release air nelson 17 may 2010 (PDF, 39 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Blair & Co Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council
Case number
SC 82/2009
Summary
Civil – negligence – the Court of Appeal struck out a claim against the Queenstown Lakes District Council by the owner of a commercial building – the claim alleged negligence in the course of the approval and building process resulting in a defect in the building that caused loss to the owner – whether it is reasonably arguable that the Council owed a duty of care to the building owner to exercise reasonable skill and care in the performance of its statutory functions and responsibilities under the Building Act 1991.[2009] NZCA 374 CA 441/2008 25 August 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
24 November 2009
____________________
Leave to appeal is revoked. The appellant is ordered to pay the respondent costs of $7,500, together with reasonable disbursements incurred prior to the abandonment by Charterhall Trustees Ltd of its appeal (SC 81/2009).
22 April 2010
24 November 2009
____________________
Leave to appeal is revoked. The appellant is ordered to pay the respondent costs of $7,500, together with reasonable disbursements incurred prior to the abandonment by Charterhall Trustees Ltd of its appeal (SC 81/2009).
22 April 2010
Transcripts
- sc 82 2009 blair co v queenstown lakes (PDF, 461 KB)
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Case name
Westpac Banking Corporation, Bank of New Zealand Limited, ANZ National Bank Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 83/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Banking and Finance – Unclaimed Money Act 1971 – meaning of terms: “money” “payable”, “has become owing” – Whether UMA applies to conditional transactional liabilities such as cheques, drafts or other bills of exchange – Bills of Exchange Act 1908 – nature of drawer’s liability – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Thomas Cook (New Zealand) Ltd [2005] 2 NZLR 722 (PC) applied – Whether Thomas Cook rightly decided.[2009] NZCA 376 CA 741/2008 26 August 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
4 December 2009
__________________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellants are ordered to pay the respondent costs of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
7 April 2011
4 December 2009
__________________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellants are ordered to pay the respondent costs of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
7 April 2011
Transcripts
- sc 83 2009 westpac ors v ird (PDF, 579 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Tulsi Ram Naresh v Gordon Edward McCluskie
Case number
SC 89/2009
Summary
Civil – whether the Court of Appeal erred in law and fact in finding that the appellant should be removed as a trustee of a family trust pursuant to s 51 of the Trustee Act 1956 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in making an award of indemnity costs against the appellant – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that, for limitation purposes, time ran from October 1993.[2009] NZCA 328 CA 766/2008 28 July 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Indemnity costs to the respondent. 26 November 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Supreme court decision
NARESH v McCLUSKIE SC 89/2009 [18 December 2009] (PDF, 8 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Page 95 of 107