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
Chesterfields Preschools Limited, David John Hampton and others v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 90/2009
Summary
Civil – GST Act 1995 - Costs awards – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the appeals of the Commissioner for a stay of payment of costs awards in favour of the applicant.[2009] NZCA 373 CA 607/2008   25 August 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $3,000 plus disbursements to the respondent. 8 December 2009
Case name
Ludgater Holdings Limited v Gerling Australia Insurance Company Pty Limited
Case number
SC 92/2009
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936, namely whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the respondent had a sufficient presence in New Zealand and whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction –  whether s 9 has an extraterritorial effect – whether, if the High Court does have jurisdiction, the Court in the exercise of its discretion should decline or allow jurisdiction[2009] NZCA 397  CA 546/2008   11 September   2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
16 December 2009
___________________________
Appeal dismissed. Cost to respondent $15,000 plus reasonable disbursements.
11 May 2010
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from

 

Case name
JD & CE Henson Partnership and others v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 95/2009
Summary
Civil – Tax Administration Act 1994 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining what is sufficient to constitute a statutory Notice of Assessment – Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly stated that the applicants’ assessments were subsequently amended – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that the Taxation Review Authority addressed the correctness of the assessments without objection from the applicants – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that the Taxation Review Authority had jurisdiction under the Notices of Assessment.[2009] NZCA 423   CA  661/2008   22 September    2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs to the respondents of $3,000 plus disbursements. 15 December 2009
Judgment appealed from

 

Case name
Greymouth Gas Kaimiro Limited and others v GXL Royalties Limited and Swift Energy New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 98/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management – Petroleum mining – Leases – Contract and interpretation – Equity – obligations – assignment – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that actual reasons for GXL Royalties Ltd’s refusal to consent to transfer of Swift Energy Ltd’s interests in a petroleum exploration permit, from Swift to Greymouth Gas Kaimiro Ltd, are irrelevant to the issue of whether consent was properly or improperly withheld – Whether Court of Appeal erred in confining the issue at trial to a purely objective test of whether it has been established that Greymouth has sufficient financial capability to meet the obligations under the permit and royalty deed – Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to account in the test for the requirement of reasonableness.[2009] NZCA 433   CA  100/2009   24 September 2009
Result
Leave to appeal is granted The approved ground is whether GXL is required to plead to an allegation that it refused consent to the transfer of Swift’s interest in the petroleum permit to Greymouth for collateral reasons unrelated to Greymouth’s financial capability to meet obligations under the permit and the deed reserving to GXL a royalty interest.
30 March 2010
_________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellants are ordered to pay the respondent costs of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
22 September 2010
Case name
Benjamin Morland  Easton v Wellington City Council
Case number
SC 99/2009
Summary
Judicial review – the respondent put forward a proposal to open Manners Mall in Wellington to bus traffic for public consultation – the applicant initiated judicial review proceedings in the High Court alleging unlawful predetermination on the part of the respondent in favour of the proposal – the applicant sought an interim order to prevent the respondent from taking further action in relation to the proposal until his judicial review proceedings were heard – the High Court Judge declined to make the interim order and ordered the applicant to provide security for costs in the amount of $12,000 – the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court but varied the Judge’s order to substitute $8,000 for $12,000 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s decision.[2009] NZCA 513     CA  615 /2009   23 October   2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
26 February 2010
Case name
Mana PropertyTrustee Ltd v James Development Ltd
Case number
SC 105/2009
Summary
Civil – Interpreting terms of a sale and purchase agreement  – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by equating non-performance at the time of settlement with an automatic right to cancel – Whether the Court of Appeal were wrong to find that clause 18.3 of the agreement for sale and purchase was essential.[2009] NZCA 483    CA  241/2000  19 October  2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
1 March 2010
______________________
Appeal allowed. It is declared that the respondent’ s purported cancellation on 3 November 2008 of its contract with the appellant was of no effect.  The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for outstanding issues to be determined in light of this judgment.  The costs order made in the Court of Appeal is set aside. Costs are reserved.  Counsel should file memoranda. 
23 July 2010
Case name
Attorney-General v Tamil X v Refugee Status Appeals Authority  and Y
Case number
SC 107/2009
Summary
Immigration – whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting Article 1F of the  1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees; whether the Court erred in not remitting an Article 1F inquiry to the Refugee Status Appeals Authority[2009] NZCA 488    CA  109/2008  20 October  2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
10 March 2010
__________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The respondent’s application for recognition of refugee status is remitted to the Refugee Status Appeals Authority for consideration in accordance with the Court of Appeal’s order.
C Costs are reserved and counsel may submit memoranda if necessary.
27 August 2010
Case name
Alan Stanley Perkins and Adrieene Rosemary Perkins v Tere Moana Purea and Tom Tangi-Tuake and June Tangi-Tuake
Case number
SC 111/2009
Summary
Civil – Land Transfer Act 1952 – the appellants sued for specific performance after the respondent failed to settle a house purchase due to a dispute with his daughter over ownership which resulted in her lodging a caveat against the title of the property – whether, in light of s 182 of the Land Transfer Act 1952, the Court of Appeal erroneously approached the matter by way of contest between competing equities – whether the Court of Appeal should have held that registration is conclusive and that the appellants, as bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the daughter’ s equitably interest, should take the property notwithstanding that the daughter’ s equitable interest was earlier in time – alternatively, whether the Court of Appeal erred in the approach they adopted in consideration of the hierarchy of equities.[2009] NZCA 541    CA  365/2008   18 November  2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the 2nd Respondent.
4 March 2010
Case name
Slawomir Ryszard Bujak v The Minister of Justice
Case number
SC 113/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Extradition – Judicial Review – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding Minister not obliged to take account of the appellant’s state of health and humanitarian concerns raised on appellant’ s behalf in making his decision under s 30 of the Extradition Act 1999 and Art 1 of the Extradition Treaty between Poland and New Zealand – Whether Court of Appeal gave inappropriate weight to evidence of appellant’s doctor and erred in concluding appellant’s ailments were not a basis on which to stop or delay an extradition.[2009] NZCA 570    CA  719/2009    4 December  2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the respondent. 11 February 2010
Case name
Contract Pacific Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 114/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Taxation – Whether the Commissioner satisfied the time limits contained in s 46 of the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985 – Whether Contract Pacific had already been paid a refund for the purposes of s 241 (6) (a) of the Taxation (Taxpayer Assessment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2001. [2009] NZCA 568    CA  759/2009   4 December  2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
4 March 2010
__________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs $15,000 to the respondent, plus disbursements.
16 November 2010