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
Qiu Jian v The Queen
Case number
SC 41/2006
Summary
Criminal Appeal – appeal against conviction for blackmail – whether standard of proof required for Crown to satisfy co-conspirators rule of evidence is on balance of probabilities or reasonable evidence of common intention – whether failure to advise defendant to testify in her own defence amounted to a miscarriage of justice – whether trial judge failed to give sufficient direction to jury on use which could be made of threats made by alleged co-conspirators. CA 495/05 3 May 2006
Result
29 September 2006 – Application for leave to appeal granted.
_____________________
Appeal allowed, conviction is quashed. New Trial ordered.
5 July 2007
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Henkel Kgaa v Holdfast NZ Limited
Case number
SC 43/2006
Summary
Civil – copyright infringement – appellant, who was successful in High Court, a “world leader” in the industry using same copyright works throughout the world – whether Court of Appeal failed to take account of statutory presumptions in Copyright Act 1994, s 127 – whether Court of Appeal ignored relevant authorities and misapplied the tests for infringement of compilations and for work derived from admittedly infringing copies – whether Court of Appeal relied upon two erroneous findings about the appellant’ s case in the High Court, resulting in a substantial miscarriage of justice CA 248/04 17 May 2006
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
4 August 2006
______________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 plus disbursements.
30 November 2006
4 August 2006
______________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 plus disbursements.
30 November 2006
Judgment appealed from
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Zentrum Holdings Limited and Ngahemi Properties Limited v The Commmisioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 44/2006
Summary
Civil – tax administration – in Taxation Review Authority (“TRA”) CIR argued unsuccessfully that Zentrum had benefited by a tax avoidance arrangement – on appeal to High Court CIR sought to argue that relevant transactions were shams – whether jurisdictional bar to raising sham argument for first time in High Court – whether it would have been open to CIR to employ sham argument in TRA – whether CIR v VH Farnsworth Ltd [1984] 1 NZLR 428 applies – whether sham argument is subject to time bar in Tax Administration Act 1994, s 108CA 215/05 23 May 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
19 September 2006
_________________________
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
4 April 2007
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Amaltal Corporation Limited v Maruha Corporation and Maruha (NZ) Corporation Limited
Case number
SC 46/2006
Summary
Civil – appeal against Court of Appeal judgment on the application of s 28 Limitation Act 1950 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in either applying the wrong legal test, or applying the correct test wrongly – tort of deceit – whether the respondents’ claim for deceit was statute barred – meaning of “reasonable diligence” in s 28 – whether, with reasonable diligence, the respondent could have discovered the deceit.Cross-appeal – commercial joint venture – whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the respondents’ action for breach of fiduciary duty – whether the Court of Appeal erred in reducing the amount of damages awarded to the respondents – correct method of calculating damages for deceit.CA 232/04 1 June 2006
Result
A. Amaltal’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents of $2,500.
B. Maruha Corporation and Maruha (NZ) are granted leave to appeal.
C. The approved grounds of the Maruha appeal are: (i) Whether Amaltal was in breach of any fiduciary duty owed by it to Maruha.
(ii) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reducing the damages awarded by the High Court to Maruha.
6 September 2006
___________________________
The appeal is allowed. The respondent is found to have breached a fiduciary duty owed to the appellants.
The judgment sum is increased to $5,832,214.92.
The respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs in this Court in the amount of $15,000 plus reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. The award of costs to the appellants in the Court of Appeal is increased to $40,000.
1 June 2007
B. Maruha Corporation and Maruha (NZ) are granted leave to appeal.
C. The approved grounds of the Maruha appeal are: (i) Whether Amaltal was in breach of any fiduciary duty owed by it to Maruha.
(ii) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reducing the damages awarded by the High Court to Maruha.
6 September 2006
___________________________
The appeal is allowed. The respondent is found to have breached a fiduciary duty owed to the appellants.
The judgment sum is increased to $5,832,214.92.
The respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs in this Court in the amount of $15,000 plus reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. The award of costs to the appellants in the Court of Appeal is increased to $40,000.
1 June 2007
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 February 2007 SC 46/2006 (PDF, 301 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2007] NZSC 40 (PDF, 88 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Wali Javad Allahyai v The Queen
Case number
SC 47/2006
Summary
Criminal – appeal against Court of Appeal judgment, dismissing appeals against conviction and sentence for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm – fresh evidence – whether the Court of Appeal erred by not admitting fresh evidence advanced on appeal to that court – further fresh evidence that should be admitted now – whether there was an unfair trial and appeal due to police conduct. CA 330/04 7 June 2006
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ALLAHYAI v R SC 47/2006 [5 October 2006] (PDF, 23 KB)
Case name
Khyentse Rinpoche Lama v Ross Hope and others
Case number
SC 48/2006
Summary
Civil – religious purpose trust – lay trustees to be supervised by Karmapa (head of Karma Kagyu School of Buddhism) – appellant, not a trustee, appointed by Karmapa as spiritual director – longstanding, international dispute within School over identity of Karmapa’s new incarnation – Court of Appeal recognised non-justiciability of religious and spiritual issues – correct approach to interpreting and enforcing purpose trusts – whether Court of Appeal erred in interpreting trust deed – whether trust deed gave appellant power to remove trustees – whether alternative application by appellant to remove trustees limited to Trustee Act 1956, s 51 or invoked the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to remove – the scope of that inherent jurisdiction – whether Court of Appeal wrong to conclude that appellant had not alleged improper conduct or breaches of trust deed by trustees – whether reinstatement of trustees by Court of Appeal gave rise to an ‘impossible situation’ inimical to attainment of the trust’s objects. CA 51/05 CA 119/05 7 June 2006
Result
Applications for leave to appeal by both the appellant and respondent are dismissed, with cost to the respondent $1,000.
19 September 2006
19 September 2006
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Ronald Gerald Clark v The Queen
Case number
SC 50/2006
Summary
Criminal appeal – appeal against conviction for driving with excess blood alcohol – after failed breath screening test applicant handcuffed for duration of trip to police station – at station handcuffs immediately removed - applicant failed evidential breath test – whether handcuffing amounting to an arrest and, if so, whether the arrest was in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – whether for the purposes of exclusion of evidence there was the necessary causal link between breach and the failed evidential breath test. CA 479/05 12 June 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
26 September 2006
26 September 2006
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CLARK V R SC 50/2006 [26 September 2006] (PDF, 16 KB)
Case name
Alan Ivo Greer v The Queen
Case number
SC 51/2006
Summary
Criminal appeal – Bail Act 2000 - whether Court of Appeal erred in refusing application for bail pending hearing of appeals from convictions on driving and sexual offences – whether bail is necessary to obtain a fair hearing of the appeals. CA 161/03 CA 179/06 15 June 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
26 September 2006
26 September 2006
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GREER V R SC 51/2006 [26 September 2006] (PDF, 21 KB)
Case name
James Charles Morris Parlane v Waipa District Council
Case number
SC 53/2006
Summary
Criminal – third appeal against conviction and sentence – breaches of fire control bylaw – reference in bylaw to incinerator standard “withdrawn” by Standards New Zealand before bylaw passed – whether this reference invalidated part or whole of bylaw or took applicant outside its reach – severability of subparagraph including reference – whether Court of Appeal wrong to hold that a local authority may consider a revoked standard to be appropriate for its practical purposes – Court of Appeal emphasised that applicant has brought separate public law proceedings seeking quashing of bylaw – whether Court of Appeal wrong to conclude that severance of subparagraph by High Court, whether or not appropriate, unnecessary because bylaw valid on evidence before it – applicant also seeking reversal of costs order in District Court under Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967. CA 319/05 6 July 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs of $1,000 to the respondent.
19 September 2006
19 September 2006
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Patricia Lenine Mabel Walsh v The Queen
Case number
SC 54/2006
Summary
Criminal – appeal against convictions for forgery – appellant used fax machine to transmit, from overseas, copies of false documents to persons in New Zealand – whether a facsimile copy of a false document is itself a false document – Crimes Act 1961, former ss 263, 264 (ss 255, 256 as amended 2003) CA 208/05 26 June 2006
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
1 September 2006
____________________________
The 34 counts of forgery are amended, pursuant to s 335 of the Crimes Act 1961, to counts of uttering. The sentences on those counts are affirmed. The appeal is dismissed.
19 December 2006
1 September 2006
____________________________
The 34 counts of forgery are amended, pursuant to s 335 of the Crimes Act 1961, to counts of uttering. The sentences on those counts are affirmed. The appeal is dismissed.
19 December 2006
Media Releases
- patriciawalsh mediarelease (PDF, 86 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
WALSH v R SC 54/2006 [1 September 2006] (PDF, 12 KB)
Substantive judgment
WALSH v R SC 54/2006 [19 December 2006] (PDF, 202 KB)
Transcript
Substantive judgment / Media release
Judgment appealed from
Page 105 of 117