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
William Patrick Jeffries v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 22/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to give effect to the criteria for consent to overseas investment as set out in s 14A of the Overseas Investment Act 1973; Whether the “standard conditions” for granting consent imposes a continuing obligation on consent-holders to carry out the proposals they made to the Minister in order to secure such consent; Whether releasing information supplied by the appellant pursuant to s 6(c) of the Official Information Act 1982 would prejudice the maintenance of the law or would breach the appellant’s confidence.[2010] NZCA 38  CA 338/2008  26 February 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
RIDDIFORD And Anor v ATTORNEY-GENERAL SC 21/2010 [25 May 2010] (PDF, 10 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Costs $2.500 to the respondent.

26 May 2010.
Case name
Jonathan Ian Blake v The Queen
Case number
SC 23/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing appeal against conviction – Whether erroneous legal advice given to Appellant by trial counsel on possible admissibility of previous convictions in cross-examination had a material influence on his decision not to give evidence at trial.  [2010] NZCA 61  CA 278/2009  11 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BLAKE v R SC 23/2010 [16 June 2010] (PDF, 47 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

22 June 2010.
Case name
Brett Stephen Taylor v The Queen
Case number
SC 26/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Unlawful sexual connection – whether the trial Judge erred in his failure to give directions in relation to the unreliability of the complainant’s evidence pursuant to s 122 of the Evidence Act 2006 – whether the inadequacy of the trial Judge’s directions regarding prejudice caused a substantial miscarriage of justice – whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to admit new expert evidence on appeal[2010] NZCA 69  CA 147/2009   16 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TAYLOR v R SC 26/2010 [20 July 2010] (PDF, 45 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

20 July 2010.
Case name
North Shore City Council v Body Corporate 188529 and Ors
Case number
SC 27/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the appellant owed duties of care to the owners and lessees of units in a multi-unit development respectively.  [2010] NZCA 65  CA 673/2008   22 March 2010
Result
A The application for leave to appeal by the North Shore City Council is granted.
B The approved grounds are:
(i) Whether and in what circumstances a local authority which performed regulatory functions under the Building Act 1991 in relation to the construction of a multi-unit residential development owed a duty of care to purchasers of units in the building to ensure that it complied with the building code.
(ii) Assuming such a duty exists, whether it extends to:
(a) Such persons who did not themselves at the time of purchase intend personally to occupy their unit(s) (investor owners); and
(b) Persons who subsequently acquired such units from the first purchasers after a claim for breach of duty to their predecessors had accrued; and
(iii) In light of the conclusions reached on the foregoing grounds, how these issues should be determined in the particular cases. C  The application for leave to appeal by the Second Respondent, Blue Sky Holdings Ltd, is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the North Shore City Council.
13 July 2010
___________________________
Appeal dismissed, Costs to the respondents.
17 December 2010
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL v BODY CORPORATE 188529 And Ors SC 27/2010 [13 July 2010] (PDF, 13 KB)
Substantive judgment
sc 27 2010 north shore city v body corporate 188529 and ors civil judgment (PDF, 205 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 8 – 10 November 2010

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
North Shore City Council v Body Corporate 189855 and Ors
Case number
SC 28/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the appellant owed duties of care to the owners and lessees of units in a multi-unit development respectively.  [2010] NZCA 65  CA 507/2008   22 March 2010
Result

A The application for leave to appeal is granted.

B The approved grounds are:

(i)  Whether and in what circumstances a local authority which performed regulatory functions under the Building Act 1991 in relation to construction of a multi-unit residential development owed a duty of care to purchasers of units in the building to ensure that it complied with the building code.

(ii) Assuming such a duty exists, whether it extends to:

(a) Such persons who did not themselves at the time of purchase intend personally to occupy their unit(s) (investor owners); and

(b) Persons who subsequently acquired such units from the first purchasers after a claim for breach of duty to their predecessors had accrued; and

(c) The body corporate.

(iii) Whether the conclusions which would otherwise be reached are affected in circumstances where the Council declined to issue a code compliance certificate.

(iv) In light of the conclusions reached on the foregoing grounds, how these issues should be determined in the particular cases.

  13 July 2010

________________________

Appeal dismissed,

Costs to the respondents

17 December 2010
Leave judgment - leave granted
NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL v BODY CORPORATE 189855 And Anor SC 28/2010 [13 July 2010] (PDF, 9 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 8 – 10 November 2010

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ

 
Case name
Dick Halton Headley v The Queen
Case number
SC 31/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961 – Abduction – whether Judge Boshier erred in making public certain Family Court judgments – whether the Court of Appeal erred in giving insufficient weight to this publication, or other information released on a website  – whether a stay of proceedings, or a change in venue should have been granted – whether the Court of Appeal erred by giving insufficient weight to the applicant’s right to a fair trial – whether the lack of experienced counsel and the appointment of an “amicus” prevented the applicant from adequately presenting his case – whether the inability to call a witness to give evidence undermined the applicant’s defence – whether police conduct in light of alleged conflicts of interest was unfair – whether the applicant was denied legal assistance to present his defence[2010] NZCA 71  CA 18/2009   16 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
HEADLEY v R SC 31/2010 [9 June 2010] (PDF, 30 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

9 June 2010.
Case name
Kay Halton Skelton v The Queen
Case number
SC 32/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961 – Abduction – whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to set aside the applicant’s conviction, to which she entered a guilty plea, on the grounds of claimed wrongful refusals to grant a stay of proceedings, to direct a change of venue or to adjourn proceedings[2010] NZCA 71  CA 24/2009   16 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SKELTON v R SC 32/2010 [13 August 2010] (PDF, 40 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

13 October 2010.
Case name
Marlborough District Council v Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited and Ors
Case number
SC 33/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Negligence – Whether duty of care owed by local authority in issuing a Land Information Memorandum (LIM) inducing party to enter into contract to purchase land – Whether local authority protected from liability by s 41 of Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) when providing information in LIM in good faith – Whether s 44A of LGOIMA requires inclusion of information relating to water resource entitlements in a LIM – Whether loss is actually suffered in tort against a third party where compensatory damages under s 6 Contractual Remedies Act 1979 against a party to the contract have already offset financial loss suffered by misrepresentation.[2010] NZCA 104  CA 448/2008 and CA 215/2009   29 March 2010
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds are: (i) Whether a duty of care is owed by a local authority to the recipient of a Land Information Memorandum (LIM) issued under s 44A of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. (ii) If so, whether Altimarloch Joint Venture Ltd suffered any loss recoverable from the Council by reason of breach of that duty of care.
14 July 2010
_____________________
The appeal by the Marlborough District Council from the liability judgment given against it in favour of Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited is dismissed. The appeal by the Marlborough District Council from the contribution judgment given against it in favour of D S and J W Moorhouse is allowed.  That judgment is set aside and judgment in favour of the Council is entered in respect of that claim. Costs of $10,000 to Altimarloch.  Disbursements shall be added as agreed or fixed by the Registrar.
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL v ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED And Anor SC 33/2010 [14 July 2010] (PDF, 44 KB)
Additional document
MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL v ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED And Ors SC 33/2010 [20 October 2010] (PDF, 40 KB)
Substantive judgment
MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL v ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED SC 33/2010 [5 March 2012] (PDF, 595 KB)
Transcript

Hearing dates : 14 and 15 February 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Kacem  v Bashir
Case number
SC 37/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it was not in the children’s best interests under s 5 of the Care of Children Act 2004 to relocate to Australia.[2010] NZCA 96  CA 585/2009   25 March 2010
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
K v B SC 37/2010 [29 June 2010] (PDF, 30 KB)
Substantive judgment
K v B SC 37/2010 [8 September 2010] (PDF, 222 KB)
Dates

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved ground is whether in its reasons for judgment, and in particular paragraphs 51 and 52, the Court of Appeal adopted an erroneous approach to the effect of ss 4 and 5 of the Care of Children Act 2004.

If the appellant demonstrates that the Court of Appeal was in error, this Court’s present view is that the matter should be remitted to the appropriate lower court for reconsideration on the correct legal basis, and on an up-to-date factual basis.  It seems inappropriate for this Court to undertake that exercise.  Hence the approved ground is limited to the question of the correct legal principle and is not to be construed as extending to the application of that principle to the facts, if the appellant succeeds. 

29 June 2010

___________________________

Appeal dismissed.

8 September 2010
Transcript

Hearing date : 12 August 2010

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young  JJ.
Case name
GE Free NZ in Food and Environment Incorporated v AgResearch Limited and Anor
Case number
SC 38/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether applications by AgResearch to import new genetically modified organisms were improperly registered for consideration by ERMA under s 40 of Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 – Whether applications so broad and generic as to be non-compliant with statutory information requirements – Whether applications must contain sufficient information at outset to allow meaningful public participation – Whether acceptance of applications a proper subject for judicial review.[2010] NZCA 89 CA 380/2009   23 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
G E FREE NZ IN FOOD AND THE ENVIRONMENT INCORPORATED v AGRESEARCH LIMITED And Anor SC 38/2010 [29 June 2010] (PDF, 41 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed  with costs $2,500 to each respondent.

29 June 2010.
Page 73 of 117