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
North Shore City Council v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 77/2010
Summary
Civil – Duty of care – Whether Building Industry Authority owed a duty of care to the Council in connection with 1995 review of Council’ s building regulatory operations and functions under Building Act 1991 – Whether case so untenable to justify striking out of third-party notice.[2010]  NZCA 324   26 July  2010
Result

A Leave to appeal is granted.

B  The approved grounds are:

(i) Whether it is reasonably arguable that the BIA owed a duty of care to the Council in relation to the Grange development in any of the respects pleaded (as described in para 13.1 – 13.3 of the Council’s submissions in support of its application for leave to appeal).

(ii) Whether it is reasonably arguable that the BIA owed a duty of care to the plaintiff body corporate and unit owners in the respect pleaded (as described in para 13.4 of the Council’s submissions in support of its application for leave to appeal).

13 October 2010

________________

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant is to pay the respondent costs of $40,000 and reasonable disbursements in connection with this appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.

27 June 2012

 
 
 
 

 
Transcript
Hearing date : 1 – 3 November 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard , Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Iowane Seru Sucuturaga v The Queen
Case number
SC 78/2010
Summary
Criminal – Appeal from conviction for sexual violation by rape – What is the proper test for admission of evidence concerning jury deliberations – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a witness had committed perjury when he had not faced a jury – What is the standard of proof for a finding of perjury – Whether a miscarriage of justice was caused by the admission of inadmissible evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the jury’s verdicts were not inconsistent – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the trial Judge’s misdirection on representative counts did not cause a miscarriage of justice.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
IOWANE SERU SUCUTURAGA v R SC 78/2010 [3 February 2011] (PDF, 10 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

3 February 2011
Case name
Rupinder Singh Chahil v The Queen
Case number
SC 79/2010
Summary
Criminal appeal – convictions for kidnapping after joint trial with three others – appeal against sentence and conviction – statement of co-accused used in evidence against the applicant – the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against sentence but declined to impose a sentence of home detention in place of imprisonment – Whether the applicant’s rights under section 25 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (minimum standards of criminal procedure) were breached by the Crown’s use of the co-accused’ s statement at trial – whether the Court of Appeal failed to identify the extent and impact of the inadmissible material – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider home detention as an option in terms of section 16 of the Sentencing Act 2002.[2010]  NZCA 331   27 July  2010
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dimissed.

28 September 2010
Case name
Chala Sani Abdula v The Queen
Case number
SC 80/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal - whether the applicant was denied his right to an interpreter under s 24(g) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; whether the adequacy of evidence called by the defence at trial and the Court of Appeal's refusal of an application to call further medical and scientific evidence gave rise to a miscarriage of justice.[2010]  NZCA 332   28 July  2010
Result
A  The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B  The approved ground of appeal is whether the applicant was denied his right to an interpreter under s 24(g) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
4 November 2010
___________________________________
Appeal dismissed.
1 November 2011
Transcripts
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
ABDULA v R SC 80/2010 [1 November 2011] (PDF, 149 KB)
Case name
Peter Hardie McNamara and Patrick Sturgeon McNamara as Trustees of the PH McNamara Family Trust v Auckland City Council
Case number
SC 85/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondent did not owe a duty of care to the appellant; whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the building certificate issued by a third party was invalid under the Building Act 1991.[2010] NZCA 345 CA 457/2009 3 August 2010.
Result
A          The application for leave to appeal is granted.  
B          The approved grounds are:  Whether a local authority:  (i)         owes a duty of care to purchasers of units in a residential development for which a code compliance certificate was issued by a private certifier which was acting outside of its authority to issue such certificates; and/or  (ii)          was immunised by s 50(3) of the Building Act 1991 against liability in relation to its actions in reliance on such a certificate.
30 November 2010
____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
The appellants are to pay the respondent costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements in connection with this appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
9 May 2012
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
MCNAMARA AND ORS v AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL SC 85/2010 [30 November 2010] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
MCNAMARA AND ORS v AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL SC 85/2010 [9 May 2012] (PDF, 7 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 19 April 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ. 
Case name
Hi-Gene Limited v Swisher Hygiene Franchise Corporation
Case number
SC 87/2010
Summary
Civil – Arbitration Act 1996 – Respondent sought to register foreign arbitral award made in North Carolina against New Zealand-based appellant in High Court – Appellant not present at arbitration and adjournment refused by arbitrators – Whether recognition and enforcement of award should be refused in New Zealand on grounds appellant unable to present case at arbitration and rules of natural justice breached – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding same high threshold should apply to grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement of foreign arbitral award under r 36(1)(a)(ii) and (1)(b)(ii) of First Schedule to Arbitration Act – Whether Court of Appeal wrong to hold appellant had onus to seek formal decision from arbitrators on adjournment application – Whether Court of Appeal wrong in holding rr 18 and 24(2) had no application to foreign arbitral awards.[2010] NZCA 359  CA 346/2010  9 August 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
HI-GENE LIMITED v SWISHER HYGIENE FRANCHISE CORPORATION SC 87/2010 [3 November 2010] (PDF, 11 KB)
Dates

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

3 November 2010
Case name
The Queen v GKB
Case number
SC 88/2010
Summary
Criminal – Admissibility of previous consistent statements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 35(2) of the Evidence Act 2006 is not engaged until a proposed witness gives evidence at trial – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 35(2) of the Evidence Act 2006 is not engaged by reference to an accused’s pre‑trial statement to the police.[2010] NZCA 326  CA 313/2010  27 August 2010.
Result

Appeal allowed.  Decision of the District Court reinstated.

17 December 2010
Hearing

7 December 2010.

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Dates

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that s 35(2) of the Evidence Act 2006 is only triggered by a challenge to veracity made at trial.

23 September 2010.
Case name
Raylee Patricia Harley v Robert John Erwood and The Official Assignee
Case number
SC 89/2010
Summary
Civil – Official Assignee accepted a proof of debt from the applicant – decision reversed by the High Court whose judgment was upheld in the Court of Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal correctly applied Vector Gas Ltd v Bay of Plenty Energy Ltd [2010] NZSC 5 in finding that a judgment in favour of the applicant in one set of proceedings was compromised by a consent order in different proceedings – whether s 149(2)(b) of the Law Practitioners Act 1982, which empowers the court to enter judgment for fees, witness expenses and disbursements, is sufficient basis for a proof of debt claim where the Official Assignee acted reasonably.[2010] NZCA 362  CA 261/2009    10 August 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
HARLEY v ERWOOD SC 89/2010 [16 November 2010] (PDF, 46 KB)
Dates

Applications for leave to appeal by Mrs Harley and Mr Erwood are both dismissed.

16 November 2010
Case name
Kent James Bond v The Queen
Case number
SC 91/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Whether evidence was admissible – Whether the trial judge misdirected the jury in summing up – Whether the sentence was excessive.[2010] NZCA 381  CA 109/2010   18 August 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BOND v R SC 91/2010 [23 November 2010] (PDF, 43 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

23 November 2010
Case name
Arthur William Taylor v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 92/2010
Summary
Civil – Judicial Review – Judicature Amendment Act 1972 – Visiting arrangements for maximum-security prisoner and young daughter – High Court declined appellant interim relief against prison manager’ s decision restricting previous monthly contact visits with daughter in interests of child and prisoner safety – Whether Court of Appeal erred in declining to make mandatory interim relief order against prison manager’s discretion despite finding that courts have jurisdiction to order mandatory interim relief against the Crown – Whether Court of Appeal should have commented on respondent’s cross-appeal when High Court observations founding cross-appeal made only in obiter.[2010] NZCA 371  CA 165/2010   16 August 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TAYLOR v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SC 92/2010 [8 December 2010] (PDF, 12 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

8 December 2010.
Page 77 of 117