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
Michael Peter Stiassny, Grant Robert Graham, Forestry Corporation of New Zealand Limited (in receivership), Citic New Zealand Limited (in receivership), CNI Forest Nominees Limited and Bank of New Zealand v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 21/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Goods and services tax – Restitution – Recovery of a GST payment paid by the first appellants to the respondent in the mistaken belief that they were personally liable for the debt – Whether secured creditors own the proceedings of sale of assets that are subject to registered fixed charges at the time of sale, if they are sold for less than the secured debts to which the charges relate – Whether the first appellants were entitled to apply the proceeds of sale of the Central North Island Forestry Partnership (CNIFP) assets to the payment of GST amount, in priority to the claims of the secured creditors – Whether the GST payment was “ debtor-initiated” in terms of s 95 of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 (PPSA) – Whether s 95 of the PPSA barred the recovery of the GST payment if it was made under a mistake – Whether the second and third appellants have a cause of action in restitution for the recovery of their mistaken payment – Whether the first appellants have a cause of action in restitution for the recovery of their mistaken payment – Whether the security trustees have a cause of action in restitution for the recovery of the mistaken payment made by the first appellants to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue –  Whether “good faith” is a pre-requisite for a defence of the provision of good consideration to the payer to a claim for the recovery of a payment made under a mistake – Whether the first appellants are entitled to recover GST payment pursuant to their tax challenge cause of action pursuant to the Tax Administration Act 1994.SC 775/2010   [2012] NZCA 93
Result

A  Leave to appeal is granted.

B  The approved grounds are:

(i)  whether the GST payment was a “ debtor-initiated payment” in terms of s 95 of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 so as to confer priority to the Commissioner over any claim to those moneys by any respondent;

(ii)  whether any of the appellants can recover the amount of GST so paid from the Commissioner on the basis that it was paid by the receivers under a mistaken belief that they were personally liable to pay it or on any other basis.

8 May 2012

_____________________________

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellants are to pay the respondent’ s costs in this Court in the sum of $40,000 together with reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

28 November 2012
Transcript

Hearing dates : 27 and 28 September 2012

McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Gault, Blanchard JJ.
Case name
Manukau Golf Club Incorporated v Shoye Venture Limited
Case number
SC 36/2012
Summary
 CA  747/2011  [2012] NZCA154
Result

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was wrong:

(i) to make no order for costs in respect of the appeal; and
(ii) to give no reasons.

19 July 2012

________________________

The appeal is allowed. 
The respondent must pay to the appellant, with respect to costs in the Court of Appeal, costs of $12,220, plus disbursements of $5,051.73. 
By agreement, no order as to costs in this Court. 

4 December 2012
Transcript

Hearing date : 4 October 2012

McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.
Case name
Vector Limited v Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 46/2012
Summary
[2012]NZCA 220  CA   702/2011
Result

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved grounds are whether under the Commerce Act 1986 the s 54K(3) power:

(i) is able to be exercised in the manner provided for in s 53P(3)(b) in the absence of a published input methodology (or methodologies) specific to starting price adjustment under s 53P(3)(b); and, if so:

(ii) permits change only to the extent necessitated by the newly published input methodology relied on by the Commission.

14 August 2012

__________________________

The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay the respondent costs of $40,000 together with disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar. 

15 November 2012
Transcript

Hearing dates : 9 and 10 October 2012

McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Blanchard, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Godfrey Waterhouse and Robert John Waterhouse v Contractors Bonding Limited
Case number
SC 66/2012
Summary
Civil appeal – Litigation funding agreement – Law of Maintenance and Champerty ¬– Extent of Court oversight over litigation involving such agreements –Whether Court of Appeal was correct to order disclosure to the defendant of particular details of the plaintiff’s agreement to prevent potential abuse of process ¬– Whether degree of disclosure was appropriate.  [2012]NZCA 399  CA  200/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved questions are:
(i) whether the appellants should be ordered to disclose the litigation agreement to the respondent; and
(ii) if so, on what terms.
14 November 2012
_____________________
tc
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
WATERHOUSE v CONTRACTORS BONDING LTD [2013] NZSC 89 [20 September 2013] (PDF, 255 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 19 March 2013
Case name
Carol Margaret Down v The Queen
Case number
SC 48/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991 – Summary Proceedings Act 1957 – Applicant convicted of four counts of discharge of a contaminant under s 15 RMA – Whether s 15 discharge offences are infringement offences as defined in s 2(1) SPA and therefore required leave of District Court Judge or Registrar to lay informations under s 21 SPA and also s 78A SPA applicable – Whether Court of Appeal correct to find prosecution saved in any case by s 204 SPA and did not result in a nullity.[2011] NZCA 119  CA 819/2009
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved grounds are:
(i) whether the laying of the informations on the discharge counts required leave of a District Court Judge or Registrar under s 21 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957; and
(ii) if so, whether in the absence of such leave prior to the laying of the informations the proceedings were validated by s 204 of that Act.
5 August 2011
________________________________
Appeal dismissed.
3 April 2012
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
DOWN v R SC 48/2011 [5 August 2011] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
DOWN v R SC 48/2011 (PDF, 154 KB)
Case name
Right to Life New Zealand Inc v The Abortion Supervisory Committee
Case number
SC 73/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that none of statutory functions or powers of Abortion Supervisory Committee entitle or require Committee to scrutinise or review certifying consultants’ particular clinical decisions or diagnoses after the fact – Whether judicial review requires that applicant identify a decision challenged – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding counselling services provided under CSA Act were “adequate” – Whether Court of Appeal erred in implicitly finding no State and common law interest in preservation of life of unborn child which ought to influence interpretation of CSA Act.[2011] NZCA 246   CA 522/2009
Result

A. Leave to appeal is granted. 
B. The approved grounds are: 
(a) Whether the respondent Committee’s functions under ss 14(1)(a), (i) and (k) and 36 of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 empower it to review or scrutinise the decisions of certifying consultants and form its own view about the lawfulness of their decisions to the extent necessary to perform its functions.

(b) If so, whether there is any evidential foundation for the High
Court’ s finding that “the approval rates [for abortions] seems remarkably high, bearing in mind that under s 187(A) [of the Crimes Act 1961] the consultants must form a good faith opinion that continuance of the pregnancy would result in serious danger to the mother’s health”.

(c) Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to consider whether
certifying consultants are obeying the “abortion law” (as defined) and, if so, whether there is any evidential foundation for the High Court’s finding that “there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants”.

26 August 2011

_________________________________

The appeal is dismissed.

9 August 2012
Transcript

Hearing date : 13 March 2012

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Robert Michael Symons, Gregory John Symons and others v Wiltshire Investments Limited
Case number
SC 92/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Appeal against Court of Appeal upholding a summary decision of the High Court – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the refusal by the respondents to produce critical relevant documents that are in the respondent’s sole possession did not constitute a failure by the respondent to discharge the onus on a summary judgment application to establish that the appellants had no arguable defence – Whether the use of residual discretion to refuse an application for summary judgment under r 12.2 of the High Court Rules was justified – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the confidentiality can be a valid ground for refusal to disclose relevant documentation to the Court and the defendants in a summary judgment application. [2011] NZCA 397 CA 534/2010
Result
Leave to appeal is granted in relation to the indebtedness associated with Opus Fintek Ltd (in receivership). The approved question is whether the Associate Judge ought to have entered summary judgment despite the non disclosure of the 2009 settlement agreement between Opus Fintek Ltd and Hats Holdings Ltd.
17 November 2011
_________________________________
A Leave to appeal is extended to cover the indebtedness of Fibroin Initiatives Ltd.
B The appeal is allowed with the result that the entry of summary judgment is set aside but with leave reserved to the respondent to seek summary judgment once it has disclosed the settlement agreement to the appellants.
C The awards of costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside. 9 August 2012
___________________________________
17 October 2012: 
Judgment recalled and reissued.  A Leave to appeal is extended to cover the indebtedness of Fibroin Initiatives Ltd.
B The appeal is allowed with the result that the entry of summary judgment is set aside.
C Upon disclosure of the settlement agreement to the appellants, the application for summary judgment is, at the option of the respondent, to be reheard in the High Court with the appellants at liberty to resist the claim (and, if they think appropriate, produce additional evidence) on the basis of (i) defences associated with, or arising out of the disclosure of the settlement agreement and (ii), subject to the leave of the High Court being obtained, on any other basis. The appellants are also at liberty to make such interlocutory applications to the High Court as they see fit. D The awards of costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.
Leave judgment - leave granted
sc 92 2011 symons v wiltshire investments ltd (PDF, 10 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 17 April 2012

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ
Case name
John Hanita Paki and others v Attorney-General
Case number
SC 7/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “navigable river” in terms of s 14 of the Coal Mines Amendment Act 1903; whether the Waikato River was navigable for the purposes of s  14; whether, in the 1880s and 1890s, the Crown owed the appellants’ ancestors, as Maori and Treaty of Waitangi partners, a fiduciary duty or a relational duty of good faith not to acquire their land or taonga except with their full and informed consent, namely, whether the Crown owed an obligation to advise the original owners of the usque ad medium filum aquae principle (legal title to land runs to midpoint of riverbed) and, if so, whether the Crown breach either of those duties; whether the appellants’ ancestors had customary title to the river; whether the appellants (as representatives or otherwise of the Pouakani hapu) have standing to bring their claim; whether the appellants’ claim is time-barred under the Limitation Act 1950; whether the appellants’ claim is barred under s 12 of the Pouakani Claims Settlement Act 2000;[2009] NZCA 566  CA 691/2009   1 December 2009
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds are:   (i) Did the applicants have standing to bring the proceeding in a representative capacity?   (ii) Did s  14 of the Coalmines Amendment Act 1903 vest title in the riverbed adjoining the Pouakani lands in the Crown?   (iii) If not, did the Crown acquire title to the claimed part of the riverbed through application of the presumption of riparian ownership ad medium filum aquae by reason of its acquisition of the riparian lands?   (iv) If so, in the circumstances in which the Crown acquired the claimed part of the riverbed, was it in breach of legally enforceable obligations owed to the owners from whom title was acquired?   (v) If so, have the applicants lost their right to enforce such obligations by reason of defences available to the Crown through lapse of time?   (vi) If not, what relief is appropriate? C The Registrar is directed to set down the hearing of the first two questions only for hearing at a fixture of 2 days.  Further timetabling and direction orders for hearing of the remaining Questions will be made at or following the first hearing.  The Court may review the expression of grounds 3 to 6 if it considers it appropriate to do so after hearing the argument of questions 1 and 2.
21 July 2010
________________
The appellants have standing to bring the proceedings in a representative capacity. The riverbed adjoining the Pouakani lands is not vested in the Crown under s 261 of the Coal Mines Act 1979 and s 354 of the Resource Management Act 1991. Costs are reserved.
27 June 2012
_______________
Appeal dismissed.
29 August 2014
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
PAKI and OTHERS v ATTORNEY-GENERAL SC 7/2010 [21 July 2010] (PDF, 10 KB)
Supreme court decision
PAKI AND OTHERS v ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND SC 7/2010 [27 June 2012] (PDF, 603 KB)
Substantive judgment
JOHN HANITA PAKI & ORS v ATTORNEY - GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CROWN [2014] NZSC 118 [29 August 2014] (PDF, 842 KB)
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

 
Page 7 of 9