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
I A Campbell, J Hughes and S C Biss v Craggy Range Vineyard Limited
Case number
SC 26/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – contract interpretation – agreement for sale and purchase of land - whether the respondent could rely on post-contractual events when interpreting contract – whether a grant of a second water right to the respondent gave rise to a separate liability for payment given the grant was obtained after the respondent had declared the clause relating to water rights to be satisfied.[2008] NZCA 96 CA 254/07 CA 462/07 24 April 2008
Dates
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
Case name
James Michael Leuluaiali’i v The Queen
Case number
SC 1/2007
Summary
Criminal appeal – appellant convicted as party to attempted murder and murder – appeal by a co-accused had been allowed on grounds of error in summing up in relation to parties; like errors in present case – appeal allowed in relation to attempted murder – in relation to murder the proviso to s 385(1) applied and appeal dismissed – whether application of the proviso led to a substantial miscarriage of justice. CA 122/06 22 November 2006
Result
Leave to appeal dismissed. 30 March 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
LEULUAIALI'L v R SC 1/2007 [30 March 2007] (PDF, 16 KB)
Case name
Gregory Nielsen and Roderick William Nielsen v Dysart Timbers Limited
Case number
SC 38/2007
Summary
Civil appeal – interpretation of clause in deed of purchase of debt – whether deed extended to companies or entities other than those expressly mentioned in the deed.CA 253/05 22 May 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
9 August 2007
_________________________
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
3 June 2009
9 August 2007
_________________________
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
3 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Number
SC38/2007
Case name
Ben Nevis Forestry Ventures Limited, Bristol Forestry Ventures Limited, Clive Richard Bradbury, Greenmass Limited, Gregory Alan Peebles and Estate of the Late Kenneth John Laird v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 43/2007
Summary
Civil – income tax appeals – designated as test cases by Commissioner – all appellants investors in “Trinity” forestry scheme – whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding Commissioner’s assessments – correct approach to application of Peterson v CIR [2006] 3 NZLR 433 – whether appellants’ investment in scheme a tax avoidance arrangement within meaning of ss BB 9 and BG 1 of the Income Tax Act 1994 – whether insurance premiums required to be spread under accruals rules – whether Commissioner’s power to reconstruct arrangements to eliminate improper tax advantage exercised correctly – whether appellants took an abusive tax position – whether application of penalties to the appellants wrong in law and excessive.CA 21/05 11 June 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
9 October 2007
____________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to the respondent.
19 December 2008
9 October 2007
____________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to the respondent.
19 December 2008
Media Releases
- MR [2008] NZSC 115 (PDF, 89 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Recall judgment
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Hearing date : 8 February 2008
Hearing date : 23 – 27 June 2008
Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath Gault, Anderson JJ
Substantive judgment / Media release
Case name
Emelysifa Jessop v The Queen
Case number
SC 8/2006
Summary
Criminal - appeal against conviction and sentence for aggravated robbery - whether Court of Appeal was unlawfully constituted contrary to New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 ("NZBORA"), ss 25(a), 25(h); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR"), arts 14, 26; Judicature Act 1908, ss 9A, 58, 58G - whether undue trial or appellate delay contrary to NZBORA, s 25; ICCPR art 14 - whether failure to consider rights of the child pursuant to NZBORA, s 25(i); United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child - admissibility of identification parade and video interview evidence - whether case should have been re-committed to High Court - whether trial judge biased - effect of principle of equality of arms - adequacy of trial judge's summing up - whether sentence manifestly excessive . CA 13/00 19 December 2005.
Result
Leave to Appeal dismissed.
27 March 2006
27 March 2006
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JESSOP V R SC 8/2006 [27 March 2006] (PDF, 18 KB)
Additional document
Case name
Jocelyn Mary Imms v Craig Wesley Gunson and others
Case number
SC 9/2006
Summary
Civil - Family Protection Act - application for directions in the High Court - scope of s 64 of the Trustee Act 1956 - will containing option to purchase shares in company that owned a farm - trustees' proposal to subdivide land. CA 55/05 13 December 2005
Result
Leave to Appeal dismissed.
27 March 2006
27 March 2006
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
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
Richard Shane Keenan v The Queen
Case number
SC 45/2005
Summary
Appeal against sentence - possession of a Class A controlled drug - whether Court of Appeal properly assessed starting point in sentencing. CA 425/04 23 June 2005
Result
Leave to appeal dismissed. 7 September 2005
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
KEENAN V R SC 45/2005 [7 September 2005] (PDF, 18 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Page 9 of 9