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.
4 September 2026
Case information summary (as at 4 September 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 116 KB)
Case information summary (as at 4 September 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 132 KB)
All years
Case name
Alan Qiuand Stanley Qiu v Minister of Immigration, He Qin Qiu and Ziao Yun Qiu
Case number
SC 56/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – immigration – removal order made under s 54 of the Immigration Act 1987 in respect of overstayer mother whose children are New Zealand citizens – humanitarian interview conducted by Immigration Officer who determined not to exercise the power of cancellation of the removal order under s 58 of the Immigration Act – whether the Court of Appeal erred in not holding that the children’s welfare and best interests as New Zealand citizen children of an overstayer parent ought to have been directly addressed and taken into account by the Immigration Officer as the paramount or alternatively as a primary consideration in his decision making – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold that the applicants were entitled to be heard either prior to the decision to make the removal order or prior to the decision to proceed with the removal and thus to be accorded natural justice in their own right – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to uphold the applicants’ claim that the first respondent failed to properly take into account the applicants’ rights and New Zealand’ s obligations under international law.[2008] NZCA 291 CA 192/2006
Media Releases
Transcription
Dates
Application for leave to appeal granted
4 November 2008
Case name
Shane Edward Williams v The Queen
Case number
SC 61/2008
Summary
Criminal appeal – appeal against conviction – conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine – section 25(b) New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – whether High Court Judge should have stayed the criminal proceedings after making finding of undue delay in bringing the applicant to trial – stay granted in relation to eight co-accused – whether applicant should have received same remedy.[2008] NZCA 296 CA 664/2007 12 August 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
3 November 2008
________________________
Appeal dismissed.
15 May 2009
3 November 2008
________________________
Appeal dismissed.
15 May 2009
Media Releases
- williams press release (PDF, 78 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
WILLIAMS v R SC 61/2008 [3 November 2008] (PDF, 12 KB)
Substantive judgment
SHANE EDWARD WILLIAMS v R SC 61/2008 [15 May 2009] (PDF, 48 KB)
Transcript
Case name
Slawomir Ryszard Bujak v Solicitor-General
Case number
SC 64/2008
Summary
Civil – Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that an order for the seizure of property in Poland could be registered in New Zealand under s 55 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal matters Act 1992.[2008] NZCA 334 CA 679/2008 11 September 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
11 November 2008
_____________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
15 May 2009
11 November 2008
_____________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
15 May 2009
Media Releases
- MR [2009] NZSC 42 (PDF, 90 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Case name
Vector Gas Limited v Bay of Plenty Electricity Limited
Case number
SC 65/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – contract interpretation – interpretation of an Interim agreement to preserve gas supply until decision made as to the validity of a termination of gas distribution agreement between the Vector Gas Limited (“NGC”) and Bay of Plenty Energy Limited (“BoPE” )– whether the Court of Appeal erroneously interpreted the terms of the interim agreement as meaning that the repeated phrase “6.50 per GJ” referred to a bundled price for not only the quantities of gas supplied but also transmission and network costs associated with delivery of such gas, rather than to a gas only price – whether the parties had given their own meaning to the phrase “6.50 per GJ” in prior correspondence – whether the Court of Appeal artificially excluded from consideration the bulk of relevant prior correspondence – whether the Court of Appeal disregarded the context of the agreement negotiations that the only other options for BoPE were cessation of gas supply or the giving of an undertaking as to market related damages – whether the Court of Appeal gave weight to unsupported and inherently implausible “reputational” speculation that NGC might not have pressed for a market comparable price in the interim agreement – whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to reach a decision whereby NGC was worse off than if BoPE had given an undertaking as to damages – whether the Court of Appeal’s decision is contrary business common sense and fundamental principles of contractual interpretation. [2008] NZCA 338 CA 679/2008 1 September 2008
Result
The appeal is allowed. The respondent is to pay to the appellant costs of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar. Costs in the lower Courts are to be fixed by those Courts in the light of this Court’ s judgment.
10 February 2010
10 February 2010
Media Releases
- sc 65 2008 vector gas ltd v bope ltd media (PDF, 53 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Dates
Application for leave to appeal granted. Respondents application for leave to cross appeal refused. 11 December 2008.
Case name
Westpac New Zealand Limited v Alan John Clark
Case number
SC 67/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property – Mortgages – Security – Fraud – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding, in effect, that Appellant’ s mortgage secured nothing – Whether Court of Appeal erred in rejecting Appellant’s submission that upon registration of a mortgage, charged property is rendered liable for the mortgage debt (monies advanced in terms of or in reliance upon the mortgage or monies secured by the mortgage) whatever the mortgage debt is established to be by the lender – Whether Court of Appeal erred in rejecting Appellant’s submission that for purposes of determining what monies are secured by a mortgage, there is no difference between an acknowledgment contained in a mortgage of a particular sum lent with a covenant to repay that sum and an acknowledgment of an unparticularised sum (“all monies”) with a covenant to repay those monies – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that a personal covenant to pay contained in a mortgage is independent of the charged created by the mortgage and does not attract indefeasibility on registration – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that the terms of the loan agreement between the Appellant and a fraudster were not incorporated into the registered mortgage – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding Appellant suffered no loss as a result of the Respondent’s breach of undertaking to register the Appellant’ s mortgage “promptly”.[2008] NZCA 346 CA 172/06 5 September 2008
Media Releases
- sc 67 2008 westpac v alan john clark press release (PDF, 88 KB)
Substantive judgment
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is granted.
27 November 2008
Transcript
Case name
APN New Zealand Limited v Simunovich Fisheries Limited and others
Case number
SC 69/2008
Summary
Civil – Defamation – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the obligation in s 38 of the Defamation Act 1992 applies to the pleading of a stand alone defence of truth – whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that the “repetition rule” and the “ conduct rule” apply to pleadings of truth - whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the change in approach to admissibility of hearsay evidence in the Evidence Act 2006 does not affect the applicability of the “repetition rule” to a pleading of truth – was the Court of Appeal wrong to hold that it is not open to a defendant to plead the opinions and statements of third parties in support of a truth defence, or in support of an honest opinion defence.[2008] NZCA 350 CA 447/07 CA 584/07 8 September 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted
1 December 2008
________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs $15,000 to the respondent jointly with one half of their disbursements.
26 August 2009
1 December 2008
________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs $15,000 to the respondent jointly with one half of their disbursements.
26 August 2009
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Case name
Television New Zealand Limited v Simunovich Fisheries Limited and others
Case number
SC 70/2008
Summary
Civil – Defamation – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the repetition and conduct rules of pleading apply to a defence of truth – whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that a defendant may not seek to prove the truth of imputations by reference to the opinions or assertions of others – did the Court of Appeal err in holding that s 38 does not permit third party assertions and opinion to be pleaded for the defence of truth – was the Court of Appeal wrong to find that a defendant is not entitled to rely on third party assertions as publication facts on which a defence of honest opinion is based, but must identify true statements of facts in the publication which may not include the fact that others made allegations or expressed opinions.[2008] NZCA 350 CA 447/07 CA 584/07 8 September 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
1 December 2008
________________________
Appeal dismissed.
Costs $15,000 to the respondent jointly with one half of their disbursements.
26 August 2009
Transcript
Case name
B and others v Crown Health Financing Agency
Case number
SC 72/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – Mental Health – Treatment – Statutory Interpretation – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding all informal patients in psychiatric hospitals were within leave and immunity provisions contained in s 6 of the Mental Health Act 1935 and s 124 of the Mental Health Act 1969 (“leave and immunity provisions”) – Whether, alternatively, Court of Appeal erred in holding leave and immunity provisions apply to all informal patients after 1 April 1972.[2008] NZCA 362 CA 173/07 16 September 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
1 December 2008
___________________________
Appeal allowed. Proceedings that were before the Court of Appeal referred back to High Court. Costs $15,000 to appellant, together with reasonable disbursements.
17 September 2009
1 December 2008
___________________________
Appeal allowed. Proceedings that were before the Court of Appeal referred back to High Court. Costs $15,000 to appellant, together with reasonable disbursements.
17 September 2009
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
sc 72 2008 p and b v crown healthfinancing agency (PDF, 12 KB)
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Case name
Xiao Qiong Huang and others v The Minister of Immigration and The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 74/2008
Summary
Civil – Immigration – whether when interpreting domestic law the Court of Appeal failed to take into account relevant considerations, such as international conventions on the Rights of the Child, on Civil and Political Rights and on the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment – whether the Court of Appeal applied the incorrect test of judicial review to a human rights case – whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the facts to the law under the Wednesbury test.[2008] NZCA 377 CA 262/06 19 September 2008
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Dates
Application for leave to appeal granted
4 December 2008
Case name
Astrazeneca Limited v Commerce Commission and Pharmaceutical Management Agency
Case number
SC 91/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – Respondent gave notice under s 98 of the Commerce Act 1986 of an investigation into allegations that the applicant acted contrary to section 36 of the Act in negotiations with PHARMAC – whether exemption to Part 2 of the Commerce Act in s 53 of the Public Health and Disability Act 2000 applied so that the respondent should not have issued a notice – whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding it did not have sufficient factual information to determine whether s 53 applied – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that there might be some other purpose of s 53 which would become evident when it was considered in light of the full facts.[2008] NZCA 479 CA 241/2008 11 November 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted
25 February 2009
________________________
Appeal allowed. It is declared that the notice under s 98 of the Commerce Act 1986 given by the Commerce Commission on 31 October 2007 was ultra vires and invalid. It is ordered that the notice is quashed. The Commerce Commission is ordered to pay the appellant costs in this Court of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar. Costs in the Court of Appeal and the High Court should now be fixed respectively by those Courts in light of this Court’s judgment.
26 August 2009
25 February 2009
________________________
Appeal allowed. It is declared that the notice under s 98 of the Commerce Act 1986 given by the Commerce Commission on 31 October 2007 was ultra vires and invalid. It is ordered that the notice is quashed. The Commerce Commission is ordered to pay the appellant costs in this Court of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar. Costs in the Court of Appeal and the High Court should now be fixed respectively by those Courts in light of this Court’s judgment.
26 August 2009
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Page 24 of 33