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.
22 September 2026
Case information summary (as at 18 September 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 112 KB)
Case information summary (as at 18 September 2026) – Currently unavailable
All years
Case name
Graeme John Ingram and Elizabeth Knee & Kip Investments Limited v Patrcroft Investments Limited
Case number
SC 72/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contract – Respondent re-entered property on 14 June 2005, one day before entitled to cancel lease contract for failure by Appellants to pay rent arrears – Whether Respondent cancelled contract under s 8 Contractual Remedies Act 1979 on 15 June by remaining in occupation of the property – Whether Respondent must have been ready, willing and able to perform the contract when cancelling on 15 June – Whether Court of Appeal correct to say Appellants could have reserved their rights to cancel for Respondent’s repudiation by paying outstanding rent on 14 June.[2010] NZCA 275 29 June 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is: In circumstances in which the respondent’s re-entry into the premises on 14 June 2005 was invalid, whether, and when, either of the parties thereafter validly terminated the lease.
27 September 2010
______________________
A The appeal is allowed and the orders made by the High Court are restored.
B The appellants are awarded costs of $15,000 together with their reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
C The costs order made by the Court of Appeal is reversed. Any outstanding questions concerning interest and costs should be determined by the High Court.
19 May 2011
The approved ground is: In circumstances in which the respondent’s re-entry into the premises on 14 June 2005 was invalid, whether, and when, either of the parties thereafter validly terminated the lease.
27 September 2010
______________________
A The appeal is allowed and the orders made by the High Court are restored.
B The appellants are awarded costs of $15,000 together with their reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
C The costs order made by the Court of Appeal is reversed. Any outstanding questions concerning interest and costs should be determined by the High Court.
19 May 2011
Media Releases
- media release ingram v patcroft 10 may 2011 doc (PDF, 84 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
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.
Elias CJ, Blanchard , Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
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
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
- sc 85 2010 mcnamara family trust v auckland cc (PDF, 983 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2012] NZSC 34 (PDF, 95 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Tabbasum Mahomed v The Queen
Case number
SC 97/2010
Summary
Criminal – Failing to Provide the Necessaries of Life – Whether Court of Appeal erred in pre-trial ruling admitting certain propensity/narrative evidence against the applicant – Whether Court of Appeal in dismissing appeal erred in concluding trial Judge not required to give specific directions on propensity evidence at trial – Whether Crown was required to exclude at trial the possibility that murder injury was unsurvivable – Whether Court of Appeal wrong to find sufficient evidence to exclude that possibility.[2010] NZCA 419 CA 790/2009 14 September 2010.
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
The approved grounds are: (i) Whether the evidence concerning the child’ s being left in the car on 19 December 2007 was admissible; and (ii) If so, whether the Judge’s directions relating to that evidence were adequate.
2 November 2010
_____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
19 May 2011
The approved grounds are: (i) Whether the evidence concerning the child’ s being left in the car on 19 December 2007 was admissible; and (ii) If so, whether the Judge’s directions relating to that evidence were adequate.
2 November 2010
_____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
19 May 2011
Media Releases
- mahomed v the queen press release (PDF, 87 KB)
Substantive judgment
MAHOMED v R SC 97/2010, SC 117/2010 [19 May 2011] (PDF, 321 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 17 February 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
R S v The Queen
Case number
SC 103/2010
Summary
Criminal – Exclusion of evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that what specific drug, if any, a police constable is searching for under s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 is a factual rather than legal issue - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that whether s 23(1)(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act had been breached is a factual rather than legal issue – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its deciding unlawfully obtained evidence was admissible under the balancing exercise in s 30(2) of the Evidence Act 2006.[2010] NZCA 434 CA 333/2010 22 September 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Not publicly available
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
16 November 2010.
Case name
DH v The Queen
Case number
SC 107/2010
Summary
Criminal – Summary Proceedings Act 1957 – Appellants charged with cultivation, supply and possession of cannabis – Whether Court of Appeal erred in not explicitly ruling that a search warrant issued under s 198 SPA cannot authorise the installation of covert video surveillance cameras – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding exclusion of surveillance evidence would be disproportionate to impropriety in obtaining it.[2010] NZCA 457 CA 221/2010 7 October 2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
2 December 2010
Case name
GB v The Queen
Case number
SC 108/2010
Summary
Criminal – Summary Proceedings Act 1957 – Appellants charged with cultivation, supply and possession of cannabis – Whether Court of Appeal erred in not explicitly ruling that a search warrant issued under s 198 SPA cannot authorise the installation of covert video surveillance cameras – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding exclusion of surveillance evidence would be disproportionate to impropriety in obtaining it.[2010] NZCA 457 CA 222/2010 7 October 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Not publicly available
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
2 December 2010
Case name
DJB v The Queen
Case number
SC 114/2010
Summary
Criminal – Evidence Act 2006 – Admissibility of prior consistent statements – whether the complainant’s prior consistent statements to third parties, led in evidence in chief within a video interview, were admissible in application of s 35(2) of the Act – Admissibility of statements made by the defendant – whether evidence given by the complainant’ s mother of a statement made by the defendant should have been excluded on the basis that the risk of an unfairly prejudicial effect on the proceeding outweighed its limited probative value pursuant to s 8 of the Act[2010] NZCA 493 CA 110/2010 29 October 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the evidence of complaints to two family members was admissible.
25 February 2011
____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
9 June 2011
25 February 2011
____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
9 June 2011
Media Releases
- sc114 2010 media release (PDF, 85 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
B v R SC 114/2010 [25 February 2011] (PDF, 137 KB)
Substantive judgment
B(SC 114/2010) v R SC 114/2010 [9 June 2011] (PDF, 66 KB)
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Azeeez Mahomed v The Queen
Case number
SC 117/2010
Summary
Criminal – Murder – Whether Court of Appeal erred in pre-trial ruling admitting certain propensity/narrative evidence against the applicant – Whether Court of Appeal in dismissing appeal erred in concluding trial Judge not required to give specific directions on propensity evidence at trial – Whether evidence of applicant’s low intellectual capacity and wife’s post-natal depression should have been admitted at trial – Whether trial Judge was entitled to comment on applicant’s decision not to give evidence – Whether new evidence of accident purportedly explaining daughter’s injuries should be admitted.[2010] NZCA 419 CA 779/2009 14 September 2010.
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted,
The approved grounds are:
(i) Whether the evidence concerning the child’s being left in the car on 19 December 2007 was admissible; and
(ii) If so, whether the Judge’s directions relating to that evidence were adequate.
8 February 2011
__________________________
Appeal dismissed.
19 May 2011
The approved grounds are:
(i) Whether the evidence concerning the child’s being left in the car on 19 December 2007 was admissible; and
(ii) If so, whether the Judge’s directions relating to that evidence were adequate.
8 February 2011
__________________________
Appeal dismissed.
19 May 2011
Media Releases
- mahomed v the queen press release (PDF, 87 KB)
Substantive judgment
MAHOMED v R SC 97/2010, SC 117/2010 [19 May 2011] (PDF, 321 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 17 February 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Henry David Levin and Barry Philip Jordan v Patrick Ikiua, Kenti Apa, Tess Apa, Mark Crosbie, Andrew David Smith.
Case number
SC 123/2010
Summary
Civil – Liquidators’ right under s 298 of the Companies Act 1993 to recover property which a liquidated company has disposed of to certain entities – Whether the company must have had a proprietary interest in the property – Whether s 298 applies only to transactions where the directors are duty bound to obtain fair value in return for the disposition of property – Whether the company had legitimately transferred its assets – Whether the directors of the company had breached their duties by disposing of all profits.[2010] NZCA 509 CA 508/2009 12 November 2010
Dates
Notice of Abandonment being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.
Page 19 of 33