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.

31 July 2026

Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 131 KB) 

All years

Case name
Raewyn Marie Scott v Lindy Jane Ellison
Case number
SC 84/2011
Summary
Civil – Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Land – Contractual interpretation – Standard form vendor warranty – Warranty that where vendor has done/permitted works on property requiring permits/consents these have been obtained (cl 6.2(5)) – Whether Court of Appeal correct in dismissing appeal against refusal to grant summary judgment – Appellant and co-owner made alterations to property without obtaining requisite permits and certificates – Appellant, then sole owner, created trust, transferred property to trustees, then sold property describing vendor as appellant and trustees – Whether appellant’s status as legal owner changed – Whether warranty applies to works done/permitted by appellant prior to transfer to trustees  [2011] NZCA 302    CA 660/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the respondent.
31 August 2011.
Case name
Gary Francis Haddon v GE Custodians and  Barbara Gale Haddon.
Case number
SC 87/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 – Appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold a summary judgment of the High Court – Whether a credit contract is a “consumer credit contract” where the appellants were both debtors in their personal capacities and as trustees of a family trust – Whether it is sufficient for a lender to “largely” comply with the mandatory disclosure requirements of s 17 – Whether the lender could contract out of the Act by defining the contract as a “credit contract” – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the summary judgment where the appellants did not have available to them much of the factual information relating to the load transaction, where the loan purpose on the loan documents differs from that stated on the loan application, where the lender was put on inquiry as to whether the borrowers could service the loan and where parties were being advised by the same lawyer increasing the likelihood of conflict of interest and undue influence. [2011] NZCA 335    CA 475/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs to first respondent $2,500.00
Case name
Luaiava Fagalilo v Seneti Time
Case number
SC 102/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Trusts – The Green Valley Church Assembly formed in 1984 and was formally affiliated with Assemblies of God in New Zealand Incorporated (AOGNZ) – The church set up a trust to own their church property in 1985 – The Trust Deed specified that trustees could not act inconsistently with the AOGNZ Constitution and Rules – The Constitution stated that no member church could also hold a certificate of membership with another organised body with a distinct constitution – A schism in the church occurred in 2005 when the Samoan Assemblies of God New Zealand (SAOG), which some church members were affiliated with, incorporated – Trustees who were affiliated with the SAOG were not acting in accordance with the Trust Deed – Appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal requiring an election by the members of the church affiliated with the AOGNZ of persons to be nominated as trustees – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by effectively giving full control of church property to members affiliated with the AOGNZ – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not obliging the respondent to enter into dialogue aimed at settlement of the parties’ differences –   Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to consider the existence of constructive trusts whereby the Trust Board holds its assets in trust for the people who paid for them or otherwise contributed to them since acquisition.  [2010] NZCA 402   CA 191/2010
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs payable by the applicant to the respondent of $2,500.
16 April 2012.
Case name
Synlait Limited v Central Plains Water Trust and Ors
Case number
SC 9/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991 – Water rights - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that priority of hearing is determined in favour of the first applicant to file a complete application – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to give adequate consideration to whether changes to an application after lodgement could affect which test would be applicable to determine priority and whether priority is maintained irrespective of what changes are made subsequent to lodgement – Whether the Court of Appeal provided inadequate recognition of the fact that an application can lose priority due to unreasonable delay.[2009] NZCA 609 CA 544/2008. CA 588/2008  18 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave granted
SYNLAIT LIMITED v CENTRAL PLAINS WATER TRUST And Ors SC 9/2010 [31 March 2010] (PDF, 7 KB)
Hearing

Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.

22 June 2010.
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

The approved ground is how priority is determined as between competing applications under the Resource Management Act 1991 for a finite resource.

31 March 2010.
Case name
Michael Shane McElroy and others as trustees of the Craigie Trust v Auckland International Airport Limited
Case number
SC 11/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Public Works Act 1981 – Respondent not subject to the obligation in s 40 of the Act to offer back to the applicant land no longer required for the public work for which it was held – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the word “required” in s 40 – whether the Court of Appeal misinterpreted the term “ aerodrome” or “airport” as defined by the Act and the Airport Authorities Act 1966 – whether the Court’s interpretation of “ aerodrome” or “airport” undermines the purposes of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the qualifications in s 40(2) of the Act would nonetheless apply to exclude the respondent from the requirement to offer back the land[2009] NZCA 621  CA 440/2008   23 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
McELROY AND ORS v AUCKLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD SC 11/2010 [9 June 2010] (PDF, 47 KB)
Dates

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

9 June 2010.
Case name
David Paul Halford and Blue Sky Holdings Ltd (in liquidation) (as trustee of the Auckland Residential Property Trust) v R F Coughlan & Associates and Ors
Case number
SC 35/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to find that the designer of apartment units was not negligent in respect of the plans and specifications of those units; whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the issue of practical completion certificates should give rise to liability irrespective of specific reliance by an owner.[2010] NZCA 64  CA 66/2009   22 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
DAVID PAUL HALFORD AND BLUE SKY HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AS TRUSTEE OF THE AUCKLAND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TRUST v R F COUGHLAN & ASSOCIATES And Anor SC 35/2010 [13 July 2010] (PDF, 10 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs $2,500 to the 1st respondent.

13 July 2010.
Case name
Nathan Stanley Gedye v Colin Robert South, Diane Lee South and Richard James Bureel as Trustees of the South Family Trust
Case number
SC 56/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Building Act 1991 – Alleged breach of vendor warranty for compliance with the Act – interpretation of limitation defence in s 91(2) of the Act – the Court of Appeal held the “act or omission on which the proceedings are based” to be the giving of the contractual warranty rather than the building work itself – the 10 year limitation period in s 91(2) therefore did not bar the respondent’s claim – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding s 91(2) inapplicable[2010] NZCA 207   CA 567/2009   20 May 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GEDYE v SOUTH, SOUTH AND BURRELL (AS TRUSTEES OF THE SOUTH FAMILY TRUST) SC 56/2010 [5 August 2010] (PDF, 12 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

5 October 2010.
Case name
Ian David Penny and Gary John Hooper v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 62/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Income Tax Act 1994 – Applicant orthopaedic surgeons employed by family companies owned by family trusts – Applicants found by Court of Appeal to have breached general anti-avoidance provision s BG 1 of Income Tax Act as level of remuneration paid by family companies to surgeons not a “commercially realistic salary” in view of family companies’ after-tax profit and therefore artificial/contrived – Whether arrangement had purpose or effect of tax avoidance to benefit from “rate advantage” between personal income tax and company tax rates – Whether “commercially realistic salary” an appropriate concept to apply under the Income Tax Act to a family company – Whether Applicants in fact exercised control over family companies and family trusts as governing director and co-trustee – Whether Court of Appeal correct to consider use of trust capital as advances as evidence of tax avoidance arrangement – Whether Court of Appeal correct to make cost orders different from cost arrangements agreed to by parties.[2010] NZCA 231   CA 201/2009   4 June 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the appellants had failed to establish that their use of their corporate and family trust structures did not constitute taxable arrangements for the purposes of s BG1 of the Income Tax Act 1994.
2 August 2010
______________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellants must pay the respondent’ s costs in the sum of $25,000 together with his reasonable disbursements in connection with the appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
24 August 2011
Leave judgment - leave granted
PENNY AND HOOPER V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 62/2010 2 August 2010 (PDF, 7 KB)
Judgment appealed from

 
Substantive judgment / Media release

 
Transcript

Hearing date : 27, 28,29 June 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, 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
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
Westpac New Zealand Limited v Map & Associates Limited
Case number
SC 98/2010
Summary
Civil – Knowing assistance in breach of trust – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Westpac did not have reason to refuse to follow the instructions of its account holder – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 87 of the Judicature Act 1908.[2010] NZCA 404 CA 193/2009 6 September  2010.
Result
A  The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B  The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that Westpac had breached its mandate.
C  The application for leave to cross-appeal is refused. 
2 February 2011
_______________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $15,000.00 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.
16 August 2011
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v MAP & ASSOCIATES LIMITED SC 98/2010 [2 February 2011] (PDF, 16 KB)
Substantive judgment
WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v MAP & ASSOCIATES LIMITED SC 98/2010 [16 August 2011] (PDF, 131 KB)
Page 13 of 16