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
Bostik New Zealand Limited v Stephen Graham Lockwood & Wadham Goodman Trustees Limited as trustees of the Island Trust.
Case number
SC 102/2010
Summary
Civil – Negligent misstatement – Respondent alleges misrepresentation in respect of waterproofing product suitability to waterproof large deck – Whether Court of Appeal erred in disturbing findings of fact in High Court as to falsity of representation and suitability of product and in remitting proceeding to High Court for reconsideration – Whether Court of Appeal gave undue weight to Bostik’s own technical literature regarding suitability of waterproofing product which post-dated the events in issue.[2010] NZCA 436 CA 381/2009 24 September 2010
Dates

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

8 December 2010
Case name
The Trustees of Te Huria Matenga Wakapuaka Trust v The Minister of Conservation and others
Case number
SC 17/2009
Summary
Land Law – Maori Customary Title – Ownership of Land – land subject to both a Native Land Court Certificate of Title and a Land Transfer Act title – whether the Land transfer Act Certificate of Title takes priority – Interpretation of inconsistent Certificates of Title.[2008] NZCA 564  CA 18/2008 18  December 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
6 April 2011
Case name
Ngati Rangi Trust and others v Genesis Power Limited and Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council
Case number
SC 60/2009
Summary
Civil – Grant of resource consents – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to determine that the Environment Court had incorrectly directed itself as to the statutory purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to address who was burdened by an evidential onus to demonstrate appropriate measures to mitigate the adverse effects of a proposal.[2009] NZCA 222  CA  518/2007    2 June  2009
Result
Notice of Abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed. 21 December 2010
Case name
Tulsi Ram Naresh v Gordon Edward McCluskie
Case number
SC 89/2009
Summary
Civil – whether the Court of Appeal erred in law and fact in finding that the appellant should be removed as a trustee of a family trust pursuant to s 51 of the Trustee Act 1956 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in making an award of indemnity costs against the appellant – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that, for limitation purposes, time ran from October 1993.[2009] NZCA 328  CA 766/2008   28 July  2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Indemnity costs to the respondent. 26 November 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Supreme court decision
Judgment appealed from

 

Case name
Johnathan Brian Irvine and others v John Douglas Wilson and others
Case number
SC 117/2009
Summary
Civil appeal – trusts and trustees – whether second and third appellants, when signing as trustees, can be personally liable under the Trust Deed – whether there was a breach of the Shareholders Agreement due to the failure to get Special Resolutions for significant borrowings and costs as required by the Business Plan specified in the Shareholders Agreement – whether there was a breach of the major transaction requirements of the Companies Act 1993 – additionally, estoppel argument raised for the first time in the Court of Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to provide the appellants the opportunity to consider or provide evidence in opposition to this point.[2009] NZCA 569 CA  232/2009    7 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to respondents.                                                

18 March 2010

Case name
Tere Moana Purea V Alan Stanley Perkins and Adrienne Rosemary Perkins
Case number
SC 119/2009
Summary
Civil appeal - Land Transfer Act 1952 – cross-appeal - the respondents sued for specific performance after the appellant failed to settle a house purchase due to a dispute with his daughter (Mrs Tangi-Tuake) over ownership which resulted in her lodging a caveat against the title of the property – whether the Court of Appeal determination that the finding of Asher J on the facts that it was supported by evidence that there was an agreement that in return for Mr Purea’s daughter taking responsibility for the mortgage and any outgoings and maintenance of the property, ownership would be transferred to her on repayment of then mortgage, was erroneous – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider that Asher J treated his finding of a constructive trust as if it was an express trust and gave no recognition of the Tangi-Tuakes’ interest in the property – whether the Court of Appeal decision is supported by the Tangi-Tuakes’ pleadings and in particular the way in which their pleadings have changed.[2009] NZCA 541     CA  365/2008   18 November  2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the 2nd Respondent.
Case name
New Zealand Exchange Limited v Bank of New Zealand, Access Brokerage Limited (in liquidation) and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Case number
SC 13/2008
Summary
Civil – appeal from strike-out application – second respondent in liquidation, first and third respondents brought actions against NZX in contract and tort - whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that NZX owes personal duties of care to individual clients or to individual brokers, to protect each of them from economic loss due to broker’s dishonesty or negligence in relation to client funds held on trust – whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the breach of such a duty (if owed) is sufficiently legally causative of loss – whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that the Securities Commission is the “primary regulator” of the New Zealand Stock Exchange, and not NZX.2008] NZCA 25 CA236/06 22 February 2008
Case name
Ngai Tahu Properties Limited v Central Plains Water Trust and Canterbury Regional Council
Case number
SC 15/2008
Summary
Civil – Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) – competing resource consent applications to take (and use) water from a finite natural resource – whether the Court of Appeal majority assessed the priority of claims correctly – whether the “ready for notification” test should apply in such cases – how a consent authority decision not to proceed with notification under s 91 RMA should affect priority of claims.[2008] NZCA 71 CA69/07 19 March 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. 24 June 2008
_________________
Interim decision released 
26 March 2009
______________
Notice of Abandonment being lodged the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
2 June 2009
Case name
Diagnostic Medlab Limited v Auckland District Health Board and others
Case number
SC 80/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – judicial review – the Auckland region District Health Boards (ARDHBs) put out to tender the provision of its community laboratory services – the successful tenderer was Lab Tests Auckland Limited (Lab Tests) and the incumbent provider, Diagnostic Medlab Limited (DML), applied to the High Court for judicial review of the ARDHBs’ decision on the basis that the decision was procedurally flawed – the application was successful in the High Court and but an appeal to the Court of Appeal by Lab Tests was allowed – whether the Court of Appeal failed to interpret the provisions of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 (PHDA) as contemplating and requiring supplementing by principles of natural justice – whether the Court of Appeal applied a wrong and unduly restrictive approach to judicial review in the context of a contracting decision for an essential public health service – whether the Court of Appeal sanctioned a result which undermined the principles of natural justice, compromised the integrity of the relevant contracting process, and eroded public trust and confidence in decision-making by DHBs generally – whether the Court of Appeal failed to recognise that the PHDA contemplates a significant community voice in decisions affecting public health, including by way of meaningful consultation in accordance with expectations established by documents required by the PHDA – whether the Court of Appeal failed to apply any or an appropriate level of scrutiny to the DHBs’ decision on the grounds of unreasonableness – whether the Court of Appeal failed to pay any or proper respect to the High Court’s identification and evaluation of the relevant factual context, and that Court’s advantages as a primary fact-finder and adjudicator of mixed questions of law and fact. [2008] NZCA 385  CA 154/07  25 September 2008
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Costs $2,5000 to the first respondents (jointly)  and $2,500 to the second respondent.

Case name
Waitara Leaseholders Association Inc v New Plymouth District Council
Case number
SC 23/2007
Summary
Civil –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that land was not held on a charitable trust and that the Council was not subject to the obligations of charitable trustees – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the Council was not obliged to consider the objects of the statutory trusts when deciding to seek legislation to remove trust restrictions – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that compliance with section 14(6) of the Trustee Act 1956 relieves a trustee from its obligation of obtaining the best price for an asset – whether the Supreme Court should grant leave to pursue a new ground, namely that the Council failed to take into account the fact that its decisions were contrary to previous promises and assurances that it had made.CA 259/05 CA 260/05 20 March 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs $2,500 to the respondent.
20 June 2007