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.

17 August 2026

Case information summary (as at 17 August 2026) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 17 August 2026)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 128 KB) 

All years

Case name
Neil Tony Hickman and others v Turn and Wave Limited, Greenstone Barclay Trustees Ltd and Iicon Central Ltd
Case number
SC 46/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Securities Act 1978 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 33 of the Securities Act, its interpretation of the term “debt security” under the Securities Act, and its interpretation of the scope of the exemption in s 5(1)(b) of the Securities Act – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that if the Blue Chip investment products were invalid, they were not interdependent with the sale and purchase agreements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the sale and purchase agreements were not tainted by illegality if in breach of s 33 of the Securities Act[2011] NZCA 100  CA 796/2009, CA 797/2009, CA 798/2009
Result

Leave to appeal is granted on the following questions:

(1) Did the marketing by Blue Chip companies and sales agents of the Blue Chip investment products amount to offers to the public of equity and/or debt securities for the purposes of s 37 of the Securities Act 1978?

(2) If so, is the exemption in s 5(1)(b) applicable?

(3) If the answers to questions (1) and (2) are favourable to the investors, does this impeach the ability of the developers to enforce the agreements for sale and purchase on the basis that they (a) constituted part of the relevant allotments and were thus void and of no effect under s 37(4) or, (b) were tainted by their association with those allotments and thus illegal?

6 September 2011

________________________

A The appeals are allowed.

B The SPAs executed at the same time as, or after, the corresponding Blue Chip investment product agreements were entered into are declared to be unenforceable under s 37 of the Securities Act 1978.

C The High Court is to determine whether SPAs, entered into before the corresponding Blue Chip investment products were executed, were subscriptions for securities.

D The cases are otherwise generally remitted to the High Court to make such further orders as may be consistent with this judgment.

E The respondents are to pay the appellants costs $75,000 and usual disbursements.

F  Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be as determined by those courts.

9 August 2012

______________________

Recall judgment

Former order F now replaced by orders F, G and H.

F  The existing orders for costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.

G Other than those affected by timing issues (being Mr Hutchinson in the case of TWL, and in the case of Greenstone Barclay, Mr and Mrs Bogardus, Ms Janes, Mrs and Mrs Johnson, Mr Crawford-Greene, Mr and Mrs Dick and Mr and Mrs Lester) the appellants are to be awarded costs and disbursements in the High Court and Court of Appeal in sums to be determined by those Courts in light of the judgment of this Court.

H Costs and disbursements in relation to the appellants affected by timing issues are to be addressed in the High Court and Court of Appeal once those timing issues have been resolved.

11 December 1012
Transcript
Hearing date : 7 – 9 November 2011
Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassny and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 49/2011
Summary
Civil – Costs – Defamation – Whether Court of Appeal, in considering quantum of damages awarded against applicant, erred by: not considering applicant’s substantive defence of truth; upholding finding of liability in the circumstances. [2011] NZCA 106  CA 826/2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIEMER v STIASSNY SC 49/2011 [3 June 2011] (PDF, 99 KB)
Recall judgment
SIEMER v STIASSNY SC 49/2011 [21 October 2011 (PDF, 46 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

3 June 2011.
Case name
Lewis Gaire Herdman Thompson v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 52/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Tax – The appellant deregistered for GST from 30 November 1999 – Commissioner of Inland Revenue later made tax assessments on the basis that the appellant was not able to deregister at this time because of subsequent land transactions – Whether there were reasonable grounds for the Court of Appeal to make a finding of fact that the appellant would have made taxable supplies greater than $30,000 through these transactions after deregistration – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to set the end of the appellant’s GST period at 31 January 2001 instead of February 2000.  [2011] NZCA 132  CA 580/2009
Result
Appeal dismissed.
Costs of $15,000 plus disbursement to the respondent.
10 May 2012.
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
sc 52 2011 lewis gaire herdman thompson v cir leave judgment (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
sc 52 2011 thompson v cir (PDF, 209 KB)
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is granted on the following grounds:

A When did the appellant become entitled to be de-registered for GST purposes?

B In light of that determination, and the circumstances in which they took place, did the second and third sales of land attract GST?

22 August 2011.
Hearing
1 March 2012.
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Decision reserved.
Case name
Body Corporate 207624 and others v North Shore City Council
Case number
SC 58/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Negligence – Leaky building – Whether applicant hotel unit owners owed a duty of care by respondent council – Whether applicant penthouse apartment owners owed a duty of care by council – Whether intended use of building as residential or non-residential a controlling factor in determining whether local authority owes duty of care – How duty of care in respect of a mixed-use building should be determined – Whether council can owe duty of care for negligent misstatement based upon code compliance certificates in absence of specific reliance by applicants.[2011] NZCA 164  CA 760/2009
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is whether and to what extent the respondent local authority owed a duty of care to the body corporate and/or all or some of the appellant unit owners in exercising its regulatory functions under the Building Act 1991 in relation to the construction of the Spencer on Byron building which contains a mixture of  non-residential and residential apartments. 5 August 2011 _________________________________ A The appeal is allowed.
B The orders made in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.
C The appellants’ claim against the respondent is permitted to proceed in the High Court.
D The appellants are entitled to costs in the High Court and the Court of Appeal.  If the parties cannot agree quantum, costs are to be fixed in the respective Courts.
E The respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs in this Court in the sum of $40,000 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.  11 October 2012
Leave judgment - leave granted
sc 58 2011 body corporate no 207624 anor v north shore city 1 (PDF, 8 KB)
Transcript

Hearing dates : 20, 21 and 26 March 2012

Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Chambers JJ.
Case name
Marta Hayes v Judith Guerin
Case number
SC 59/2011
Summary
Civil – Administration Act 1969 – Family Protection Act 1955 – Dispute over will –Costs ¬– Whether appellant ought to have been made liable for costs in Court of Appeal following unsuccessful application for extension of time within which to appeal 2009 High Court decision ¬– Whether related lower court judgments were made without jurisdiction; were void ab initio; were erroneous; and thus necessitate a remedy in restitution.[2010] NZCA 592 CA 466/2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
HAYES v GUERIN SC 59/2011 [3 August 2011] (PDF, 42 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs $2500 to the respondent.
3 August 2011.
Case name
Pacific Farms Limited and Pacific Farms Development Limited v Palmerston North City Council and Palmerston North Industrial & Residential Developments Limited
Case number
SC 64/2011
Summary
Civil – Resource Management Act 1991 – Issue of consents without notice ¬– High Court declining to quash consents or grant declarations on terms sought by appellants – Whether Court of Appeal correct to set aside all of High Court’s declarations (and leave feasibility of a rehearing to the parties) on basis that late revelation of a relevant consent and regional plan meant that the critical issues were unable to be addressed in any meaningful way – Whether, in light of that finding, Court of Appeal correct to order parties to bear their own costs and set aside High Court costs orders – Extent of differentiation and/or overlap of functions and jurisdiction of Territorial Authorities and Regional Councils – Effect of regional plan on status of activity for notification purposes – Effect of principles of natural justice on Court of Appeal decision, particularly its decision to determine proceedings on a ground not the subject of pleadings or submissions by the parties.     [2011] NZCA 187    CA 116/2010
Dates
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
6 July 2011.
Case name
John Anthony Edwards v Wellington Regional Council
Case number
SC 67/2011
Summary
Civil – Costs – Whether the Court of Appeal was right to uphold a decision of the Acting Registrar of that Court fixing security for costs on an appeal from the High Court – Section 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 – Appeal directly from the High Court – Whether a decision of the High Court to stay proceedings until a further statement of claim with adequate pleadings is submitted, and the leave of a Judge to file it is granted, is sufficiently exceptional to allow a direct appeal against the judgment to this Court. [2011] NZCA 260   CA 176/2011
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
EDWARDS v WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL SC 67/2011 [5 July 2011] (PDF, 41 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,5000 to the respondent.
Case name
Keith Allenby v H, Middlemore Hospital of Counties Manukau District Health Board and Accident Compensation Corporation
Case number
SC 70/2011
Summary
The case is clearly one in respect of which leave should be granted and we therefore grant leave.The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in answering the question before it in the negative.30 June 2011.[2011] NZCA 251   CA 586/2010
Result
The case is clearly one in respect of which leave should be granted and we therefore grant leave. The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in answering the question before it in the negative.
30 June 2011
_______________________
A The appeal is allowed.  The question framed in the High Court is answered “yes”.
B Costs are reserved.
9 May 2012
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
ALLENBY v H SC 70/2011 [30 June 2011] (PDF, 10 KB)
Substantive judgment
ALLENBY v H SC [9 May 2012] (PDF, 310 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 16 February 2012

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Robert Michael Symons, Gregory John Symons and others v Wiltshire Investments Limited
Case number
SC 92/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Appeal against Court of Appeal upholding a summary decision of the High Court – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the refusal by the respondents to produce critical relevant documents that are in the respondent’s sole possession did not constitute a failure by the respondent to discharge the onus on a summary judgment application to establish that the appellants had no arguable defence – Whether the use of residual discretion to refuse an application for summary judgment under r 12.2 of the High Court Rules was justified – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the confidentiality can be a valid ground for refusal to disclose relevant documentation to the Court and the defendants in a summary judgment application. [2011] NZCA 397 CA 534/2010
Result
Leave to appeal is granted in relation to the indebtedness associated with Opus Fintek Ltd (in receivership). The approved question is whether the Associate Judge ought to have entered summary judgment despite the non disclosure of the 2009 settlement agreement between Opus Fintek Ltd and Hats Holdings Ltd.
17 November 2011
_________________________________
A Leave to appeal is extended to cover the indebtedness of Fibroin Initiatives Ltd.
B The appeal is allowed with the result that the entry of summary judgment is set aside but with leave reserved to the respondent to seek summary judgment once it has disclosed the settlement agreement to the appellants.
C The awards of costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside. 9 August 2012
___________________________________
17 October 2012: 
Judgment recalled and reissued.  A Leave to appeal is extended to cover the indebtedness of Fibroin Initiatives Ltd.
B The appeal is allowed with the result that the entry of summary judgment is set aside.
C Upon disclosure of the settlement agreement to the appellants, the application for summary judgment is, at the option of the respondent, to be reheard in the High Court with the appellants at liberty to resist the claim (and, if they think appropriate, produce additional evidence) on the basis of (i) defences associated with, or arising out of the disclosure of the settlement agreement and (ii), subject to the leave of the High Court being obtained, on any other basis. The appellants are also at liberty to make such interlocutory applications to the High Court as they see fit. D The awards of costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.
Leave judgment - leave granted
sc 92 2011 symons v wiltshire investments ltd (PDF, 10 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 17 April 2012

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ
Case name
Rodney Mark Gibson and Habode IP Limited v Richard John Curtis and Curtis Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 94/2011
Summary
Civil – Existence of Joint Venture – Jurisdiction – Judicature Act 1908, s66 – Costs – Whether Court of Appeal exceeded its jurisdiction by hearing argument not put in issue in High Court as to existence of joint venture – Whether Court of Appeal made factual findings inconsistent with evidence presented, particularly as to the Australian company Habode Holdings Ltd – Whether Court of Appeal made factual findings for which there was no evidential basis – Whether Court of Appeal misapplied the test for determining imposition of joint venture obligations – Whether correct approach taken to costs. [2011] NZCA 373  CA 368/2010 CA 285/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal declined. Costs to respondent $2,500.
Page 90 of 110