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
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.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Neville James Gibson v Minter Ellison Rudd Watts
Case number
SC 8/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – proceedings against former legal counsel - whether the Court of Appeal made accurate findings of fact – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the respondent had complied with discovery obligations – whether the Court of Appeal had regard to all relevant evidence – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the applicant would not have been entitled to legal aid in earlier proceedings against a third party – whether the respondent had a conflict of interest in earlier proceedings - whether the Court should have considered the applicant’ s financial position when awarding costs against him[2007] NZCA 595 CA 202/065, CA 33/06 21 December 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2.500 to respondent. 1 May 2008
Case name
Robert Charles De Bruin v The Queen
Case number
SC 9/2008
Summary
Appeal against order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 - Court of Appeal held that the High Court had correctly calculated a pecuniary penalty order under s 25 of $1 million – whether first appellant more than a mere courier for the purposes of calculating the benefit received under s 27(2) – whether Court of Appeal wrong to follow R v Penderson [1995] 2 NZLR given position of couriers has not been resolved – whether Court of Appeal in error in upholding the High Court decision that the increase in value of the property was a benefit from the offending under s 28 – whether Court of Appeal was correct in finding that the appellants’ agreement under s 21 of the Property (Relationships) Act 2004 was intended to defeat the interests of the Crown as a creditor of the appellant – whether, given the second appellant’s appeal was successful in part, the Court of Appeal erred in ordering that the legal costs should be paid from the second appellant’s interest in the property.[2007] NZCA 600 CA 317/06 21 December 2007
Dates
Notice of Abandonment being lodged , the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
4 April 2008
Case name
Astrid Eleanor Delany v The Queen
Case number
SC 10/2008
Summary
Appeal against order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 - Court of Appeal held that the High Court had correctly calculated a pecuniary penalty order under s 25 of $1 million – whether first appellant more than a mere courier for the purposes of calculating the benefit received under s 27(2) – whether Court of Appeal wrong to follow R v Penderson [1995] 2 NZLR given position of couriers has not been resolved – whether Court of Appeal in error in upholding the High Court decision that the increase in value of the property was a benefit from the offending under s 28 – whether Court of Appeal was correct in finding that the appellants’ agreement under s 21 of the Property (Relationships) Act 2004 was intended to defeat the interests of the Crown as a creditor of the appellant – whether, given the second appellant’s appeal was successful in part, the Court of Appeal erred in ordering that the legal costs should be paid from the second appellant’s interest in the property.[2007] NZCA 600 CA 332/06 21 December 2007
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 1 May 2008
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
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Transcript
Case name
Mark Moncrieff Stevens and others v Premium Real Estate Limited
Case number
SC 23/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – Breach of fiduciary duty and Fair Trading Act 1986 – Damages – Advertising and sale of residential property where absence full disclosure by agent to principal of close, ongoing commercial relationship with purchaser – Whether Court of Appeal erred in quantification of damages assessment, including whether correct measure of loss includes profit made by third party (rather than fiduciary) as result of breach of fiduciary duty.[2008] NZCA 82 CA 31/07 11 April 2008
Result
Leave to appeal and cross appeal granted.
29 July 2008
________________________
The appellants’ appeal is allowed.The respondent’s appeal is dismissed. The respondent is ordered to pay the appellants damages of $659,813 and to repay to them the commission of $67,050. The judgment sums will bear interest at 7% per annum from 16 July 2004 (the date of settlement).The appellants are awarded costs in this Court of $15,000 and costs in the Court of Appeal of $6,000, together in each case with their reasonable disbursements as fixed by the respective Registrars if not otherwise agreed between the parties.
6 March 2009
29 July 2008
________________________
The appellants’ appeal is allowed.The respondent’s appeal is dismissed. The respondent is ordered to pay the appellants damages of $659,813 and to repay to them the commission of $67,050. The judgment sums will bear interest at 7% per annum from 16 July 2004 (the date of settlement).The appellants are awarded costs in this Court of $15,000 and costs in the Court of Appeal of $6,000, together in each case with their reasonable disbursements as fixed by the respective Registrars if not otherwise agreed between the parties.
6 March 2009
Transcripts
- Hearing date 13 November 2008 (PDF, 254 KB)
Media Releases
- media release (PDF, 89 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Case name
Hawthorne v Cox
Case number
SC 35/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – costs orders – appeal from decision of the Court of Appeal to refuse leave to appeal from a decision of the High Court not to award costs in favour of the appellant who had successfully challenged a guardianship order – whether leave required when appealing a costs order originating in an appeal – whether the Court of Appeal’s decision not to award costs to the appellant was in the best interests of the child who was the subject of the guardianship order – whether counsel for the child should be immune from a cost order unless there is bad faith or clear incompetence – whether costs may be determined without the need to be heard.[2008] NZCA 146 CA 509/07 4 June 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
G v COX And Anor SC 35/2008 [27 August 2008] (PDF, 17 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed, with cocts of $2,500 to the first respondent.
27 August 2008
Case name
EW and PW v Attorney-General
Case number
SC 36/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – Appeal directly from High Court – Negligence – whether only nominal damages should be awarded for a breach of duty of care in child welfare cases unless the duty required the defendant to commence proceedings – whether there was a duty to commence proceedings – whether vicarious liability exists where child is placed back with family from whom they have been removed – whether test of causation correctly applied – Limitation Act 1950 – whether reasonable discoverability test should be expanded beyond sexual abuse cases – whether reasonable discoverability and disability tests were correctly applied – whether facts supported a finding of exemplary damages – whether a non-delegable duty of care existed – whether applicants were falsely imprisoned when held in secure units – whether applicants were required to prove a ‘ counter-factual’ to justify an award of damages – whether the ACC legislation barred the applicant’s claims – whether High Court made correct findings of fact – whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify an appeal directly to the Supreme Court.CIV 199-485-85 and CIV 2001 - 485 - 864 Wellington High Court28 November 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
15 August 2008
Case name
New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council and New Zealand Big Game Fishing Council Inc v Sanford Limited, Sealord Limited and others
Case number
SC 40/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – Fisheries Act 1996 – statutory interpretation issues arising from review of Minister of Fisheries’ exercise of statutory power to fix the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) – interpretation of the relationship between s 8 (providing that purpose of Act is to provide for utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability) and s 21 (providing for matters which the Minister must take into account in setting the Total Allowable Catch) – specifically, whether the TAC and TACC decisions can be characterised as sustainability and utilisation decisions respectively – whether a “global approach” should be taken to the purpose provision whereby it is a guide to government policy that decision-makers are to bear in mind generally, or whether the provision contains mandatory relevant considerations to be taken into account in relation to individual decisions – how the purpose of enabling people to “provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing” in s 8(2) is to be interpreted – whether the common law right to fish extends to commercial fishers.[2008] NZCA 160 CA 163/07 11 June 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
2 October 2008
__________________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
28 May 2009
2 October 2008
__________________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
28 May 2009
Media Releases
- big game fishing press release (PDF, 90 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcription
Case name
Roderick William Nielsen v Dysart Timbers Limited
Case number
SC 54/2008
Summary
Civil – Costs – whether the Court of Appeal correctly applied an objective test to the issue of whether the appellant intended a settlement offer to remain open for acceptance after the Supreme Court had granted leave to appeal.[2008] NZCA 280 CA 630/07 6 August 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
28 October 2008
___________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
15 May 2009
28 October 2008
___________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
15 May 2009
Media Releases
- media release nielsen v dysart (PDF, 89 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Page 99 of 110