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.
19 June 2026
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 89 KB)
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 126 KB)
All years
Case name
John Donald Currie v The Queen
Case number
SC 7/2007
Summary
Criminal – Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 – trial Judge awarded costs to defendants acquitted on charges of conspiracy to defraud and money laundering brought by Serious Fraud Office – Court of Appeal majority held that High Court Judge had erred in failing to take account of risk of a substantial award inhibiting the exercise of proper prosecutorial function – whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the cost award because it was “disproportionate” – whether Court of Appeal wrongly interpreted s 5(1) of the Act.CA 473/2005 6 December 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. Application for leave to cross appeal dismissed.
29 May 2007
_________________________
Appeal allowed, Costs order in the High Court reinstated.
Costs to appellant in Court of Appeal, $12,000 together with reasonable expenses.
In Supreme Court, reasonable expenses as may be fixed by the Registrar.
14 November 2007
29 May 2007
_________________________
Appeal allowed, Costs order in the High Court reinstated.
Costs to appellant in Court of Appeal, $12,000 together with reasonable expenses.
In Supreme Court, reasonable expenses as may be fixed by the Registrar.
14 November 2007
Leave judgment - leave granted
REID And Ors V R SC 95/2006 [29 May 2007] (PDF, 17 KB)
Substantive judgment / Media release
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Case name
Unison Networks Limited v The Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 12/2007
Summary
Civil Appeal – appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision that revised price-related thresholds set by the Commerce Commission were lawful and the Court’s refusal to exercise its discretion to grant relief in relation to initial unlawful thresholds – whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by failing to consider whether the Commerce Commission misdirected itself and therefore erred in finding the revised thresholds to be lawful – whether the Court erred in law by finding that the revised thresholds met the statutory purpose and were thus lawful – whether it is appropriate for the Court to decline relief where a statutory body has acted outside the statutory process – whether the Court erred by failing to consider other types of relief. CA 284/05 19 December 2006
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
27 March 2007
____________________
Appeal dismissed.
Unison is ordered to pay the Commission costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. Costs in the Court of Appeal and High Court are to be determined by those Courts in light of this judgment.
10 September 2007
27 March 2007
____________________
Appeal dismissed.
Unison is ordered to pay the Commission costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. Costs in the Court of Appeal and High Court are to be determined by those Courts in light of this judgment.
10 September 2007
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment /Media release
Transcription
Hearing date : 18 and 20 June 2007
Blanchard J, Tipping J, McGrath J, Anderson J and Gault J.
Blanchard J, Tipping J, McGrath J, Anderson J and Gault J.
Judgment appealed from
Case name
John Anthony Waller and Richard Dale Agnew v Stephen John Davies and others
Case number
SC 20/2007
Summary
Civil – applicants were appointed statutory managers of CH Finance Ltd pursuant to the Corporations (Investigation and Management) Act 1989 – CH Finance had devised a money lending scheme targeted at homeowners – CH Finance had become the registered proprietor of twelve properties pursuant to this scheme – properties mortgaged variously to the second to sixth respondents – statutory managers applied to the High Court pursuant to s 58 of that Act for directions relating to the twelve properties – statutory managers appealed that decision, cross-appeal by first respondent – statutory managers seek leave to appeal Court of Appeal decision - whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the statutory managers’ application for directions under s 58 of the Corporations (Investigation and Management) Act 1989 without providing directions or without remitting the application to the High Court for further directions – whether homeowners have an equitable interest arising out of fraudulent misrepresentations made to them – whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that counsel for the first respondent had not conceded that fraudulent misrepresentations had been made – whether the homeowners have an equitable interest arising out of a common law mortgage or an option to purchase – whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that first respondent not guilty of fraud under the Land Transfer Act 1952 on the basis that homeowners had no equitable interest to defeat – whether the second to fifth respondents were guilty of fraud by way of imputation and/or attribution –whether costs in respect of the homeowners whose properties were transferred by forgery should be determined by the High Court or Court of Appeal. CA 65/05 7 March 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs of $2,000 to first respondent, and $2,000 to second to sixth respondents as a group, plus disbursements. 13 June 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Austin, Nichols & Co. Inc v Stichting Lodestar
Case number
SC 21/2007
Summary
Civil appeal – Trade Marks Act 1953 – whether, in hearing an appeal from the Assistant Commissioner of Trade Marks, the High Court must have deference to the Assistant Commission’s findings, only overturning a decision that can fairly be characterised as wrong – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of its own powers under the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 in determining the appeal from the High Court decision – whether the Court of Appeal erred by ignoring the onus on the trade mark applicant to discharge the burden of demonstrating that registration of its trade mark would not lead to a likelihood of confusion or deception. CA 94/05 12 March 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
7 June 2007
______________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs $7,5000 plus disbursements to the respondent.
7 June 2007
______________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs $7,5000 plus disbursements to the respondent.
Transcripts
- Hearing date 17 October 2007 (PDF, 244 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2007] NZSC 103 (PDF, 88 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee
Case number
SC 22/2007
Summary
Civil – Whether the Court of Appeal erred when it concluded that in dental disciplinary proceedings, where the subject of the charge amounts to an allegation of a criminal offence, the civil standard of proof should be applied – whether the Court of Appeal erred by concluding that where the charge is a serious one there is no real distinction between the civil and criminal standards of proof – whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that it would not be an abuse of process for the appellant to face a disciplinary charge which repeats the criminal allegations for which he was acquitted. CA 231/05 22 March 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted
22 June 2007
______________________
The appeal is allowed to the extent that the allegation of professional misconduct in 1987 is not to form part of the charge heard by the Tribunal.
In all other respects the appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay costs to the respondent of $10,000, together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
25 July 2008
22 June 2007
______________________
The appeal is allowed to the extent that the allegation of professional misconduct in 1987 is not to form part of the charge heard by the Tribunal.
In all other respects the appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay costs to the respondent of $10,000, together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
25 July 2008
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
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
20 June 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Aqua Technics Pool and Spa Centre New Zealand Limited v Aqua-Tech Limited
Case number
SC 24/2007
Summary
Civil – proprietorship of trade mark – Trademarks Act 1953 – Assistant Commissioner of Trade Marks declined to register “Aqua-Tech” as a trademark in relation to spa and swimming pools – decision overturned by High Court and Court of Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s finding that Aqua-Tech had established public use of the trademark. CA 257/05 22 March 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with Costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
9 July 2007
9 July 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Vincent Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassny & Ferrier Hodgson
Case number
SC 26/2007
Summary
Summary Civil appeal – breach of interim injunction restraining publication of certain material relating to respondent – applicant found guilty of contempt of court – nature of proceedings; whether arising from an originating or interlocutory application – evidential rules applicable to such proceedings – allegations of judicial bias. CA 55/06; CA 150/06 4 April 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs of $2,5000 to the respondents.
12 July 2007
12 July 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIEMER v STIASSNY AND ANOR SC 26/2007 [12 July 2007] (PDF, 24 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Robert Erwood v Janet Maxted and others
Case number
SC 27/2007
Summary
Civil – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to grant the applicant an extension of time – whether the applicant’s personal circumstances are such that an application should be granted. CA 342/06 30 April 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2.500 for the respondents. Stay of execution revoked.
31 May 2007
31 May 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Deo Datt Sharma v Nirmala Wati
Case number
SC 29/2007
Summary
Civil appeal – application for removal of counsel for child – whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing leave to appeal under s 145(1)(b) Care of Children Act 2004 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that there was no right of appeal under s 66 Judicature Act 1908 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its award of costs – additional application for temporary stay of access proceedings in Auckland High Court CA 98/07 2 May 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
23 July 2007
23 July 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SHARMA v NIRMALA WATI SC 29/2007 [23 July 2007] (PDF, 14 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Page 101 of 110