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
Gisborne District Council v Port Gisborne Limited (now known as Tauwhareparae Farms Ltd) and Ors
Case number
SC 63/2007
Summary
Civil – strike-out – whether lower Courts erred in refusing to strike out cause of action in negligence – respondent company seeking contribution from applicant Council in proceedings against them arising from the Jody F Millennium grounding – whether Court of Appeal conflated negligence and statutory duty causes of action – whether there can be a duty of care to protect someone from loss arising from his or her legal liability for negligence – whether respondent entitled in these circumstances to claim that applicant owed parallel duties of care to other parties including the ship – whether Court of Appeal erred in awarding full costs against the applicant. CA 118/06 10 August 2007
Result
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.
19 January 2008
Case name
Saxmere Company Limited, The Escorial Company Limited, Richard King, Russell Stewart Emmerson and Forest Ramge Limited v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Limited
Case number
SC 64/2007
Summary
Civil – applicants challenged the Wool Board’s decisions allocating funding for wool marketing, seeking judicial review and restitution of levies paid and alleging breach of statutory duty (s 6(6) Wool Act 1997) and negligence – High Court Judge found the Board liable in damages for breach of statutory duty and negligence, in relation to one of their four decisions – Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the respondent and dismissed a cross-appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its analysis of the Board’ s decisions under s 6(6) of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal took proper account of the context and purpose of the Wool Act – whether the Court of Appeal failed to address the existence of a duty of care independent of s 6(6) – whether the Court of Appeal erred by making material factual findings which differed from the trial Judge and which were contrary to the evidence heard by the trial Judge – whether the High Court Judge erred in limiting his damages to only one of the four decisions, and in denying restitution of levies.CA 222/05 [2007] NZCA 349 15 August 2007 CIV 485 – 2003 – 2724 6 December 2005
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
12 November 2007
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
3 July 2009
__________________________
The judgment of this Court delivered on 3 July 2009 ([2009] NZSC 72) is recalled and the orders made in that judgment are set aside. The appeal is allowed and the proceeding remitted for rehearing in the Court of Appeal. Costs are reserved. Counsel should make written submissions directed to how costs should be borne for the previous hearing in the Court of Appeal and the two hearings in this Court.
27 November 2009
12 November 2007
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
3 July 2009
__________________________
The judgment of this Court delivered on 3 July 2009 ([2009] NZSC 72) is recalled and the orders made in that judgment are set aside. The appeal is allowed and the proceeding remitted for rehearing in the Court of Appeal. Costs are reserved. Counsel should make written submissions directed to how costs should be borne for the previous hearing in the Court of Appeal and the two hearings in this Court.
27 November 2009
Media Releases
- saxmere v wool board press release 3 july 2009 (PDF, 89 KB)
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Substantive judgment / Media release
Special leave judgment
Case name
Westpac Banking Corporation v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue and others
Case number
SC 66/2007
Summary
Civil appeal – disclosure of documents in tax avoidance litigation – Commissioner of Inland Revenue is challenging on grounds of sham and illegitimate tax avoidance several structured financing arrangements entered into by a number of banks – litigation is to proceed against each bank separately – whether, in litigation against each bank, the Commissioner can rely on documents associated with similar transactions entered into by other banks – whether such reliance is prevented by either s 81 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 or the application of public interest immunity. CA 280/06 [2007] NZCA 356 CA 280/0621 August 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
18 October 2007 ________________________ The appeals are dismissed with costs to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar, and to be borne as to 40% each by Westpac and ANZ National and as to 20% by ASB Bank.
18 October 2007 ________________________ The appeals are dismissed with costs to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar, and to be borne as to 40% each by Westpac and ANZ National and as to 20% by ASB Bank.
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment / Media release
Transcript
Judgment appealed from
Case name
ANZ National Bank Limited, UDC Finance Limited and Tui Endeavour Limited v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 67/2007
Summary
Civil appeal – disclosure of documents in tax avoidance litigation – Commissioner of Inland Revenue is challenging on grounds of sham and illegitimate tax avoidance several structured financing arrangements entered into by a number of banks – litigation is to proceed against each bank separately – whether, in litigation against each bank, the Commissioner can rely on documents associated with similar transactions entered into by other banks – whether such reliance is prevented by either s 81 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 or the application of public interest immunity. CA 280/06 [2007] NZCA 356 CA 280/06 21 August 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
18 October 2007
_________________________
The appeals are dismissed with costs to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar, and to be borne as to 40% each by Westpac and ANZ National and as to 20% by ASB Bank.
14 April 2008
18 October 2007
_________________________
The appeals are dismissed with costs to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar, and to be borne as to 40% each by Westpac and ANZ National and as to 20% by ASB Bank.
14 April 2008
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment / Media release
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Case name
Lisa Kathryn Cropp v A Judicial Committee & Bryan Francis McKenzie
Case number
SC 68/2007
Summary
Civil – judicial review – respondents instituted disciplinary proceedings after applicant, a jockey, tested positive for controlled drugs – applicant invoking rights to bodily integrity, to avoid self-incrimination and to be free from unreasonable search and seizure – application of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – whether regulatory requirement that jockeys consent to random drug testing as condition of obtaining and retaining a jockey’s licence authorised by s 29 Racing Act 2003 – whether applicant consented to drug testing – whether prescribed procedure and requirements for drug testing lawful and reasonable.CA 203/07 [2007] NZCA 423 27 September 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted
29 November 2007
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs $15,000 to the 2nd respondent
17 June 2008
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Substantive judgment / Media release
Transcript
Case name
Regal Castings Limited v G M and G N Lightbody and others
Case number
SC 72/2007
Summary
Civil appeal – whether transfer of property from first respondents to second respondent trustees should have been set aside under section 60 Property Law Act 1952 – whether the transfer amounted to fraud - whether Freeman v Pope (1870) 5 LR Ch App 538 represents the correct law where an insolvent debtor transfers property – whether there is a conclusive presumption of fraud in such situations– whether the High Court should have inferred an intention to defraud even if Freeman v Pope does not represent the law – whether the Court of Appeal erred by requiring the appellant to show that prejudice to the creditor was the purpose of the transaction – whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by overlooking relevant objective factors – whether the Court of Appeal erred by putting weight on subjective factors.[2007] NZCA 396 CA 234/05 7 September 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
13 December 2007
_______________________________
Appeal allowed. Cost to the appellant.
23 October 2008
13 December 2007
_______________________________
Appeal allowed. Cost to the appellant.
23 October 2008
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 April 2008 SC 72/2007 (PDF, 355 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2008] NZSC 87 (PDF, 89 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
James Arthur Rose v Karen Diane Rose
Case number
SC 73/2007
Summary
Civil – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – whether a partnership interest is an asset for the purposes of the Act – whether improvements to land that is relationship property form part of that land by operation of Land Transfer Act 1952 definition of “land” – whether increases in value to property caused by inflation are within the scope of claims under s 9A(1) or 9A(2) – whether s 9A(2) claim required evidence of an action by the respondent that had the effect of increasing the value of the property – whether s 2G requires assets and liabilities to be valued at the same date. [2007] NZCA 406 CA 212/06 11 September 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
6 December 2007
___________________________
Appeal and cross appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
19 May 2009
6 December 2007
___________________________
Appeal and cross appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
19 May 2009
Leave judgment - leave granted
ROSE V ROSE SC 73/2007 [6 December 2007] (PDF, 14 KB)
Substantive judgment / Media release
Transcript
Case name
Bronwyn Estate Limited, Barry’s Car Sales, Patrick Antony Darby v Gareth Russel Hoole and Kevin David Pitfield as receivers of Hillcrest Services Limited (in receivership) and Hillcrest Services Limited
Case number
SC 81/2007
Summary
Civil appeal – costs awarded against applicants for Anton Pillar application – applicants appealed against cost award – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse to dispense with security for costs – whether this decision denies the applicants access to justice by preventing them from continuing with their appeal. CA 133/07 1 November 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed . Costs $1,500 to the respondents. 8 February 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Lionel Andrew West v The Official Assignee
Case number
SC 82/2007
Summary
Civil appeal – disposal of applicant’s beneficial interest in property on insolvency – whether the Official Assignee was prevented from selling the applicant’s interest in the trust property when the applicant had been discharged from bankruptcy – whether the Official Assignee was free to choose which property comprised the applicant’s 1/3 share in the trust property –whether the Court of Appeal applied Cameron v Official Assignee (1987) 9 NZTC 6,187 correctly – whether the Official Assignee’s mistaken belief that he replaced the applicant as trustee of the property formed a cause of action in negligence - whether all debts owed by the applicant had been paid and whether this fact affected the ability of the Official Assignee to sell the property interest – whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the applicant to introduce new evidence – whether the Magna Carta prevented the Official Assignee from disposing of the applicant’s property interest. [2007] NZCA 523 CA 53/06 20 November 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs of $1500 to the respondent. 11 March 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Peter Miles Davies v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 83/2007
Summary
Criminal – appeal against Court of Appeal’s decision to confirm award of reparation to a victim for loss of earnings to the extent (20%) it is not compensable under the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2001 (IPRC Act) – whether sentences of reparation can be characterised as proceedings for damages brought by the victim independently of the IPRC Act (prohibited by s 317(1) of that Act) – whether s 32(5) Sentencing Act 2002 prohibits the ‘topping-up’ of IPRC Act entitlements by sentences of reparation.[2007] NZCA 484 CA 101/07 2 November 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
15 February 2008
__________________________
Appeal allowed. Sentence of reparation is set aside and in substitution a sentence of reparation of $8,945 is imposed. Question of costs reserved.
25 May 2009
15 February 2008
__________________________
Appeal allowed. Sentence of reparation is set aside and in substitution a sentence of reparation of $8,945 is imposed. Question of costs reserved.
25 May 2009
Media Releases
- sc 83 2007 davies v new zealand police press release (PDF, 87 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
DAVIES v NEW ZEALAND POLICE SC 83/2007 [25 May 2009] (PDF, 107 KB)
Substantive judgment /Media release
Transcript
Judgment appealed from
Page 103 of 110