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
Minister of Fisheries and The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Fisheries v Antons Trawling Limited, Esperance Fishing Co Limited and Orneagan Developments Limited
Case number
SC 84/2007
Summary
Summary Civil – appeal from a Court of Appeal decision which granted interim relief to the Respondents against a decision, of the Minister of Fisheries, to reduce the Total Allowable Catch/Total Allowable Commercial Catch for an Orange Roughy fish stock – Applicant claims that the Court of Appeal erred in law, by failing to follow the test in Carlton & United Breweries v Minister of Customs [1986] 1 NZLR 423 when determining the scope of the remedy under s 8 Judicature Amendment Act 1972 and the approach to be adopted – Applicant also claims that the Court of Appeal erred by granting interim relief in the absence of evidence, and by determining that any level of likely monetary loss was sufficient to meet the test of necessity. Application made for urgent hearing, given the practical consequences of the decision for the Orange Roughy population and the potentially wide-ranging effects of the decision on appeal. [2007] NZCA 512 CA 101/07 19 November 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the respondents jointly. 6 December 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Geoffrey Charles Dury and others v Palmerston North City Council and others
Case number
SC 91/2007
Summary
Civil appeal – Resource Management Act 1991 – application by third respondent (an orthodontist) for consent to use a dwelling in a residential area for a non-residential purpose – proposal failed to comply with conditions of District Plan and required a restricted discretionary resource consent, which Council granted without requiring notification – High Court quashed Council’s consent – Court of Appeal overturned High Court decision and restored resource consent – in the meantime, third respondent had applied for and been granted a second resource consent, subject to more restrictive conditions than the first – whether second consent replaced first consent in toto in accordance with Sutton v Moule (1992) 2 NZRMA 41 – whether third respondent may be deemed to have abandoned first consent by making and proceeding with second application and complying with its conditions – alternatively, whether the two consents coexist and third respondent must comply with the conditions of both – whether the consent that is later in time should prevail – whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that it had no discretion as to the available remedy – whether the Court of Appeal correctly applied the principles of the Discount Brands case ([2005] 2 NZLR 597) in relation to dispensing with public notification – application for stay of execution of Court of Appeal’s costs orders.[2007] NZCA 521 CA 198/06 CA 211/06 20 November 2007
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $1,000 to the first respondent and $1,000 jointly to the second and third respondents.
1 April 2008
1 April 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Vince and Jane Siemer and Paragon Services Limited v Kate Fardell, Executrix for Robert Fardell
Case number
SC 93/2007
Summary
Summary Civil – interlocutory – applicants seeking trial by jury in proceedings for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty – whether Court of Appeal erred in confirming decision of High Court to grant respondent’ s application for an order that the trial be held before a Judge alone – applicability of s 19A(5)(a) and/or (b) Judicature Act 1908 – applicants alleging conflicts of interest on part of High Court and Court of Appeal Judges.[2007] NZCA 530 CA 171/07 22 November 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $1500 to respondent. 28 February 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Jeffrey George Lopas and Lorraine Elizabeth McHerron v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 2/2006
Summary
Civil - tax - whether "the amount specified for the purposes of s 51(1)" in the Goods and Services Tax Act 1986, s 52(1) refers only to the monetary sum specified in s 51(1)(a) or to s 51(1) as a whole (including the exclusions in paras (c) and (d)) - whether the Commissioner of Inland Revenue can advance submissions contrary to propositions of law contained in the Commissioner's Statement of Position. CA 253/04 30 November 2005
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $1,500.00.
2 August 2006
2 August 2006
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Taunoa and Others v Attorney-General and Another
Case number
SC 6/2006
Summary
Civil - prisoners claims for compensation for mistreatment by the Department of Corrections - whether Department breached the First, Second and Fourth appellants' rights not to be subjected to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment under New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (" NZBORA"), s 9 - whether Department breached the appellants' right to natural justice under NZBORA, s 27(1) - whether the Department breached the appellants' equivalent rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR") and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ("CAT") - whether Attorney-General's failure to hold a prompt and impartial investigation of the complaints breached NZBORA, s 9 or CAT or ICCPR - whether Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners 1955 form part of customary international law - whether Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Act 2005 is inconsistent with NZBORA ss 9, 23(5), 27(1); CAT arts 2, 14, 16; ICCPR arts 10(1), 14, 26 - whether Victims' Special Claims Tribunal is independent and impartial or breaches the principles of separation of powers and equality before the law. CA 82/04 8 December 2005
Result
Leave to Appeal granted.
12 April 2006
_________________________
The appeals are dismissed.
The cross-appeals are allowed to the following extent:
1. The damages awarded to Mr Taunoa are reduced to $35,000.
2. The damages awarded to Mr Robinson are reduced to $20,000.
3. The damages awarded to Mr Kidman are reduced to $4,000.
The cross-appeal in relation to Mr Gunbie is dismissed.
Costs are reserved.
31 August 2007
Leave judgment - leave granted
Transcript
Substantive judgment / Media release
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Alan John Shirley v Wairarapa District Health Board
Case number
SC 10/2006
Summary
Civil - costs - defendant in negligence proceedings persuaded plaintiff to join second defendant - plaintiff discontinued proceedings against first defendant after accepting settlement offer - second defendant successfully defended claim in full hearing - whether second defendant entitled to costs against first defendant. CA 43/05 7 December 2005
Result
Leave to Appeal granted.
21 March 2006
_______________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 plus disbursements.
23 August 2006
21 March 2006
_______________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 plus disbursements.
23 August 2006
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment / Media release
Case name
AMP v MacAlister Todd
Case number
SC 13/2006
Summary
Civil – insurance – solicitor trustee negligently failed to recognise that GST was payable on sale of trust assets – whether solicitor’ s firm entitled to indemnity from insurer – whether Court of Appeal failed to address a principal ground of appeal – whether claim against firm arose “from a trading loss or trading liability incurred by a business managed by or carried on by the insured” – whether claim against own firm by solicitor in capacity as trustee is a claim “made against” the firm – whether causation between solicitor’s negligence and loss – which party has onus to show causation – whether evidential basis to find that trustees would have secured indemnity from trust funds had solicitor not been negligent CA 108/05 15 December 2005
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
4 July 2006
_________________________
Appeal allowed, Judgment entered for the appellant on the respondents claim. No award of costs.
8 December 2006
4 July 2006
_________________________
Appeal allowed, Judgment entered for the appellant on the respondents claim. No award of costs.
8 December 2006
Substantive judgment
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Leave judgment - leave granted
Transcript
Hearing date : 20 0ctober 2006
Case name
Trustee Executors Limited v Peter James Murray and others and Morel & Co Ltd and Jennifer Ann Morel
Case number
SC 15/2006
Summary
Civil - allotment of participatory securities - 'payment' of minimum amount within 4 months of registered prospectus - whether the tender and acceptance of a cheque on terms that it be held and its value offset against the amount payable to its drawer on settlement can "be deemed to have been paid" within the meaning of Securities Act 1978, s 37(2)(a) - whether statutory supervisor owes common law duty of care in addition to duty to exercise reasonable diligence imposed by statutory implication and Deed of Participation - whether a duty as trustee of funds received pursuant to an offer of securities can be imposed in addition to an express duty as statutory supervisor - whether exclusion clause in Deed of Participation can exclude liability except for breach of the statutory implied duty to exercise reasonable diligence - whether negligent or inadvertent breach of trust can amount to (equitable) fraud for the purposes of Limitation Act 1950, s 28. CA 86/04 22 December 2005
Result
4 April 2006 – Leave to Appeal granted
Transcripts
- Hearing date 21 and 22 Nov 2006 SC 15/2006 (PDF, 485 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2007] NZSC 27 (PDF, 159 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Gillian Moana Buchanan and Lynette Catherine Symes v Chief Executive of the Department of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 16/2006
Summary
Civil appeal – employees dismissed for breach of Inland Revenue Code of Conduct - Court of Appeal dismissed personal grievances and orders for reinstatement made in the Employment Relations Authority and upheld in the Employment Court - whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that ignorant non-compliance with Code does not give rise to presumption that actions do not constitute serious misconduct – whether the Court of Appeal erred in stating the test for disparity of treatment by including a third element that the dismissal must be justified notwithstanding the disparity for which there is no adequate explanation – whether the Court of Appeal’ s decision to determine whether there was disparity of treatment on the facts rather than refer the matter back to the Employment Court constituted a substantial miscarriage of justice. CA 2/05 22 December 2005
Result
Leave to Appeal dismissed, costs of $2,500 to respondent.
6 June 2006
6 June 2006
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Peter James Murray and others and Morel & Co Ltd and Jennifer Ann Morel
Case number
SC 17/2006
Summary
Civil - allotment of participatory securities - numerous causes of actions brought against respondents alleging, among other things, an allotment in breach of Securities Act 1978, s 37(2), and issuing a prospectus containing untrue statements in breach of Securities Act 1978, s 56 - causes of action struck out as an abuse of process, being time barred pursuant to the Limitation Act 1950 - whether the doctrine of “reasonable discoverability” should apply to all causes of action. CA 86/04 22 December 2005
Result
4 April 2006 – Leave to Appeal granted
Transcripts
- Hearing date 21 and 22 Nov 2006 SC 15/2006 (PDF, 485 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2007] NZSC 27 (PDF, 159 KB)
Substantive judgment
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Page 104 of 110