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
Henkel Kgaa v Holdfast NZ Limited
Case number
SC 43/2006
Summary
Civil – copyright infringement – appellant, who was successful in High Court, a “world leader” in the industry using same copyright works throughout the world – whether Court of Appeal failed to take account of statutory presumptions in Copyright Act 1994, s 127 – whether Court of Appeal ignored relevant authorities and misapplied the tests for infringement of compilations and for work derived from admittedly infringing copies – whether Court of Appeal relied upon two erroneous findings about the appellant’ s case in the High Court, resulting in a substantial miscarriage of justice CA 248/04 17 May 2006
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
4 August 2006
______________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 plus disbursements.
30 November 2006
4 August 2006
______________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 plus disbursements.
30 November 2006
Judgment appealed from
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Amaltal Corporation Limited v Maruha Corporation and Maruha (NZ) Corporation Limited
Case number
SC 46/2006
Summary
Civil – appeal against Court of Appeal judgment on the application of s 28 Limitation Act 1950 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in either applying the wrong legal test, or applying the correct test wrongly – tort of deceit – whether the respondents’ claim for deceit was statute barred – meaning of “reasonable diligence” in s 28 – whether, with reasonable diligence, the respondent could have discovered the deceit.Cross-appeal – commercial joint venture – whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the respondents’ action for breach of fiduciary duty – whether the Court of Appeal erred in reducing the amount of damages awarded to the respondents – correct method of calculating damages for deceit.CA 232/04 1 June 2006
Result
A. Amaltal’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents of $2,500.
B. Maruha Corporation and Maruha (NZ) are granted leave to appeal.
C. The approved grounds of the Maruha appeal are: (i) Whether Amaltal was in breach of any fiduciary duty owed by it to Maruha.
(ii) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reducing the damages awarded by the High Court to Maruha.
6 September 2006
___________________________
The appeal is allowed. The respondent is found to have breached a fiduciary duty owed to the appellants.
The judgment sum is increased to $5,832,214.92.
The respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs in this Court in the amount of $15,000 plus reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. The award of costs to the appellants in the Court of Appeal is increased to $40,000.
1 June 2007
B. Maruha Corporation and Maruha (NZ) are granted leave to appeal.
C. The approved grounds of the Maruha appeal are: (i) Whether Amaltal was in breach of any fiduciary duty owed by it to Maruha.
(ii) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reducing the damages awarded by the High Court to Maruha.
6 September 2006
___________________________
The appeal is allowed. The respondent is found to have breached a fiduciary duty owed to the appellants.
The judgment sum is increased to $5,832,214.92.
The respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs in this Court in the amount of $15,000 plus reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. The award of costs to the appellants in the Court of Appeal is increased to $40,000.
1 June 2007
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 February 2007 SC 46/2006 (PDF, 301 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2007] NZSC 40 (PDF, 88 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Khyentse Rinpoche Lama v Ross Hope and others
Case number
SC 48/2006
Summary
Civil – religious purpose trust – lay trustees to be supervised by Karmapa (head of Karma Kagyu School of Buddhism) – appellant, not a trustee, appointed by Karmapa as spiritual director – longstanding, international dispute within School over identity of Karmapa’s new incarnation – Court of Appeal recognised non-justiciability of religious and spiritual issues – correct approach to interpreting and enforcing purpose trusts – whether Court of Appeal erred in interpreting trust deed – whether trust deed gave appellant power to remove trustees – whether alternative application by appellant to remove trustees limited to Trustee Act 1956, s 51 or invoked the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to remove – the scope of that inherent jurisdiction – whether Court of Appeal wrong to conclude that appellant had not alleged improper conduct or breaches of trust deed by trustees – whether reinstatement of trustees by Court of Appeal gave rise to an ‘impossible situation’ inimical to attainment of the trust’s objects. CA 51/05 CA 119/05 7 June 2006
Result
Applications for leave to appeal by both the appellant and respondent are dismissed, with cost to the respondent $1,000.
19 September 2006
19 September 2006
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Susan Couch v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 49/2006
Summary
Civil – appeal against Court of Appeal judgment, striking out claims for misfeasance in public office and negligence – applicant surviving victim of attack in 2001 on Panmure RSA – Department of Corrections acknowledged errors undoubtedly occurred in the handling of attacker’s case – Attorney-General sued on behalf of Department of Corrections – whether Court of Appeal erred in striking out claim for negligence – applicant claiming assailant should not have been allowed or encouraged to work in an ‘inappropriate industry’ – whether Department of Corrections should have better monitored assailant – whether Court of Appeal erred in striking out claim for misfeasance in public office – whether restriction has been placed on state of mind requirement of misfeasance. CA 238/05 17 May 2006
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is whether the cause of action based on negligence was correctly struck out.
1 September 2006
_________________________
Appeal allowed. Order of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the proceedings are remitted to the High Court for hearing. Respondent to pay to the appellant costs of $27,5000 together with reasonable disbursements. Costs in the lower Courts to be fixed.
24 March 2010
The approved ground is whether the cause of action based on negligence was correctly struck out.
1 September 2006
_________________________
Appeal allowed. Order of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the proceedings are remitted to the High Court for hearing. Respondent to pay to the appellant costs of $27,5000 together with reasonable disbursements. Costs in the lower Courts to be fixed.
24 March 2010
Transcripts
- sc 49 2006 susan couch v agfebruary 2009 (PDF, 317 KB)
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
COUCH v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL SC 49/2006 [24 March 2010] (PDF, 625 KB)
Additional document
sc 49 2006 susan couch v ag (PDF, 63 KB)
Substantive judgment / Media release
Transcript
Leave judgment - leave granted
Appeal adjournment / Media release
Judgment appealed from
Case name
James Charles Morris Parlane v Waipa District Council
Case number
SC 53/2006
Summary
Criminal – third appeal against conviction and sentence – breaches of fire control bylaw – reference in bylaw to incinerator standard “withdrawn” by Standards New Zealand before bylaw passed – whether this reference invalidated part or whole of bylaw or took applicant outside its reach – severability of subparagraph including reference – whether Court of Appeal wrong to hold that a local authority may consider a revoked standard to be appropriate for its practical purposes – Court of Appeal emphasised that applicant has brought separate public law proceedings seeking quashing of bylaw – whether Court of Appeal wrong to conclude that severance of subparagraph by High Court, whether or not appropriate, unnecessary because bylaw valid on evidence before it – applicant also seeking reversal of costs order in District Court under Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967. CA 319/05 6 July 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs of $1,000 to the respondent.
19 September 2006
19 September 2006
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Yi Hua Jiao and others v Ivan Barge
Case number
SC 61/2006
Summary
Civil appeal – dispute concerning sale and purchase of commercial property – appellant found to have committed tort of inducing breach of contract and tort of an unlawful means conspiracy – whether errors of fact and/or law were made by the Court of Appeal with respect to the validity of a sale and purchase agreement.CA 236/05 19 July 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs t0 Respondent of $2,500. Application for leave to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
2 October 2006
2 October 2006
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Keith Hugh Nicholas Berryman and Margaret Berryman v The New Zealand Defence Force
Case number
SC 62/2006
Summary
Civil – costs award – whether Court of Appeal erred in finding an allegation of misconduct against a non-party was irrelevant to a costs order – allegation against armed forces of negligence in the construction of the applicants’ bridge – allegation that armed forces have abused the process of the Court – applicants held not to be entitled to documents sought in application for non-party discovery – costs principles. CA 95/05 13 July 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
31 October 2006
31 October 2006
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Kahala Holdings Limited (formerly Nalder & Biddle (Nelson) Limited v C & F Fishing Ltd
Case number
SC 67/2006
Summary
Civil – contract – incorporation of exclusion clauses – whether Court of Appeal erred in finding clauses had not been sufficiently brought to the attention of the respondent – whether Court of Appeal erred in effectively applying a two-stage test to the incorporation of the conditions in question – whether conditions were unusual or onerous in the circumstances. CA 145/05 31 July 2006
Result
Applications for leave to appeal and cross appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 plus disbursements to the respondent. 21 November 2006
Costs $2,500 plus disbursements to the respondent. 21 November 2006
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Noel Clement Rogers v Television New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 68/2006
Summary
Civil – privacy – freedom of expression – order for permanent injunction, suppressing publication of video tape, made by High Court and quashed by Court of Appeal – tape contained reconstruction of murder by applicant – tape ruled inadmissible at murder trial due to breaches of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – applicant acquitted at trial – claim that publication of tape would constitute unlawful interference with applicant’s privacy – whether Court of Appeal erred in giving insufficient weight to principles of proper and fair administration of justice – applicability of defence of legitimate public concern – threshold for prior restraint. CA 12/06 7 August 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. 17 October 2006
___________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
16 November 2007
___________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
16 November 2007
Media Releases
- MR [2007] NZSC 91 (PDF, 89 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Alain Michael Yves Mafart and Dominique Angela Francoise Prieur v Television New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 70/2006
Summary
Civil – Criminal Proceedings (Search of Court Records) Rules 1974 – video footage of guilty pleas in 1985 trial for bombing of Rainbow Warrior – whether Court of Appeal erred in failing adequately to take account of the administration of justice – whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to protect privacy interests of appellants, or in balancing those interests with freedom of information – whether Court of Appeal erred in departing from previous decisions in respect of the footage – whether Court of Appeal and High Court erred in failing to uphold assurance given to counsel by Judge in 1985 in respect of footage – whether assurance overtaken by consent orders.CA 92/05 7 and 10 August 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs of $2,500 to respondent. 26 September 2006
Judgment appealed from
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 106 of 110