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
Kimberley Birkenfeld v Yachting New Zealand Inc
Case number
SC 72/2006
Summary
Civil – application by respondent for decree limiting its liability – whether Court of Appeal was correct in holding that a rigid inflatable boat (under 24m in length) is a ‘ship’ for the purposes of the application of s 85 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994 – whether purpose of Limitation Convention to facilitate commercial shipping – application of the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships.CA 171/05 9 August 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $1,500 to respondent. 10 November 2006
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Hayden Matthew Johnston & Earnscleugh Vineyard Ltd v Schist Mountain Orchards Litd
Case number
SC 75/2006
Summary
Civil – contract – interpretation of agreement for sale and purchase - whether Court of Appeal erred in determining that the agreement permitted the respondent to obtain consent for a subdivision that contained a right of way with dimensions fixed by the territorial authority and not limited to the minimum standards in the relevant District Plan and/or did not require the respondent to obtain the minimum dimensions acceptable to the territorial authority – whether Court of Appeal erred in determining the width of easement in question “of no real moment” – whether applicant able to insist on conditions that limit respondent’s use of easementCA 99/05 24 August 2006
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicants are to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $2,500 plus disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
The applicants are to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $2,500 plus disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
13 November 2006
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind v Auckland City Council
Case number
SC 76/2006
Summary
Civil – local government – levying of rates – Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 1, Part 1, cl 5(e), Part 1 – whether relevant rating exemption does not apply to land owned by applicant for its purposes and not acquired or held as a gift but which is nevertheless let to commercial tenants – whether exemption should be construed to indicate and/or be applied in light of inferred legislative purpose that land not directly used to provide services of charitable nature should be rateable – whether the meaning of “except as an endowment” is relevant to the application of the rating exemption and informs the policy underpinning the exemption – whether anomalies arising from natural and ordinary interpretation of exemption should be left to Parliament to address (if at all).CA 171/05 29 August 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. 27 November 2006 _____________________ Appeal dismissed.
Costs to respondent $15,000 plus disbursements. 2 August 2007
Costs to respondent $15,000 plus disbursements. 2 August 2007
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment / Media release
Transcription
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Anthony Arbuthnot v Chief Executive of the Department of Work and Income
Case number
SC 82/2006
Summary
Civil – applicant was overpaid benefits – whether Court of Appeal erred in confusing review and appeal provisions under statute with administrative power of review – whether the decision of the Benefit Review Committee on the status of the beneficiary could only be reviewed by the Chief Executive on the basis of new information or some change in circumstance – whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that it would not be an abuse of process for the Chief Executive to be able to put an issue decided in the beneficiary’s favour before the Authority at the time the beneficiary appealed other issues – whether a decision of the BRC varying a decision of the Chief Executive creates an estoppel against the Chief Executive – whether the Court of Appeal erred in not distinguishing between the decision of the Chief Executive, and the decision as modified by the Authority. CA 256/05 3 October 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. 8 March 2007 _______________________ Appeal dismissed. Cost reserved.
19 July 2007
19 July 2007
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Substantive judgment / Media release
Transcript
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Lindsday Allan Clark v Libra Developments Limited and Russell Ernest Hyslop
Case number
SC 87/2006
Summary
Civil – partnership – First Respondent removed from companies register and subsequently reinstated – whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that parties’ partnership continued on removal from the register of the First Respondent – whether Court of Appeal erred in finding the partnership included new ventures entered into during the period the First Respondent was removed from the register – whether s 158 Companies Act validates actions of sole director after bankruptcy results in his or her being disqualified from holding office – whether company removed from the register capable of continuing to be a partner in a partnership – effect on partnership of company’s property vesting in the Crown (s 324 Companies Act) if partnership not automatically dissolved.CA 26/05 31 October 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 and disbursements to the respondent. 15 March 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Nikala Janice Taylor v Christopher Dean Jones
Case number
SC 88/2006
Summary
Civil appeal – applicant implicated in abduction of child – orders made against applicant by High Court pursuant to application under Habeas Corpus Act 2001 – standard of proof applicable in ordering that person in shoes of applicant release another person from detention – whether sufficient evidential basis to justify making of orders – whether Court of Appeal erred in disclaiming jurisdiction to hear appeal against orders on basis that they were interim rather than final – whether Court of Appeal erred in affirming High Court’s direction for oral examination of applicant – adequacy of interim orders made by Court of Appeal to protect applicant against self-incrimination.CA 2302006 10 November 2006
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
6 December 2006
__________________________________
Appeal allowed. Orders made in the High Court quashed. Supression of name to lapse at 9 am on 7 December 2006. Costs reserved. Reasons to be given later.
6 December 2006
__________________________________
Appeal allowed. Orders made in the High Court quashed. Supression of name to lapse at 9 am on 7 December 2006. Costs reserved. Reasons to be given later.
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Leave judgment
Transcript
Case name
Patricia Linda Owens v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
Case number
SC 89/2006
Summary
Summary Civil – applicant in receipt of benefits paid by Work and Income – failure to declare interest in a flat which was rented out – applicant did not deliberately mislead WINZ – whether inequitable for WINZ to seek repayment of accommodation supplement – whether relative fault can be taken into account for the purposes of s 86(9A) Social Security Act 1964 – whether principles from common law change of position defence apply to s 86(9A).CA 131/05, CA 132/05 30 October 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $1500 to respondent.
20 February 2007
20 February 2007
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Kay Halton Skelton v Christopher Dean Jones
Case number
SC 90/2006
Summary
Civil appeal – abduction of parties’ child – applicant currently imprisoned for contempt for non-compliance with orders made by High Court under Habeas Corpus Act 2001 –appeal to Court of Appeal abandoned following decision now subject of application for leave to appeal in SC 88/2006 – applicant also facing criminal proceedings in relation to abduction – whether habeas corpus proceedings in High Court should be stayed or struck out as abuse of process – whether breach of natural justice prior to orders being made – whether sufficient evidential basis for orders – whether orders interim or final – whether High Court, having ordered release of child in discharge of its function under the Habeas Corpus Act, lacked jurisdiction to make further orders relating to swearing of affidavit by, and cross-examination of, applicant – whether orders, with or without accompanying safeguards, breached applicant’s right to silence as a person charged with a criminal offence (s 25 New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990).CIV 2006 419 1489 18 October 2006
Result
6 December 2006
________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs reserved. Reasons to be given later.
________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs reserved. Reasons to be given later.
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
SKELTON v JONES SC 90/2006 [20 August 2009] (PDF, 10 KB)
Substantive judgment
Reasons for judgmnet
Transcript
Case name
The New Zealand Airline Pilots’ Association Industrial Union of Workers Incorporated v Air New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 91/2006
Summary
Civil appeal – whether s44(2) of the Holidays Act 2003 permits an employee’s entitlement to the observance of designated public holidays to be transferred by agreement to another day or days so as to remove, in respect of the specified public holidays, entitlement under the Act to payment on a time and a half basis – whether leave to appeal should be granted notwithstanding that the applicant succeeded in the Court of Appeal.. CA 474/06 6 December 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
7 March 2007
____________________________
Appeal and Cross Appeal dismissed.
Order of Court of Appeal remitting the proceeding to the Employment Court stands.
Costs to appellant $25,000 plus disbursements.
Order for Costs in Court of Appeal stands.
14 November 2007
7 March 2007
____________________________
Appeal and Cross Appeal dismissed.
Order of Court of Appeal remitting the proceeding to the Employment Court stands.
Costs to appellant $25,000 plus disbursements.
Order for Costs in Court of Appeal stands.
14 November 2007
Transcripts
- Hearing date 13 and 14 June 2007 SC 91/2006 (PDF, 485 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2007] NZSC 89 (PDF, 89 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Josko Sestan v The Director of Area Mental Health Services, Waitemata District Health Board
Case number
SC 94/2006
Summary
Civil– application to appeal from decision of the Court of Appeal declining to issue writ of habeas corpus – whether a person detained under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment Act) 1992 has all the rights of a person detained contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – whether Court of Appeal erred in wrongly or inadequately analysing whether the applicant was mentally disordered – whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to place burden properly on respondent to show mental disorder – whether reasons for dangerousness finding sufficient – whether Family Court and Court of Appeal erred in finding applicant was mentally disordered – whether inadequate reasons given for finding of mental disorder – whether applicant wrongly deprived of due process rights.CA 254/06 12 December 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
15 February 2007
_________________________
Application for costs dismissed.
7 March 2007
15 February 2007
_________________________
Application for costs dismissed.
7 March 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
HITCHINGS v R SC 98/2006 [9 March 2007] (PDF, 19 KB)
Additional document
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (COSTS) (PDF, 14 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Transcription
Page 107 of 110