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
Credit Suisse Private Equity Inc and another v Eric Meserve Houghton  and others
Case number
SC 100/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Limitation periods – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that representees’ individual claims had been brought when the first respondent filed his claim on a representative basis – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that representees did not have to opt in to the proceedings before limitation periods expired in order to bring timely individual claims[2012] NZCA 545  CA204/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted on the following ground: Are the claims of some or all of the shareholders represented by the First Respondent (Mr Houghton) time-barred by virtue of limitation provisions in the Limitation Act 1950 or the Fair Trading Act 1986? 8 April 2013 ____________________ The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of $25,000 are awarded to the first respondent plus usual disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary).  The appellants and the second and fourth respondents are liable jointly and severally for the costs and disbursements.  We certify for second counsel.

9 April 2014
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
CREDIT SUISSE PRIVATE EQUITY LLC v ERIC MESERVE HOUGHTON [2014] NZSC 37 [9 April 2014] (PDF, 436 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 15 October 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, Glazebrook, Arnold, Gault, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Lisa Marie Colleen Mandic and Stephen Neil Dohnt
Case number
SC 4/2011
Summary
Civil – Interpretation of a Glasgow lease – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its approach and conclusions as to the interpretation of the lease’s particular rental review formula. [2010] NZCA 576  CA 787/2009   3 December  2010
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal conclusion as to the valuation methodology provided by cl 13(b) of the lease is correct.
18 March 2011
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellants are to pay the respondent costs of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements in connection with this appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
11 November 2011
Date of hearing
23 March 2011
Judges
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
MANDIC v THE CORNWALL PARK TRUST BOARD (INC) SC 4/2011 [18 March 2011] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
MANDIC v THE CORNWALL PARK TRUST BOARD (INC) SC 4/2011 [11 November 2011] (PDF, 251 KB)
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Heron and others
Case number
SC 6/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Procedure – Whether the Court of Appeal’ s holding that there is no automatic right of appeal against a High Court order fixing security for costs is consistent with natural justice – Whether the Court of Appeal addressed the appellant’s arguments – Whether the fact that r 20.13(2) of the High Court Rules was adopted by the Rules Committee has International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights implications.[2010] NZCA 610  CA 190/2010  14 December  2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The ground approved is whether leave of the Court of Appeal was required under s 67 of the Judicature Act for the applicant’s appeal against security for costs fixed by order of the High Court or whether appeal was available as of right under s 66 of the Judicature Act.
30 March 2011
_______________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs reserved.
8 November 2011
________________________
Application for recall of judgment of 8 November 2011 is dismissed.
Both applications for costs are dismissed.
9 December 2011
________________________
2nd Application for recall - dismissed.
14 December 2011
________________________
Abuse of process. Dismissed. No further application in relation to [2011] NZSC 133 to be accepted by the Registry.
21 May 2021
Recall judgment
9 December 2011 Recall and costs (PDF, 48 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 15 August 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ
Case name
Jane Chapman Siemer v Kate Fardell as executrix of the estate of John  Robert Fortesque Fardell
Case number
SC 7/2011
Summary
Civil – Pre-trial security for costs – Appeal against a Court of Appeal decision refusing to dispense with security for costs in an appeal before that Court – Whether the procedure adopted by the Court lacked procedural fairness – Whether the Court properly exercised discretion – Whether the Court’s ruling wrong on the merits – Section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether right to justice at trial court level violated.   [2010] NZCA 586  CA 450/2010   3 December  2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIEMER v FARDELL SC 7/2011 [31 March 2011] (PDF, 48 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.

31 March 2011.
Case name
Gary Owen Burgess v Susan Natalie Beaven
Case number
SC 9/2011
Summary
Civil – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Relationship Property – Whether Court of Appeal took correct approach to overturning lower court decisions and costs orders – Whether relationship property was correctly assessed under the Property (Relationships) Act, and a division of relationship property inconsistent with the Act has eventuated.[2010] NZCA 625  CA 371/2009   20 December  2010
Result
1 We grant leave to appeal and cross-appeal (and an extension of time in relation to the cross-appeal). 2 The approved grounds of appeal and cross-appeal proceed on the basis that the Court of Appeal’s assessment under s 14(2)(c) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 in favour of equal sharing was correct and are as follows: (a) was the Court of Appeal in error in adopting separation date values; (b) was there any logical or arithmetical error in the Court of Appeal’ s identification and valuation of the relationship property and its allowances for post-separation contributions; (c) should the Court of Appeal have made consequential orders in respect of the costs ordered in relation to earlier judgments and money paid by Mr Burgess to Ms Beaven; and (d) what, if any, additional or other orders are required.
22 September 2011
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed and the cross-appeal is dismissed.
B Orders B, C and D of the decision of the Court of Appeal [2010] NZCA 625 are set aside.
C The awards of costs made against Mr Burgess by John Hansen J in the Stream A litigation are set aside and in their place Mr Burgess is awarded $5,000 costs in respect of the first appeal to the High Court heard by John Hansen J. 
D Ms Beaven’s gross liability to Mr Burgess is:
(a) Balance due on division of property  3,716.10
(b) Refund of money paid to Ms Beaven 36,804.31
(c)  Costs and disbursements on first appeal    5,000   
Total        45,520.41
E Ms Beaven is entitled to set off outstanding awards of costs in her favour totalling $15,474.16 against her gross liability producing a net figure which she must pay, and on which Mr Burgess may now execute judgment of $30,046.25.  Interest will run on that sum from the date of this judgment in terms of r 11.27 of the High Court Rules.
F Ms Beaven is to pay Mr Burgess usual disbursements in relation to this appeal.
9 August 2012
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
BURGESS v BEAVEN SC 9/2011 [22 September 2011] (PDF, 106 KB)
Substantive judgment
BURGESS v BEAVEN SC 9/2011 [9 August 2012] (PDF, 193 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 23 April 2012

Blanchard, Tipping, William Young, Chambers, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Jeremy James McGuire v Lee Grace Sheridan
Case number
SC 23/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Fees – Legal Services Act 2000 – Whether applicant entitled to payment of quantum meruit legal fees from respondent notwithstanding s 66 Legal Services Act – Whether respondent agreed to abandon legal aid grant in signing contingency-fee and fixed-fee agreements with respondent – Whether under s 66 permission must be sought from Legal Services Agency before suing for “top-up” of legal aid fees – Whether High Court summary judgment hearing unfair – Whether award of indemnity costs by High Court against applicant unwarranted.[2011] NZCA 15  CA 377/2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MCGUIRE v SHERIDAN SC 23/2011 [13 April 2011] (PDF, 8 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,000 to the respondent.

13 April 2011
Case name
Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited v The Grate Kiwi Cheese Company Limited & Kaimai Cheese Co Ltd
Case number
SC 38/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – the Commerce Commission made a final determination on 5 June 2009 that The Grate Kiwi Cheese Company Ltd and Kaimai Cheese Company Ltd were both entitled to raw milk from Fonterra under the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk) Regulations 2001 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Commerce Commission determination – whether an entity can be entitled to raw milk even though the entity does not itself process the milk[2011] NZCA 67   CA 223/2010
Result
Appeal dismissed. Costs $15,000 plus disbursements to the respondent. 15 March 2012
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
FONTERRA CO-OPERATIVE GROUP LIMITED v THE GRATE KIWI CHEESE COMPANY LIMITED SC 38/2011 [20 June 2011] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
FONTERRA CO-OPERATIVE GROUP LIMITED v THE GRATE KIWI CHEESE COMPANY LIMITED SC 38/2011 [15 March 2012] (PDF, 79 KB)
Transcription

Hearing date : 14 February 2012

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Neil Tony Hickman and others v Turn and Wave Limited, Greenstone Barclay Trustees Ltd and Iicon Central Ltd
Case number
SC 46/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Securities Act 1978 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 33 of the Securities Act, its interpretation of the term “debt security” under the Securities Act, and its interpretation of the scope of the exemption in s 5(1)(b) of the Securities Act – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that if the Blue Chip investment products were invalid, they were not interdependent with the sale and purchase agreements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the sale and purchase agreements were not tainted by illegality if in breach of s 33 of the Securities Act[2011] NZCA 100  CA 796/2009, CA 797/2009, CA 798/2009
Result

Leave to appeal is granted on the following questions:

(1) Did the marketing by Blue Chip companies and sales agents of the Blue Chip investment products amount to offers to the public of equity and/or debt securities for the purposes of s 37 of the Securities Act 1978?

(2) If so, is the exemption in s 5(1)(b) applicable?

(3) If the answers to questions (1) and (2) are favourable to the investors, does this impeach the ability of the developers to enforce the agreements for sale and purchase on the basis that they (a) constituted part of the relevant allotments and were thus void and of no effect under s 37(4) or, (b) were tainted by their association with those allotments and thus illegal?

6 September 2011

________________________

A The appeals are allowed.

B The SPAs executed at the same time as, or after, the corresponding Blue Chip investment product agreements were entered into are declared to be unenforceable under s 37 of the Securities Act 1978.

C The High Court is to determine whether SPAs, entered into before the corresponding Blue Chip investment products were executed, were subscriptions for securities.

D The cases are otherwise generally remitted to the High Court to make such further orders as may be consistent with this judgment.

E The respondents are to pay the appellants costs $75,000 and usual disbursements.

F  Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be as determined by those courts.

9 August 2012

______________________

Recall judgment

Former order F now replaced by orders F, G and H.

F  The existing orders for costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.

G Other than those affected by timing issues (being Mr Hutchinson in the case of TWL, and in the case of Greenstone Barclay, Mr and Mrs Bogardus, Ms Janes, Mrs and Mrs Johnson, Mr Crawford-Greene, Mr and Mrs Dick and Mr and Mrs Lester) the appellants are to be awarded costs and disbursements in the High Court and Court of Appeal in sums to be determined by those Courts in light of the judgment of this Court.

H Costs and disbursements in relation to the appellants affected by timing issues are to be addressed in the High Court and Court of Appeal once those timing issues have been resolved.

11 December 1012
Transcript
Hearing date : 7 – 9 November 2011
Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassny and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 49/2011
Summary
Civil – Costs – Defamation – Whether Court of Appeal, in considering quantum of damages awarded against applicant, erred by: not considering applicant’s substantive defence of truth; upholding finding of liability in the circumstances. [2011] NZCA 106  CA 826/2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIEMER v STIASSNY SC 49/2011 [3 June 2011] (PDF, 99 KB)
Recall judgment
SIEMER v STIASSNY SC 49/2011 [21 October 2011 (PDF, 46 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

3 June 2011.
Case name
Lewis Gaire Herdman Thompson v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 52/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Tax – The appellant deregistered for GST from 30 November 1999 – Commissioner of Inland Revenue later made tax assessments on the basis that the appellant was not able to deregister at this time because of subsequent land transactions – Whether there were reasonable grounds for the Court of Appeal to make a finding of fact that the appellant would have made taxable supplies greater than $30,000 through these transactions after deregistration – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to set the end of the appellant’s GST period at 31 January 2001 instead of February 2000.  [2011] NZCA 132  CA 580/2009
Result
Appeal dismissed.
Costs of $15,000 plus disbursement to the respondent.
10 May 2012.
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
sc 52 2011 lewis gaire herdman thompson v cir leave judgment (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
sc 52 2011 thompson v cir (PDF, 209 KB)
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is granted on the following grounds:

A When did the appellant become entitled to be de-registered for GST purposes?

B In light of that determination, and the circumstances in which they took place, did the second and third sales of land attract GST?

22 August 2011.
Hearing
1 March 2012.
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Decision reserved.
Page 89 of 110