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.
31 July 2026
Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 131 KB)
All years
Case name
Robert Erwood v Raylee Harley and the Official Assignee
Case number
SC 132/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Disbursements – Appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal which set aside the Registrar’s decision to award $1,000 in disbursements to the applicant – The Court of Appeal declined to recall the decision when presented with new information in relation to this matter – Whether an unrepresented litigant can be awarded costs or disbursements relating to legal advice obtained for the purposes of litigation when the order only covered “usual disbursements” as defined – Whether this matter should be remitted back to the Court of Appeal for full panel hearing.[2011] NZCA 370 CA 260/2009
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
24 April 2012.
24 April 2012.
Case name
Vodafone New Zealand Limited v Telecom New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 4/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Communications - Telecommunications Act 2001 – Final Determination by Commerce Commission for Telecommunications Services Obligations Instrument for Local Residential Service - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in maintaining the Commerce Commission’s approach to the calculation of the costs of providing Telecommunications Services Obligations in accordance with the requirements of ‘net cost’ under s 5 of the Telecommunications Act 2001.[2009] NZCA 565 CA 192/2008 2 December 2009
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
Leave judgment - leave granted
Dates
Application for leave to appeal granted.
The approved ground is whether the Commerce Commission, in making its determination, complied with the applicable statutory provisions.
30 March 2010
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order for costs.
17 November 2011
Transcript
Hearing date : 21 – 24 February 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Case name
William Patrick Jeffries v The Privacy Commissioner
Case number
SC 5/2010
Summary
Civil – Litigation privilege – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that unsolicited communication does not attract litigation privilege under s56 of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the word ‘person’ in s91(4) of the Privacy Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to apply s74 of the Evidence Act 2006 to matters before the Privacy Commissioner – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to review the Privacy Commissioner’ s decisions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not addressing s27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2009] NZCA 567 CA 339/2008 3 December 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. The approved ground is whether unsolicited communications received by the applicant while acting as a barrister are capable of attracting litigation privilege.
31 March 2010
_______________________
The appeal is dismissed. Any claim of privilege must be referred for the determination of the Privacy Commissioner in accordance with this judgment. No order for costs is made.
12 August 2010
31 March 2010
_______________________
The appeal is dismissed. Any claim of privilege must be referred for the determination of the Privacy Commissioner in accordance with this judgment. No order for costs is made.
12 August 2010
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
John Hanita Paki and others v Attorney-General
Case number
SC 7/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “navigable river” in terms of s 14 of the Coal Mines Amendment Act 1903; whether the Waikato River was navigable for the purposes of s 14; whether, in the 1880s and 1890s, the Crown owed the appellants’ ancestors, as Maori and Treaty of Waitangi partners, a fiduciary duty or a relational duty of good faith not to acquire their land or taonga except with their full and informed consent, namely, whether the Crown owed an obligation to advise the original owners of the usque ad medium filum aquae principle (legal title to land runs to midpoint of riverbed) and, if so, whether the Crown breach either of those duties; whether the appellants’ ancestors had customary title to the river; whether the appellants (as representatives or otherwise of the Pouakani hapu) have standing to bring their claim; whether the appellants’ claim is time-barred under the Limitation Act 1950; whether the appellants’ claim is barred under s 12 of the Pouakani Claims Settlement Act 2000;[2009] NZCA 566 CA 691/2009 1 December 2009
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds are: (i) Did the applicants have standing to bring the proceeding in a representative capacity? (ii) Did s 14 of the Coalmines Amendment Act 1903 vest title in the riverbed adjoining the Pouakani lands in the Crown? (iii) If not, did the Crown acquire title to the claimed part of the riverbed through application of the presumption of riparian ownership ad medium filum aquae by reason of its acquisition of the riparian lands? (iv) If so, in the circumstances in which the Crown acquired the claimed part of the riverbed, was it in breach of legally enforceable obligations owed to the owners from whom title was acquired? (v) If so, have the applicants lost their right to enforce such obligations by reason of defences available to the Crown through lapse of time? (vi) If not, what relief is appropriate? C The Registrar is directed to set down the hearing of the first two questions only for hearing at a fixture of 2 days. Further timetabling and direction orders for hearing of the remaining Questions will be made at or following the first hearing. The Court may review the expression of grounds 3 to 6 if it considers it appropriate to do so after hearing the argument of questions 1 and 2.
21 July 2010
________________
The appellants have standing to bring the proceedings in a representative capacity. The riverbed adjoining the Pouakani lands is not vested in the Crown under s 261 of the Coal Mines Act 1979 and s 354 of the Resource Management Act 1991. Costs are reserved.
27 June 2012
_______________
Appeal dismissed.
29 August 2014
B The approved grounds are: (i) Did the applicants have standing to bring the proceeding in a representative capacity? (ii) Did s 14 of the Coalmines Amendment Act 1903 vest title in the riverbed adjoining the Pouakani lands in the Crown? (iii) If not, did the Crown acquire title to the claimed part of the riverbed through application of the presumption of riparian ownership ad medium filum aquae by reason of its acquisition of the riparian lands? (iv) If so, in the circumstances in which the Crown acquired the claimed part of the riverbed, was it in breach of legally enforceable obligations owed to the owners from whom title was acquired? (v) If so, have the applicants lost their right to enforce such obligations by reason of defences available to the Crown through lapse of time? (vi) If not, what relief is appropriate? C The Registrar is directed to set down the hearing of the first two questions only for hearing at a fixture of 2 days. Further timetabling and direction orders for hearing of the remaining Questions will be made at or following the first hearing. The Court may review the expression of grounds 3 to 6 if it considers it appropriate to do so after hearing the argument of questions 1 and 2.
21 July 2010
________________
The appellants have standing to bring the proceedings in a representative capacity. The riverbed adjoining the Pouakani lands is not vested in the Crown under s 261 of the Coal Mines Act 1979 and s 354 of the Resource Management Act 1991. Costs are reserved.
27 June 2012
_______________
Appeal dismissed.
29 August 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 19 July 2010 (PDF, 266 KB)
- Hearing date 15-16 March 2011 SC 7/2010 (PDF, 940 KB)
- Hearing date 19 and 20 February 2013 SC 07/2010 (PDF, 768 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2012 ] NZSC 50 (PDF, 87 KB)
- MR [2014] NZSC 118 (PDF, 102 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Stiassny and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 8/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Defamation – Appellant ordered by High Court to pay $920,000 in damages to Respondents for defamation and breach of contract – Appellant previously found by High Court to be in contempt of Court for breach of interim injunction and failure to pay costs, and debarred from defending defamation suit – Appeal to Court of Appeal struck out except for appeal as to quantum of damages awarded – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in granting in part Respondents’ strike-out application on the grounds of Appellant’s continuing contempt of Court – Whether strike-out application by Respondents made out of time – Whether Court of Appeal judge acted under a conflict of interest. [2009] NZCA 566 CA 453/2009 22 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIEMER v STIASSNY AND ANOR SC 8/2010 [20 May 2010] (PDF, 20 KB)
Dates
Applications for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 May 2010.
Case name
Jason Mark Ferguson v The Queen
Case number
SC 14/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Murder – Provocation – Whether defendant’ s confession to police admissible given his intellectual disability (defendant seeks to adduce new evidence) – Whether sentence of detention in secure care should be substituted pursuant to the Intellectual Disabilities (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 and Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 – Whether substitution of sentence is required under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2010] NZCA 2 CA 594/2008 3 February 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
FERGUSON v R SC 14/2010 [29 July 2010] (PDF, 47 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
29 July 2010.
Case name
Ai Nee Chean v Herald Victor De Alwis and others
Case number
SC 18/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether summary judgment in High Court against Appellant in relation to sixth Respondent should be overturned – Whether Court of Appeal erred in affirming issue estoppel in respect of an original default judgment under s 37 Securities Act 1978 – Whether Court of Appeal misapplied the doctrine of issue estoppel by applying it to a default judgment, or holding that Appellant was a privy, or wrongly finding that the original Judge was not misled on facts, or failing to consider equitable doctrine of “clean hands” – Whether issue estoppel contrary to the NZ Bill of Rights Act.[2010] NZCA 30 CA 458/2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CHEAN v DE ALWIS And Ors SC 18/2010 [18 May 2010] (PDF, 16 KB)
Dates
Application for leave dismissed.
Costs $2,500 to the sixth respondent.
18 May 2010.
Case name
Daniel Thomas Spencer Riddiford and Yvonne Ada Riddiford an d another v Her Majesty’s Attorney-General
Case number
SC 21/2010
Summary
Civil – application for special leave to appeal High Court decision relating to a claim for compensation in respect of the acquisition of an esplanade reserve – Whether the High Court erred in not reversing an order of the Land Valuation Tribunal awarding costs against the applicant – Whether the High Court erred in declining to allow a rehearing – whether the High Court and the Tribunal erred in their determination of a number of other related mattersCiv 2006 485 833 – 22 May 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2.500 to the respondent.
26 May 2010.
Case name
William Patrick Jeffries v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 22/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to give effect to the criteria for consent to overseas investment as set out in s 14A of the Overseas Investment Act 1973; Whether the “standard conditions” for granting consent imposes a continuing obligation on consent-holders to carry out the proposals they made to the Minister in order to secure such consent; Whether releasing information supplied by the appellant pursuant to s 6(c) of the Official Information Act 1982 would prejudice the maintenance of the law or would breach the appellant’s confidence.[2010] NZCA 38 CA 338/2008 26 February 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2.500 to the respondent.
26 May 2010.
Case name
Churchill Group Holdings Limited and others v Aral Property Holdings Limited and David Leung
Case number
SC 25/2010
Summary
Civil – Stay of execution of judgment for costs pending appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that the abrupt end to the proceedings was not the fault of the respondents – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the proposed method of payment for the original litigation and security for costs was unknown – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that that Mr Fava was unlikely to regain control of two of the appellant companies – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the appellants had no realistic prospect of success – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to address one of the grounds of appeal.[2010] NZCA 88 CA 80/2010 23 March 2010
Dates
Notice of Abandoment of Appeal being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.
25 May 2010.Page 91 of 110