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
North Shore City Council v Body Corporate 189855 and Ors
Case number
SC 28/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the appellant owed duties of care to the owners and lessees of units in a multi-unit development respectively.  [2010] NZCA 65  CA 507/2008   22 March 2010
Result

A The application for leave to appeal is granted.

B The approved grounds are:

(i)  Whether and in what circumstances a local authority which performed regulatory functions under the Building Act 1991 in relation to construction of a multi-unit residential development owed a duty of care to purchasers of units in the building to ensure that it complied with the building code.

(ii) Assuming such a duty exists, whether it extends to:

(a) Such persons who did not themselves at the time of purchase intend personally to occupy their unit(s) (investor owners); and

(b) Persons who subsequently acquired such units from the first purchasers after a claim for breach of duty to their predecessors had accrued; and

(c) The body corporate.

(iii) Whether the conclusions which would otherwise be reached are affected in circumstances where the Council declined to issue a code compliance certificate.

(iv) In light of the conclusions reached on the foregoing grounds, how these issues should be determined in the particular cases.

  13 July 2010

________________________

Appeal dismissed,

Costs to the respondents

17 December 2010
Leave judgment - leave granted
NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL v BODY CORPORATE 189855 And Anor SC 28/2010 [13 July 2010] (PDF, 9 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 8 – 10 November 2010

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ

 
Case name
Marlborough District Council v Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited and Ors
Case number
SC 33/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Negligence – Whether duty of care owed by local authority in issuing a Land Information Memorandum (LIM) inducing party to enter into contract to purchase land – Whether local authority protected from liability by s 41 of Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) when providing information in LIM in good faith – Whether s 44A of LGOIMA requires inclusion of information relating to water resource entitlements in a LIM – Whether loss is actually suffered in tort against a third party where compensatory damages under s 6 Contractual Remedies Act 1979 against a party to the contract have already offset financial loss suffered by misrepresentation.[2010] NZCA 104  CA 448/2008 and CA 215/2009   29 March 2010
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds are: (i) Whether a duty of care is owed by a local authority to the recipient of a Land Information Memorandum (LIM) issued under s 44A of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. (ii) If so, whether Altimarloch Joint Venture Ltd suffered any loss recoverable from the Council by reason of breach of that duty of care.
14 July 2010
_____________________
The appeal by the Marlborough District Council from the liability judgment given against it in favour of Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited is dismissed. The appeal by the Marlborough District Council from the contribution judgment given against it in favour of D S and J W Moorhouse is allowed.  That judgment is set aside and judgment in favour of the Council is entered in respect of that claim. Costs of $10,000 to Altimarloch.  Disbursements shall be added as agreed or fixed by the Registrar.
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL v ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED And Anor SC 33/2010 [14 July 2010] (PDF, 44 KB)
Additional document
MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL v ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED And Ors SC 33/2010 [20 October 2010] (PDF, 40 KB)
Substantive judgment
MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL v ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED SC 33/2010 [5 March 2012] (PDF, 595 KB)
Transcript

Hearing dates : 14 and 15 February 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Vining Realty Group Limited v Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited and Ors
Case number
SC 40/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Misrepresentation – Quantification of Damages – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding inappropriate measure of expectation damages owed by Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks to Altimarloch Joint Venture in respect of purchase of land where water rights misrepresented – Whether proper measure of damages is difference between actual value and represented value not cost to remedy property to meet purchaser’ s original expectation.[2010] NZCA 104  CA 438/2008 and CA 213/2009   29 March 2010
Result
A The application for leave to appeal are granted.
B  The approved ground is whether the award of damages against DS & JW Moorhouse (in respect of which they are entitled to be fully indemnified by Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks) was appropriately quantified on an expectation basis.  
14 July 2010
______________________________
Appeal dismissed.
Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks are to pay the Council costs of $5,000.  They are to pay in the proportions fixed in the Court of Appeal, namely 60 per cent by Vining Realty and 40 per cent by Gascoigne Wicks.
Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks are to pay in the same proportions costs of $10,000 to Altimarloch.
In each case where costs are awarded, disbursements shall be added as agreed or fixed by the Registrar.
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
VINING REALTY GROUP LIMITED v ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED And Anor SC 40/2010 [14 July 2010] (PDF, 39 KB)
Substantive judgment
MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL v ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED SC 33/2010 [5 March 2012] (PDF, 595 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 14 and 15 February 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Gascoinge Wicks v Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited and Ors
Case number
SC 41/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Misrepresentation – Whether Court of Appeal wrong to find that Alitmarloch Joint Venture Ltd induced by representations made by Gascoigne Wicks and Vining Realty to enter into and confirm contract for sale and purchase – Whether reasonable in the circumstances for AJVL to act in reliance on representations.[2010] NZCA 104  CA 438/2008 and CA 213/2009   29 March 2010
Result
A The application for leave to appeal are granted.
B  The approved ground is whether the award of damages against DS & JW Moorhouse (in respect of which they are entitled to be fully indemnified by Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks) was appropriately quantified on an expectation basis.

 

14 July 2010

_______________________________

Appeal dismissed.
Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks are to pay the Council costs of $5,000.  They are to pay in the proportions fixed in the Court of Appeal, namely 60 per cent by Vining Realty and 40 per cent by Gascoigne Wicks.
Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks are to pay in the same proportions costs of $10,000 to Altimarloch.
In each case where costs are awarded, disbursements shall be added as agreed or fixed by the Registrar.
Transcript

Hearing date : 14 and 15 February 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Commerce Commission v Vodafone New Zealand Limited and Telecom New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 44/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Communications - Telecommunications Act 2001 - Whether the Commerce Commission erred in its calculation of the net cost of providing Telecommunications Services Obligation under the Act by ceasing to introduce new technology into the modelled network.Civ 2008 485 2194/295/ 2341    1 April  2010
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. Approved ground of appeal is whether the Commerce Commission in making its determination complied with applicable statutory provsion.
14 May 2010
__________________________
Appeal dismissed.  No order for costs.
17 November 2011
Substantive judgment
sc 4 2010 vodafone new zealand ltd v telecom new zealand ltd (PDF, 256 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
COMMERCE COMMISSION v VODAFONE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED AND TELECOM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED SC 44/2010 [14 May 2010] (PDF, 8 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 21 – 24 February 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Case name
Telecom New Zealand Limited v Vodafone New Zealand  Limited and Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 46/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Communications - Telecommunications Act 2001 - Whether the Commerce Commission erred in its calculation of the net cost of providing Telecommunications Services Obligation under the Act by ceasing to introduce new technology into the modelled network.Civ 2008 485 2293/2205/2206    1 April  2010
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. Approved ground of appeal is whether the Commerce Commission in making its determination complied with applicable statutory provsion.
14 May 2010
________________________________
Appeal dismissed.  No order for costs.
17 November 2011
Substantive judgment
sc 4 2010 vodafone new zealand ltd v telecom new zealand ltd (PDF, 256 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
COMMERCE COMMISSION v VODAFONE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED AND TELECOM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED SC 44/2010 [14 May 2010] (PDF, 8 KB)
Transcript

21 – 24 February 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Case name
GE Custodians v Bruce Leonard Bartle and Dorothy Judith Bartle and others
Case number
SC 52/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the credit contracts entered into by the appellant and the respondents were oppressive in terms of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003; Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “oppression”; whether it is possible for a contract to be oppressive despite independent legal advice being received: whether knowledge of a third party could be attributed to the appellant in the absence of a relationship of agency.[2010] NZCA 174   CA 627/2009   6 May 2010
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground of appeal is whether the credit contracts were oppressive in terms of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003.
5 August 2010
______________________
The appeal is allowed and the orders made by the Court of Appeal are set aside. The case is remitted to the High Court for determination of issues reserved by that Court for further consideration.  The appellant is awarded costs in this Court against the first and second respondents of $25,000 together with its reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar. The costs order made by the Court of Appeal is reversed.  
3 December 2010
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
GE CUSTODIANS v BARTLE AND ORS SC 52/2010 [5 August 2010] (PDF, 49 KB)
Substantive judgment
GE CUSTODIANS v BARTLE AND BARTLE AND ANOR SC 52/2010 [3 December 2010] (PDF, 200 KB)
Case name
Alan Parekura Torohinga Haronga v Waitangi Tribunal and others
Case number
SC 54/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial Review – Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 – Whether Appellant should be granted urgent Waitangi Tribunal remedies hearing in respect of application for resumption of Crown forest land subject to current settlement negotiations – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that Crown Forests Assets Act 1989 did not substantively alter Waitangi Tribunal’s role in relation to making of binding recommendations in respect of Crown forest land – Whether Court of Appeal failed to take into account that circumstances meant Tribunal did not exercise its discretion and Appellant could never have gained remedies hearing – Whether Court of Appeal failed to take into account right of smaller claimants to seek a remedy under s 8HB of Treaty of Waitangi Act.[2010] NZCA 201   CA 73/2010   19 May 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether in making his decision of 21 October 2009 in Wai 1489 to decline an urgent remedies hearing, the presiding Judge in the Waitangi Tribunal erred in law.
10 August 2010
___________________________
A The appeal is allowed and the determination of Judge  Clark is quashed. B The matter is remitted to the Waitangi Tribunal with the direction that it must proceed urgently to hear the claim. C The second respondent must pay the appellant costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.  Costs in the Court of Appeal and High Court are to be fixed by those Courts
Transcripts
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
HARONGA v WAITANGI TRIBUNAL AND ORS SC 54/2010 [19 May 2011] (PDF, 469 KB)
Case name
Ian David Penny and Gary John Hooper v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 62/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Income Tax Act 1994 – Applicant orthopaedic surgeons employed by family companies owned by family trusts – Applicants found by Court of Appeal to have breached general anti-avoidance provision s BG 1 of Income Tax Act as level of remuneration paid by family companies to surgeons not a “commercially realistic salary” in view of family companies’ after-tax profit and therefore artificial/contrived – Whether arrangement had purpose or effect of tax avoidance to benefit from “rate advantage” between personal income tax and company tax rates – Whether “commercially realistic salary” an appropriate concept to apply under the Income Tax Act to a family company – Whether Applicants in fact exercised control over family companies and family trusts as governing director and co-trustee – Whether Court of Appeal correct to consider use of trust capital as advances as evidence of tax avoidance arrangement – Whether Court of Appeal correct to make cost orders different from cost arrangements agreed to by parties.[2010] NZCA 231   CA 201/2009   4 June 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the appellants had failed to establish that their use of their corporate and family trust structures did not constitute taxable arrangements for the purposes of s BG1 of the Income Tax Act 1994.
2 August 2010
______________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellants must pay the respondent’ s costs in the sum of $25,000 together with his reasonable disbursements in connection with the appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
24 August 2011
Leave judgment - leave granted
PENNY AND HOOPER V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 62/2010 2 August 2010 (PDF, 7 KB)
Judgment appealed from

 
Substantive judgment / Media release

 
Transcript

Hearing date : 27, 28,29 June 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Young JJ.
Case name
Tannadyce Investments Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 63/2010
Summary
Civil – Statutory demand for tax arrears – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that conscious maladministration cannot justify judicial review unless it negated the assessment made by the CIR – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that Tannadyce had the opportunity to invoke the statutory challenge procedure – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to find that the CIR and its officers acted unacceptably in refusing Tannadyce access to documents relating to it.[2010] NZCA 233    CA 703/2008, CA 330/2009   4  June 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal erred in striking out as an abuse of process the remaining ground of the appellant’s judicial review proceeding in which it alleges conscious maladministration by the respondent in denying that it had possession of documents which the appellant alleges it needed in order to be able to file tax returns. 27 August 2010
________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $15,000 plus disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
20 December 2011
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
TANNADYCE INVESTMENTS LIMITED V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 63/2010 27 August 2010 (PDF, 33 KB)
Substantive judgment
TANNADYCE INVESTMENTS LIMITED v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 63/2010 [20 December 2011] (PDF, 282 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 25 August 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Page 92 of 110