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
Robert Erwood v Janet Maxted and others
Case number
SC 66/2010
Result
The appeal is allowed.
The appeal to the Court of Appeal is reinstated. The proceeding is remitted to the Court of Appeal for hearing.
The costs order in the Court of Appeal is set aside.
18 March 2011
____________________________
The application by the first respondents for recall is dismissed.
15 July 2011
____________________________
Application by the appellant for recall is dismissed.
25 November 2015
Recall judgment
ROBERT ERWOOD v JANET MAXTED AND JANET MAXTED AND ALEXANDER JAMES JEREMY GLASGOW AS TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD ERWOOD [2015] NZSC 181 [25 November 2015] (PDF, 95 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
ERWOOD v MAXTED AND MAXTED GLASGOW AS TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD ERWOOD SC 66/2010 [30 November 2010] (PDF, 33 KB)
Substantive judgment
ROBERT ERWOOD v JANET MAXTED AND ALEXANDER JAMES JEREMY GLASGOW AS TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD ERWOOD SC 66/2010 [18 March 2011] (PDF, 61 KB)
Recall judgment
ERWOOD v MAXTED AND GLASGOW AS TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD ERWOOD SC 66/2010 [15 July 2011] (PDF, 40 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 18 March 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Graeme John Ingram and Elizabeth Knee & Kip Investments Limited v Patrcroft Investments Limited
Case number
SC 72/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contract – Respondent re-entered property on 14 June 2005, one day before entitled to cancel lease contract for failure by Appellants to pay rent arrears – Whether Respondent cancelled contract under s 8 Contractual Remedies Act 1979 on 15 June by remaining in occupation of the property – Whether Respondent must have been ready, willing and able to perform the contract when cancelling on 15 June – Whether Court of Appeal correct to say Appellants could have reserved their rights to cancel for Respondent’s repudiation by paying outstanding rent on 14 June.[2010]  NZCA 275 29 June 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is: In circumstances in which the respondent’s re-entry into the premises on 14 June 2005 was invalid, whether, and when, either of the parties thereafter validly terminated the lease.
27 September 2010
______________________
A The appeal is allowed and the orders made by the High Court are restored.
B The appellants are awarded costs of $15,000 together with their reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
C The costs order made by the Court of Appeal is reversed.  Any outstanding questions concerning interest and costs should be determined by the High Court.  
19 May 2011
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
INGRAM AND KNEE And Anor v PATCROFT PROPERTIES LIMI TED SC 72/2010 [27 September 2010] (PDF, 32 KB)
Substantive judgment
INGRAM AND KNEE v PATCROFT PROPERTIES LIMITED SC 72/2010 [10 May 2011] (PDF, 150 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 22 March 2011

Elias CJ,  Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
North Shore City Council v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 77/2010
Summary
Civil – Duty of care – Whether Building Industry Authority owed a duty of care to the Council in connection with 1995 review of Council’ s building regulatory operations and functions under Building Act 1991 – Whether case so untenable to justify striking out of third-party notice.[2010]  NZCA 324   26 July  2010
Result

A Leave to appeal is granted.

B  The approved grounds are:

(i) Whether it is reasonably arguable that the BIA owed a duty of care to the Council in relation to the Grange development in any of the respects pleaded (as described in para 13.1 – 13.3 of the Council’s submissions in support of its application for leave to appeal).

(ii) Whether it is reasonably arguable that the BIA owed a duty of care to the plaintiff body corporate and unit owners in the respect pleaded (as described in para 13.4 of the Council’s submissions in support of its application for leave to appeal).

13 October 2010

________________

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant is to pay the respondent costs of $40,000 and reasonable disbursements in connection with this appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.

27 June 2012

 
 
 
 

 
Transcript
Hearing date : 1 – 3 November 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard , Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Churchill Group Holdings Limited and others v Aral Property Holdings Limited and David Leung
Case number
SC 82/2010
Summary
Civil – Conflict of Interest – Whether employment of High Court Judge’s child within the respondent’s firm of solicitors gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias which meant Judge should not have sat or continued to sit on the case – Whether Court of Appeal should accordingly have recalled its judgment dismissing an appeal from the High Court’s decision not to stay the execution of a costs order against the appellant.[2010]  NZCA 335   30 July   2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CHURCHILL GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED AND ORS v ARAL PROPERTY HOLDINGS LIMITED AND DAVID LEUNG SC 82/2010 [3 November 2010] (PDF, 30 KB)
Dates

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

3 November 2010
Case name
Neil Martin Clarke v Corey Daniel Watts
Case number
SC 83/2010
Summary
Civil – Security for costs on appeal – Whether the Registrar of the Court of Appeal failed to provide the appellant with information relating to the requirements for a dispensation of costs within time – Whether a miscarriage of justice would be caused by the release of monies held by the High Court in execution of the costs order to the respondent.[2010]  NZCA 322   27 July 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CLARKE v WATTS SC 83/2010 [7 October 2010] (PDF, 46 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

7 October 2010
Case name
Peter Hardie McNamara and Patrick Sturgeon McNamara as Trustees of the PH McNamara Family Trust v Auckland City Council
Case number
SC 85/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondent did not owe a duty of care to the appellant; whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the building certificate issued by a third party was invalid under the Building Act 1991.[2010] NZCA 345 CA 457/2009 3 August 2010.
Result
A          The application for leave to appeal is granted.  
B          The approved grounds are:  Whether a local authority:  (i)         owes a duty of care to purchasers of units in a residential development for which a code compliance certificate was issued by a private certifier which was acting outside of its authority to issue such certificates; and/or  (ii)          was immunised by s 50(3) of the Building Act 1991 against liability in relation to its actions in reliance on such a certificate.
30 November 2010
____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
The appellants are to pay the respondent costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements in connection with this appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
9 May 2012
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
MCNAMARA AND ORS v AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL SC 85/2010 [30 November 2010] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
MCNAMARA AND ORS v AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL SC 85/2010 [9 May 2012] (PDF, 7 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 19 April 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ. 
Case name
R I G v Chief Executive Officer, Ministry of Social Development and others
Case number
SC 90/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to waive security for costs for the applicant’s appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal. [2010] NZCA 362  CA 261/2009   10 August 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
G v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ORS SC 90/2010 [17 November 2010] (PDF, 46 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

17 November 2010
Case name
Arthur William Taylor v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 92/2010
Summary
Civil – Judicial Review – Judicature Amendment Act 1972 – Visiting arrangements for maximum-security prisoner and young daughter – High Court declined appellant interim relief against prison manager’ s decision restricting previous monthly contact visits with daughter in interests of child and prisoner safety – Whether Court of Appeal erred in declining to make mandatory interim relief order against prison manager’s discretion despite finding that courts have jurisdiction to order mandatory interim relief against the Crown – Whether Court of Appeal should have commented on respondent’s cross-appeal when High Court observations founding cross-appeal made only in obiter.[2010] NZCA 371  CA 165/2010   16 August 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TAYLOR v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SC 92/2010 [8 December 2010] (PDF, 12 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

8 December 2010.
Case name
Westpac New Zealand Limited v Map & Associates Limited
Case number
SC 98/2010
Summary
Civil – Knowing assistance in breach of trust – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Westpac did not have reason to refuse to follow the instructions of its account holder – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 87 of the Judicature Act 1908.[2010] NZCA 404 CA 193/2009 6 September  2010.
Result
A  The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B  The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that Westpac had breached its mandate.
C  The application for leave to cross-appeal is refused. 
2 February 2011
_______________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $15,000.00 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.
16 August 2011
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v MAP & ASSOCIATES LIMITED SC 98/2010 [2 February 2011] (PDF, 16 KB)
Substantive judgment
WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v MAP & ASSOCIATES LIMITED SC 98/2010 [16 August 2011] (PDF, 131 KB)
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v The Solicitor-General
Case number
SC 116/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – costs – whether costs should have been awarded against the applicant when the respondent discontinued contempt of court proceedings – whether the Judge was biased.[2010] NZCA 549  CA 126/2010   23 November  2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIEMER v THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL SC 116/2010 [7 February 2011] (PDF, 13 KB)
Recall judgment
SIEMER v THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL SC 116/2010 [1 April 2011] (PDF, 76 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Costs $2500 to the respondent.

7 February 2010.

Application for recall dismissed.

1 April 2011.
Page 93 of 110