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
Govind Prasad Saha v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 24/2009
Summary
Civil appeal – application of the foreign investment fund rules contained in Part CG of the Income Tax Act 1994 – the appellant was a partner in a firm that sold its consultancy business to a French company – as part of the sale transaction the appellant agreed to work for the consultancy business for five years from the date of settlement – as part of the sale transaction the appellant received a package of shares in the French company to be gradually released to him over a five year period – the appellant ended his employment in the consultancy business prematurely – the resulting deed of settlement provides that 50% of the unreleased shares will be transferred to the French company – whether the transfer of shares is a “disposition” for the purpose of s CG 23(5) – whether the appellant derived a gain in kind from the transfer of shares for the purposes of s CG 14(2)[2009] NZCA 76 CA 617/2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal is granted. 25 May 2009
______________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs $15,000 to respondent.
23 July 2010
______________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs $15,000 to respondent.
23 July 2010
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Hearing date : 27 October 2009
Chief Justice, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Wilson JJ.
Case name
The Commerce Commission v Carter Holt Harvey Limited
Case number
SC 25/2009
Summary
Civil – Strike-out – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that for the purposes of s 43(5) of the Fair Trading Act 1986 the relevant knowledge was that of both the Commission and the person who had suffered loss – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to hold that knowledge of “likelihood of loss or damage” was sufficient for time to start running for a claim for relief under s 43(2)(c) and (d) of the Fair Trading Act – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to conflate discovery of a breach of the Fair Trading Act with discovery of loss or damage – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that only a minimal amount of knowledge is required to set the limitation period running under s 43 of the Fair Trading Act – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Commission discovered the loss or damage before the limitation date[2009] NZCA 40 CA 316/2007 27 February 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
25 May 2009
__________________________
Appeal allowed. The order of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the application to strike out the appellant’s proceeding is dismissed. The respondent is ordered to pay the appellant for its costs in this Court the sum of $15,000 plus disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. The costs order made in the Court of Appeal is reversed and the costs order made in the High Court is reinstated.
27 November 2009
25 May 2009
__________________________
Appeal allowed. The order of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the application to strike out the appellant’s proceeding is dismissed. The respondent is ordered to pay the appellant for its costs in this Court the sum of $15,000 plus disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. The costs order made in the Court of Appeal is reversed and the costs order made in the High Court is reinstated.
27 November 2009
Transcripts
- Hearing date 11 August 2009 (PDF, 372 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2009] NZSC 120 (PDF, 82 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
TFAC Limited, Geoffrey Alan Grisdale and Amanda May Grisdale v Susan Elizabeth David and UAR Limited
Case number
SC 26/2009
Summary
Civil – Fair Trading Act 1986 – Australian home services franchising operation – Applicants entered into a master franchise agreement covering Auckland’s eastern suburbs with the respondents, who owned the New Zealand master franchise – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and law in its finding that the respondents did not engage in misleading and deceptive conduct in breach of s 9 of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overlooking the High Court’s finding that the respondents had breached s 22(1) and (2) of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in treating a particular pleaded misrepresentation as a misrepresentation as to a future matter – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a particular opinion was honestly held by the first respondent and had a reasonable basis – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its finding that even if the respondents had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct the causal link necessary to justify relief under s 43 of the Act was doubtful – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its finding that the respondents were protected from liability by various disclaimer and acknowledgement clauses.[2009] NZCA 44 CA 26/2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
26 May 2009
26 May 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Ivan Vladimir Joseph Erceg v Balenia Limited
Case number
SC 27/2009
Summary
Civil appeal – alleged contractual breach by the appellant – clause A4(a) of the contract stipulates that the appellant’s former solicitors are to be satisfied that the respondent has clear title to the super-yachts which form the subject of the contract – the appellant’s former solicitors have not certified the respondent’s title to the super-yachts – whether the respondent is required to give notice to the appellant of its intention to rely on his alleged breach – whether the respondent is entitled to sue before making time of the essence for performance of the contract – whether the respondent bears the onus of proving that it would have been able to show clear title to the super-– whether the respondent can treat clause A4(a) as being fulfilled for the purposes of obtaining relief – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to order specific performance of the contract.[2009] NZCA 48 CA 553/2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
27 May 2009
27 May 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ERCEG V BALENIA LIMITED SC 27/2009 27 May 2009 (PDF, 11 KB)
Case name
Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated v Kapiti Coast District Council and Kotuku Parks Limited
Case number
SC 29/2009
Summary
Civil appeal – ss 94A(c) & 93 Resource Management Act 1991 – application for resource consent to subdivide land adjacent to the Waikanae River Estuary Scenic Reserve – Department of Conservation gave written approval to the application – decision taken to proceed to hear the application without notification – Court of Appeal held that the approval of the Department of Conservation did not allow the first respondent to disregard the effects of the application on the Reserve when deciding whether to notify – whether the first respondent is required to consider the effects of the application on the Reserve when making the notification decision under s 93 – whether the first respondent must be “satisfied” that the adverse effects of the activity on the Reserve will be minor – whether the Court of Appeal correctly applied ss 94A(c) & 93[2009] NZCA 73 CA 695/07
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondents jointly. 16 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Ian Russell Geary v The Psychologists Board and another
Case number
SC 36/2009
Summary
Civil – cross-examination of witnesses in judicial review proceedings – application by Mr Geary for leave to cross-examine witnesses who had provided affidavits on behalf of the Psychologists Board in a judicial review of decisions of the Board in disciplinary matters concerning Mr Geary – whether the rule imposing a requirement of leave to cross-examine witnesses in applications for judicial review is contrary to statute, and is not a rule that can be made by a Court – whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to re-examine the validity of the rule – whether there was a proper basis for the High Court to deny the plaintiff the ability to cross-examine the first respondent’s witness.[2009] NZCA 134 CA 818/2008 9 April 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed, with costs $2,500 to the first respondent.
24 June 2009
24 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Christopher Bede Ward v Diane Mary Ward
Case number
SC 40/2009
Summary
Civil – Family – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that an agreement for the sale and purchase of shares was a settlement for the purposes of s 182(1) of the Family Proceedings Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that for the purposes of s 182(6) of the Act a matrimonial property agreement was to be considered by itself and not as part of an overall transaction – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that access to s 182(1) could be gained where it was necessary in the interests of fairness and justice to do so, and thereafter the remedial discretion was a broad one to be exercised in the manner which achieved a fair result taking into account the total background – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to disallow Mr W’s separate property interests subsumed by the overall transaction.[2009] NZCA 139 CA 309/2008 9 April 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted in part.
1 July 2009.
________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs of $15,000 to the respondent plus disbursements.
8 December 2009
1 July 2009.
________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs of $15,000 to the respondent plus disbursements.
8 December 2009
Transcripts
- Hearing date 03 November 2009 (PDF, 586 KB)
Media Releases
- media release ward (PDF, 85 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
WARD v WARD SC 40/2009 [1 July 2009] (PDF, 12 KB)
Substantive judgment
WARD v WARD SC 40/2009 [8 December 2009] (PDF, 225 KB)
Case name
William Patrick Jeffries v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 41/2009
Summary
Civil – Judicial Review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that as the Appellant was not a participant in the statutory scheme under review the Appellant did not possess public interest standing to review the identified pleaded decisions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 27(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 has no application to decision making under the Official Information Act 1982CIV 2006 – 485-2161 20 May 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal refused. Costs $2,500 plus disbursements to the respondent.
3 June 2009
3 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
William Patrick Jeffries v The Privacy Commissioner
Case number
SC 42/2009
Summary
Civil – Judicial Review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a barrister may not invoke the privilege of general immunity against civil liability in respect of his participation in court proceedings against the Privacy Commissioner in relation to the barrister’s preparation and conduct of court proceedings and thereafter – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that a barrister conducting litigation before a court comes within the definition of “agency” in s 2 of the Privacy Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that “any person” in s 91(4) of the Act includes persons who are not “agencies” pursuant to s 2 of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that the Privacy Commissioner’s failure to abide her notice obligations under ss 70 and 73 of the Act was understandable and not a relevant consideration in assessing her decision-makingCIV 2006 – 485-860 22 May 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal refused. Costs $2,500 plus disbursements to the respondent. 3 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Cashmere Capital Limited v Patrick Kevin Carroll and others
Case number
SC 46/2009
Summary
Civil – Retirement Villages Act 2003 – retrospective operation of the Act – the Court of Appeal held that when there has been an Order in Council under s 103, the Registrar-General must note on the certificate of title to the land comprising the village that it is subject to s 22 of the Act, and that the expressed intention of Parliament was that the Act should operate retrospectively to 31 December 2002 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of ss 103 and 21 of the Act - whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that if the Registrar-General has registered Crossdale Village under s 21 of the Act then s 22 applied to the appellant and if the Registrar-General has not done so it should be performed forthwith.[2009] NZCA 185 CA 190/2007 15 May 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
24 July 2009
______________________
Appeal allowed, judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aisde. Costs of $5,000 plus disbursements to the appellant.
4 December 2009
24 July 2009
______________________
Appeal allowed, judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aisde. Costs of $5,000 plus disbursements to the appellant.
4 December 2009
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 November 2009 (PDF, 559 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2009] NZSC 123 (PDF, 58 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 95 of 110