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
The Commerce Commission v Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Limited and Telecom New Zealand
Case number
SC 76/2009
Summary
Civil – alleged breach of s 36 of the Commerce Act 1986 – the Privy Council in Telecom Corporation of New Zealand v Clear Communications [1995] 1 NZLR 385 formulated a counterfactual test (whether a hypothetical firm, not in a dominant position but otherwise in the same circumstances, would have acted as the dominant firm did) to determine whether a firm has used its dominant position in breach of s 36 – whether this test is the appropriate and necessary test for determining a breach of s 36 – if the test is reconsidered, and if the question is assessed on a factual enquiry rather than solely by apply a counterfactual analysis, whether Telecom used its dominant position in the national retail market in breach of s 36 – alternatively, whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that, on application of the counterfactual test, the Commission had not demonstrated that Telecom had used its dominant market position in breach of s 36 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in not considering whether the High Court erred in finding that Telecom did not have an anticompetitive purpose under s 36(1) of the Act.[2009] NZCA 338 CA 288/2008 4 August 2009
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
30 October 2009
__________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant must pay the respondents costs of $50,000 plus disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
1 September 2010
Transcript
Hearing date : 21 – 24 June 2010
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ
Case name
Air Nelson Limited v NZ Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union Inc
Case number
SC 78/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000 – Strikes and lockouts – legality – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that in s 97 of the ERA 2000 the words “the work of a striking or locked employee” mean “the work a striking or locked out employee would probably have been performing had he/she not been locked out – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that s 97 of the ERA 2000 applies in circumstances where the work in question is work which is being performed, or is intended to be performed, by a person who would normally or routinely perform such work.[2009] NZCA 349 CA 206/2008 7 August 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
27 October 2009
_____________________
The appeal is allowed with costs of $15,000 to be paid by the respondent to the appellant together with the appellant’s reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
17 May 2010
27 October 2009
_____________________
The appeal is allowed with costs of $15,000 to be paid by the respondent to the appellant together with the appellant’s reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
17 May 2010
Transcripts
- TS sc 78 2009 23 February 2010 (PDF, 225 KB)
Media Releases
- press release air nelson 17 may 2010 (PDF, 39 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Blair & Co Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council
Case number
SC 82/2009
Summary
Civil – negligence – the Court of Appeal struck out a claim against the Queenstown Lakes District Council by the owner of a commercial building – the claim alleged negligence in the course of the approval and building process resulting in a defect in the building that caused loss to the owner – whether it is reasonably arguable that the Council owed a duty of care to the building owner to exercise reasonable skill and care in the performance of its statutory functions and responsibilities under the Building Act 1991.[2009] NZCA 374 CA 441/2008 25 August 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
24 November 2009
____________________
Leave to appeal is revoked. The appellant is ordered to pay the respondent costs of $7,500, together with reasonable disbursements incurred prior to the abandonment by Charterhall Trustees Ltd of its appeal (SC 81/2009).
22 April 2010
24 November 2009
____________________
Leave to appeal is revoked. The appellant is ordered to pay the respondent costs of $7,500, together with reasonable disbursements incurred prior to the abandonment by Charterhall Trustees Ltd of its appeal (SC 81/2009).
22 April 2010
Transcripts
- sc 82 2009 blair co v queenstown lakes (PDF, 461 KB)
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Case name
Westpac Banking Corporation, Bank of New Zealand Limited, ANZ National Bank Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 83/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Banking and Finance – Unclaimed Money Act 1971 – meaning of terms: “money” “payable”, “has become owing” – Whether UMA applies to conditional transactional liabilities such as cheques, drafts or other bills of exchange – Bills of Exchange Act 1908 – nature of drawer’s liability – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Thomas Cook (New Zealand) Ltd [2005] 2 NZLR 722 (PC) applied – Whether Thomas Cook rightly decided.[2009] NZCA 376 CA 741/2008 26 August 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
4 December 2009
__________________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellants are ordered to pay the respondent costs of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
7 April 2011
4 December 2009
__________________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellants are ordered to pay the respondent costs of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
7 April 2011
Transcripts
- sc 83 2009 westpac ors v ird (PDF, 579 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Tulsi Ram Naresh v Gordon Edward McCluskie
Case number
SC 89/2009
Summary
Civil – whether the Court of Appeal erred in law and fact in finding that the appellant should be removed as a trustee of a family trust pursuant to s 51 of the Trustee Act 1956 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in making an award of indemnity costs against the appellant – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that, for limitation purposes, time ran from October 1993.[2009] NZCA 328 CA 766/2008 28 July 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Indemnity costs to the respondent. 26 November 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Supreme court decision
NARESH v McCLUSKIE SC 89/2009 [18 December 2009] (PDF, 8 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Chesterfields Preschools Limited, David John Hampton and others v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 90/2009
Summary
Civil – GST Act 1995 - Costs awards – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the appeals of the Commissioner for a stay of payment of costs awards in favour of the applicant.[2009] NZCA 373 CA 607/2008 25 August 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $3,000 plus disbursements to the respondent. 8 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Ludgater Holdings Limited v Gerling Australia Insurance Company Pty Limited
Case number
SC 92/2009
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936, namely whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the respondent had a sufficient presence in New Zealand and whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction – whether s 9 has an extraterritorial effect – whether, if the High Court does have jurisdiction, the Court in the exercise of its discretion should decline or allow jurisdiction[2009] NZCA 397 CA 546/2008 11 September 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
16 December 2009
___________________________
Appeal dismissed. Cost to respondent $15,000 plus reasonable disbursements.
11 May 2010
16 December 2009
___________________________
Appeal dismissed. Cost to respondent $15,000 plus reasonable disbursements.
11 May 2010
Media Releases
- press release ludgater (PDF, 38 KB)
Substantive judgment
Leave judgment - leave granted
sc 92 2009 ludgater holdings leave judgment (PDF, 36 KB)
Transcript
Judgment appealed from
Case name
JD & CE Henson Partnership and others v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 95/2009
Summary
Civil – Tax Administration Act 1994 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining what is sufficient to constitute a statutory Notice of Assessment – Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly stated that the applicants’ assessments were subsequently amended – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that the Taxation Review Authority addressed the correctness of the assessments without objection from the applicants – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that the Taxation Review Authority had jurisdiction under the Notices of Assessment.[2009] NZCA 423 CA 661/2008 22 September 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs to the respondents of $3,000 plus disbursements. 15 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Greymouth Gas Kaimiro Limited and others v GXL Royalties Limited and Swift Energy New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 98/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management – Petroleum mining – Leases – Contract and interpretation – Equity – obligations – assignment – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that actual reasons for GXL Royalties Ltd’s refusal to consent to transfer of Swift Energy Ltd’s interests in a petroleum exploration permit, from Swift to Greymouth Gas Kaimiro Ltd, are irrelevant to the issue of whether consent was properly or improperly withheld – Whether Court of Appeal erred in confining the issue at trial to a purely objective test of whether it has been established that Greymouth has sufficient financial capability to meet the obligations under the permit and royalty deed – Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to account in the test for the requirement of reasonableness.[2009] NZCA 433 CA 100/2009 24 September 2009
Result
Leave to appeal is granted The approved ground is whether GXL is required to plead to an allegation that it refused consent to the transfer of Swift’s interest in the petroleum permit to Greymouth for collateral reasons unrelated to Greymouth’s financial capability to meet obligations under the permit and the deed reserving to GXL a royalty interest.
30 March 2010
_________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellants are ordered to pay the respondent costs of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
22 September 2010
30 March 2010
_________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellants are ordered to pay the respondent costs of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
22 September 2010
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Chief Justice, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Young JJ.
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Benjamin Morland Easton v Wellington City Council
Case number
SC 99/2009
Summary
Judicial review – the respondent put forward a proposal to open Manners Mall in Wellington to bus traffic for public consultation – the applicant initiated judicial review proceedings in the High Court alleging unlawful predetermination on the part of the respondent in favour of the proposal – the applicant sought an interim order to prevent the respondent from taking further action in relation to the proposal until his judicial review proceedings were heard – the High Court Judge declined to make the interim order and ordered the applicant to provide security for costs in the amount of $12,000 – the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court but varied the Judge’s order to substitute $8,000 for $12,000 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s decision.[2009] NZCA 513 CA 615 /2009 23 October 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
26 February 2010
26 February 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 97 of 110