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
Mana PropertyTrustee Ltd v James Development Ltd
Case number
SC 105/2009
Summary
Civil – Interpreting terms of a sale and purchase agreement – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by equating non-performance at the time of settlement with an automatic right to cancel – Whether the Court of Appeal were wrong to find that clause 18.3 of the agreement for sale and purchase was essential.[2009] NZCA 483 CA 241/2000 19 October 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
1 March 2010
______________________
Appeal allowed. It is declared that the respondent’ s purported cancellation on 3 November 2008 of its contract with the appellant was of no effect. The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for outstanding issues to be determined in light of this judgment. The costs order made in the Court of Appeal is set aside. Costs are reserved. Counsel should file memoranda.
23 July 2010
1 March 2010
______________________
Appeal allowed. It is declared that the respondent’ s purported cancellation on 3 November 2008 of its contract with the appellant was of no effect. The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for outstanding issues to be determined in light of this judgment. The costs order made in the Court of Appeal is set aside. Costs are reserved. Counsel should file memoranda.
23 July 2010
Media Releases
- sc 105 2009 mana v james 23 july 2010 (PDF, 85 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Substantive judgment /Media release
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Attorney-General v Tamil X v Refugee Status Appeals Authority and Y
Case number
SC 107/2009
Summary
Immigration – whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting Article 1F of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees; whether the Court erred in not remitting an Article 1F inquiry to the Refugee Status Appeals Authority[2009] NZCA 488 CA 109/2008 20 October 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
10 March 2010
__________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The respondent’s application for recognition of refugee status is remitted to the Refugee Status Appeals Authority for consideration in accordance with the Court of Appeal’s order.
C Costs are reserved and counsel may submit memoranda if necessary.
27 August 2010
10 March 2010
__________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The respondent’s application for recognition of refugee status is remitted to the Refugee Status Appeals Authority for consideration in accordance with the Court of Appeal’s order.
C Costs are reserved and counsel may submit memoranda if necessary.
27 August 2010
Media Releases
- MR [2010] NZSC 107 (PDF, 84 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Judgment appealed from
Substantive judgment / Media release
Case name
Alan Stanley Perkins and Adrieene Rosemary Perkins v Tere Moana Purea and Tom Tangi-Tuake and June Tangi-Tuake
Case number
SC 111/2009
Summary
Civil – Land Transfer Act 1952 – the appellants sued for specific performance after the respondent failed to settle a house purchase due to a dispute with his daughter over ownership which resulted in her lodging a caveat against the title of the property – whether, in light of s 182 of the Land Transfer Act 1952, the Court of Appeal erroneously approached the matter by way of contest between competing equities – whether the Court of Appeal should have held that registration is conclusive and that the appellants, as bona fide purchasers for value without notice of the daughter’ s equitably interest, should take the property notwithstanding that the daughter’ s equitable interest was earlier in time – alternatively, whether the Court of Appeal erred in the approach they adopted in consideration of the hierarchy of equities.[2009] NZCA 541 CA 365/2008 18 November 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the 2nd Respondent.
4 March 2010
4 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Slawomir Ryszard Bujak v The Minister of Justice
Case number
SC 113/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Extradition – Judicial Review – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding Minister not obliged to take account of the appellant’s state of health and humanitarian concerns raised on appellant’ s behalf in making his decision under s 30 of the Extradition Act 1999 and Art 1 of the Extradition Treaty between Poland and New Zealand – Whether Court of Appeal gave inappropriate weight to evidence of appellant’s doctor and erred in concluding appellant’s ailments were not a basis on which to stop or delay an extradition.[2009] NZCA 570 CA 719/2009 4 December 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the respondent. 11 February 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Contract Pacific Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 114/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Taxation – Whether the Commissioner satisfied the time limits contained in s 46 of the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985 – Whether Contract Pacific had already been paid a refund for the purposes of s 241 (6) (a) of the Taxation (Taxpayer Assessment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2001. [2009] NZCA 568 CA 759/2009 4 December 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
4 March 2010
__________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs $15,000 to the respondent, plus disbursements.
16 November 2010
4 March 2010
__________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs $15,000 to the respondent, plus disbursements.
16 November 2010
Transcripts
- sc 114 2009 contract pacific v ird (PDF, 384 KB)
Media Releases
- sc 114 2009 contract pacific media (PDF, 85 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Johnathan Brian Irvine and others v John Douglas Wilson and others
Case number
SC 117/2009
Summary
Civil appeal – trusts and trustees – whether second and third appellants, when signing as trustees, can be personally liable under the Trust Deed – whether there was a breach of the Shareholders Agreement due to the failure to get Special Resolutions for significant borrowings and costs as required by the Business Plan specified in the Shareholders Agreement – whether there was a breach of the major transaction requirements of the Companies Act 1993 – additionally, estoppel argument raised for the first time in the Court of Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to provide the appellants the opportunity to consider or provide evidence in opposition to this point.[2009] NZCA 569 CA 232/2009 7 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to respondents.
18 March 2010
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Douglas John Williamson and John Blackwood Williamson v Selwyn District Council
Case number
SC 118/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – security for costs – strike-out – summary judgment – Appeal against strike-out by Court of Appeal – appellants’ failure to pay security for costs – Appeal against application in High Court by Selwyn District Council (SDC) to recover possession of land – Appellants refused to vacate land on expiry of 3-year lease agreement as part of sale and purchase agreement of land to SDC – Whether sale and purchase agreement and lease void because SDC exerted duress/undue influence or obtained unconscionable bargain in abuse of dominant bargaining position, or acted in breach of Local Government Act 1974 – Whether the SDC breached Resource Management Act 1991 in obtaining non-notified resource consent – Whether lawyers acted in conflict of interest between appellants and SDC councillor and breached fiduciary duty – Whether appellants waived conflict of interest with informed consent.[2008] NZCA 147 CA 662/2007 5 June 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 23 February 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Supreme court decision
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Tere Moana Purea V Alan Stanley Perkins and Adrienne Rosemary Perkins
Case number
SC 119/2009
Summary
Civil appeal - Land Transfer Act 1952 – cross-appeal - the respondents sued for specific performance after the appellant failed to settle a house purchase due to a dispute with his daughter (Mrs Tangi-Tuake) over ownership which resulted in her lodging a caveat against the title of the property – whether the Court of Appeal determination that the finding of Asher J on the facts that it was supported by evidence that there was an agreement that in return for Mr Purea’s daughter taking responsibility for the mortgage and any outgoings and maintenance of the property, ownership would be transferred to her on repayment of then mortgage, was erroneous – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider that Asher J treated his finding of a constructive trust as if it was an express trust and gave no recognition of the Tangi-Tuakes’ interest in the property – whether the Court of Appeal decision is supported by the Tangi-Tuakes’ pleadings and in particular the way in which their pleadings have changed.[2009] NZCA 541 CA 365/2008 18 November 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the 2nd Respondent.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Neville James Gibson v Minter Ellison Rudd Watts
Case number
SC 8/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – proceedings against former legal counsel - whether the Court of Appeal made accurate findings of fact – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the respondent had complied with discovery obligations – whether the Court of Appeal had regard to all relevant evidence – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the applicant would not have been entitled to legal aid in earlier proceedings against a third party – whether the respondent had a conflict of interest in earlier proceedings - whether the Court should have considered the applicant’ s financial position when awarding costs against him[2007] NZCA 595 CA 202/065, CA 33/06 21 December 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2.500 to respondent. 1 May 2008
Case name
Robert Charles De Bruin v The Queen
Case number
SC 9/2008
Summary
Appeal against order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 - Court of Appeal held that the High Court had correctly calculated a pecuniary penalty order under s 25 of $1 million – whether first appellant more than a mere courier for the purposes of calculating the benefit received under s 27(2) – whether Court of Appeal wrong to follow R v Penderson [1995] 2 NZLR given position of couriers has not been resolved – whether Court of Appeal in error in upholding the High Court decision that the increase in value of the property was a benefit from the offending under s 28 – whether Court of Appeal was correct in finding that the appellants’ agreement under s 21 of the Property (Relationships) Act 2004 was intended to defeat the interests of the Crown as a creditor of the appellant – whether, given the second appellant’s appeal was successful in part, the Court of Appeal erred in ordering that the legal costs should be paid from the second appellant’s interest in the property.[2007] NZCA 600 CA 317/06 21 December 2007
Dates
Notice of Abandonment being lodged , the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
4 April 2008
Page 98 of 110