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
Astrid Eleanor Delany v The Queen
Case number
SC 10/2008
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 332/06 21 December 2007
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 1 May 2008
Case name
New Zealand Exchange Limited v Bank of New Zealand, Access Brokerage Limited (in liquidation) and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Case number
SC 13/2008
Summary
Civil – appeal from strike-out application – second respondent in liquidation, first and third respondents brought actions against NZX in contract and tort - whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that NZX owes personal duties of care to individual clients or to individual brokers, to protect each of them from economic loss due to broker’s dishonesty or negligence in relation to client funds held on trust – whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the breach of such a duty (if owed) is sufficiently legally causative of loss – whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that the Securities Commission is the “primary regulator” of the New Zealand Stock Exchange, and not NZX.2008] NZCA 25 CA236/06 22 February 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Transcript
Case name
Mark Moncrieff Stevens and others v Premium Real Estate Limited
Case number
SC 23/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – Breach of fiduciary duty and Fair Trading Act 1986 – Damages – Advertising and sale of residential property where absence full disclosure by agent to principal of close, ongoing commercial relationship with purchaser – Whether Court of Appeal erred in quantification of damages assessment, including whether correct measure of loss includes profit made by third party (rather than fiduciary) as result of breach of fiduciary duty.[2008] NZCA 82 CA 31/07 11 April 2008
Result
Leave to appeal and cross appeal granted.
29 July 2008
________________________
The appellants’ appeal is allowed.The respondent’s appeal is dismissed. The respondent is ordered to pay the appellants damages of $659,813 and to repay to them the commission of $67,050. The judgment sums will bear interest at 7% per annum from 16 July 2004 (the date of settlement).The appellants are awarded costs in this Court of $15,000 and costs in the Court of Appeal of $6,000, together in each case with their reasonable disbursements as fixed by the respective Registrars if not otherwise agreed between the parties.
6 March 2009
29 July 2008
________________________
The appellants’ appeal is allowed.The respondent’s appeal is dismissed. The respondent is ordered to pay the appellants damages of $659,813 and to repay to them the commission of $67,050. The judgment sums will bear interest at 7% per annum from 16 July 2004 (the date of settlement).The appellants are awarded costs in this Court of $15,000 and costs in the Court of Appeal of $6,000, together in each case with their reasonable disbursements as fixed by the respective Registrars if not otherwise agreed between the parties.
6 March 2009
Transcripts
- Hearing date 13 November 2008 (PDF, 254 KB)
Media Releases
- media release (PDF, 89 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Case name
Hawthorne v Cox
Case number
SC 35/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – costs orders – appeal from decision of the Court of Appeal to refuse leave to appeal from a decision of the High Court not to award costs in favour of the appellant who had successfully challenged a guardianship order – whether leave required when appealing a costs order originating in an appeal – whether the Court of Appeal’s decision not to award costs to the appellant was in the best interests of the child who was the subject of the guardianship order – whether counsel for the child should be immune from a cost order unless there is bad faith or clear incompetence – whether costs may be determined without the need to be heard.[2008] NZCA 146 CA 509/07 4 June 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
G v COX And Anor SC 35/2008 [27 August 2008] (PDF, 17 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed, with cocts of $2,500 to the first respondent.
27 August 2008
Case name
EW and PW v Attorney-General
Case number
SC 36/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – Appeal directly from High Court – Negligence – whether only nominal damages should be awarded for a breach of duty of care in child welfare cases unless the duty required the defendant to commence proceedings – whether there was a duty to commence proceedings – whether vicarious liability exists where child is placed back with family from whom they have been removed – whether test of causation correctly applied – Limitation Act 1950 – whether reasonable discoverability test should be expanded beyond sexual abuse cases – whether reasonable discoverability and disability tests were correctly applied – whether facts supported a finding of exemplary damages – whether a non-delegable duty of care existed – whether applicants were falsely imprisoned when held in secure units – whether applicants were required to prove a ‘ counter-factual’ to justify an award of damages – whether the ACC legislation barred the applicant’s claims – whether High Court made correct findings of fact – whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify an appeal directly to the Supreme Court.CIV 199-485-85 and CIV 2001 - 485 - 864 Wellington High Court28 November 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
15 August 2008
Case name
New Zealand Recreational Fishing Council and New Zealand Big Game Fishing Council Inc v Sanford Limited, Sealord Limited and others
Case number
SC 40/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – Fisheries Act 1996 – statutory interpretation issues arising from review of Minister of Fisheries’ exercise of statutory power to fix the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) – interpretation of the relationship between s 8 (providing that purpose of Act is to provide for utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability) and s 21 (providing for matters which the Minister must take into account in setting the Total Allowable Catch) – specifically, whether the TAC and TACC decisions can be characterised as sustainability and utilisation decisions respectively – whether a “global approach” should be taken to the purpose provision whereby it is a guide to government policy that decision-makers are to bear in mind generally, or whether the provision contains mandatory relevant considerations to be taken into account in relation to individual decisions – how the purpose of enabling people to “provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing” in s 8(2) is to be interpreted – whether the common law right to fish extends to commercial fishers.[2008] NZCA 160 CA 163/07 11 June 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
2 October 2008
__________________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
28 May 2009
2 October 2008
__________________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
28 May 2009
Media Releases
- big game fishing press release (PDF, 90 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcription
Case name
Roderick William Nielsen v Dysart Timbers Limited
Case number
SC 54/2008
Summary
Civil – Costs – whether the Court of Appeal correctly applied an objective test to the issue of whether the appellant intended a settlement offer to remain open for acceptance after the Supreme Court had granted leave to appeal.[2008] NZCA 280 CA 630/07 6 August 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
28 October 2008
___________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
15 May 2009
28 October 2008
___________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
15 May 2009
Media Releases
- media release nielsen v dysart (PDF, 89 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Case name
Tiny Intelligence Limited v Resport Limited
Case number
SC 55/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – Copyright Act 1994 – damages – the High Court found that Resport Ltd fragrantly breached the copyright of Tiny Intelligence Ltd in several toys and awarded Tiny Intelligence Ltd $50,000 by way of account of profits – whether additional damages are available under s 121(2) of the Copyright Act where the Court has awarded an account of profits – whether the House of Lords decision of Redrow Homes Ltd v Bett Brothers Plc [1999] 1 AC 197 should be applied to the New Zealand Copyright Act.[2008] NZCA 281 CA 270/2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
21 October 2008
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. Cost to the respondent $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
8 April 2009
21 October 2008
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. Cost to the respondent $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
8 April 2009
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Case name
Slawomir Ryszard Bujak v Solicitor-General
Case number
SC 64/2008
Summary
Civil – Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that an order for the seizure of property in Poland could be registered in New Zealand under s 55 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal matters Act 1992.[2008] NZCA 334 CA 679/2008 11 September 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
11 November 2008
_____________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
15 May 2009
11 November 2008
_____________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
15 May 2009
Media Releases
- MR [2009] NZSC 42 (PDF, 90 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Case name
Vector Gas Limited v Bay of Plenty Electricity Limited
Case number
SC 65/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – contract interpretation – interpretation of an Interim agreement to preserve gas supply until decision made as to the validity of a termination of gas distribution agreement between the Vector Gas Limited (“NGC”) and Bay of Plenty Energy Limited (“BoPE” )– whether the Court of Appeal erroneously interpreted the terms of the interim agreement as meaning that the repeated phrase “6.50 per GJ” referred to a bundled price for not only the quantities of gas supplied but also transmission and network costs associated with delivery of such gas, rather than to a gas only price – whether the parties had given their own meaning to the phrase “6.50 per GJ” in prior correspondence – whether the Court of Appeal artificially excluded from consideration the bulk of relevant prior correspondence – whether the Court of Appeal disregarded the context of the agreement negotiations that the only other options for BoPE were cessation of gas supply or the giving of an undertaking as to market related damages – whether the Court of Appeal gave weight to unsupported and inherently implausible “reputational” speculation that NGC might not have pressed for a market comparable price in the interim agreement – whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to reach a decision whereby NGC was worse off than if BoPE had given an undertaking as to damages – whether the Court of Appeal’s decision is contrary business common sense and fundamental principles of contractual interpretation. [2008] NZCA 338 CA 679/2008 1 September 2008
Result
The appeal is allowed. The respondent is to pay to the appellant costs of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar. Costs in the lower Courts are to be fixed by those Courts in the light of this Court’ s judgment.
10 February 2010
10 February 2010
Media Releases
- sc 65 2008 vector gas ltd v bope ltd media (PDF, 53 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Dates
Application for leave to appeal granted. Respondents application for leave to cross appeal refused. 11 December 2008.
Page 99 of 110