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
William Elliot Hamilton and W E H Trustee Limited v Jane Mare Murrell
Case number
SC 95/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Relationship Breakdown – Property – Constructive Trust – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that trust property could be impressed with a constructive trust as a result of the conduct of a trustee who had de facto responsibility for the day-to-day running of a trust, with the co-trustee’s agreement – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that allowing the respondents claim did not alienate trust property or deprive the beneficiaries of the trust of something to which they were entitled – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that in all the circumstances, the trustees should reasonably expect to yield an interest in the trust property to the respondent and, accordingly, that the fourth element of a constructive trust over asserted relationship property was established.  [2014] NZCA 377  CA 31/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay the respondent costs of $2,500, plus reasonable disbursements. 12 November 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
WILLIAM ELLIOT HAMILTON v JANE MAREE MURRELL [2014] NZSC 162   12 November 2014 (PDF, 50 KB)
Judgment appealed from

MURRELL V HAMILTON CA31/2014 [2014] NZCA 377    7 August 2014
Case name
W v The Queen
Case number
SC 98/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sexual Offences – Evidence Act 2006 – Appeal against conviction  – Whether Court of Appeal wrong to uphold admission at trial of expert evidence relating to “counterintuitive” evidence given by child abuse victims– Whether expert evidence met “ substantially helpful” test under s 25 Evidence Act – Whether evidence used in an inappropriately diagnostic way at trial – Whether linking by prosecutor in closing address of expert evidence with circumstances of particular complainant led to unfair trial.[2011] NZCA 191  CA 51/2009
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
8 November 2011.
Case name
W v The Queen
Case number
SC 117/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Counsel error – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that trial counsel’s advice to the applicant not to give or call evidence was reasonably open to him in the circumstances – Whether or not the Court of Appeal adequately addressed the applicant’ s claim that acceptance of trial counsel’s advice not to give evidence was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of that part of his advice which was intended to inform the applicant of the advantages of giving evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal omitted or misstated evidence supporting the applicant’s allegations on appeal that the trial counsel gave advice in a manner that usurped the applicant’s right to make elections about evidence, impacting on the credibility of the decisions made by the Court of Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal’s decision that the result of the applicant’s trial could not possibly have been affected if the applicant or any other of the applicant’s witnesses had given evidence was available to it on the evidence.[2011] NZCA 529   CA 702/2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
W v R SC 117/2011 [13 February 2012] (PDF, 42 KB)
Case name
Marlborough District Council v Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited and Ors
Case number
SC 33/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Negligence – Whether duty of care owed by local authority in issuing a Land Information Memorandum (LIM) inducing party to enter into contract to purchase land – Whether local authority protected from liability by s 41 of Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) when providing information in LIM in good faith – Whether s 44A of LGOIMA requires inclusion of information relating to water resource entitlements in a LIM – Whether loss is actually suffered in tort against a third party where compensatory damages under s 6 Contractual Remedies Act 1979 against a party to the contract have already offset financial loss suffered by misrepresentation.[2010] NZCA 104  CA 448/2008 and CA 215/2009   29 March 2010
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds are: (i) Whether a duty of care is owed by a local authority to the recipient of a Land Information Memorandum (LIM) issued under s 44A of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. (ii) If so, whether Altimarloch Joint Venture Ltd suffered any loss recoverable from the Council by reason of breach of that duty of care.
14 July 2010
_____________________
The appeal by the Marlborough District Council from the liability judgment given against it in favour of Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited is dismissed. The appeal by the Marlborough District Council from the contribution judgment given against it in favour of D S and J W Moorhouse is allowed.  That judgment is set aside and judgment in favour of the Council is entered in respect of that claim. Costs of $10,000 to Altimarloch.  Disbursements shall be added as agreed or fixed by the Registrar.
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL v ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED And Anor SC 33/2010 [14 July 2010] (PDF, 44 KB)
Additional document
MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL v ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED And Ors SC 33/2010 [20 October 2010] (PDF, 40 KB)
Substantive judgment
MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL v ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED SC 33/2010 [5 March 2012] (PDF, 595 KB)
Transcript

Hearing dates : 14 and 15 February 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
W and W v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 48/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Duty of Care and Limitation Act 1950 – State liability claim for historic abuse while appellants under social welfare supervision and in institutional care – Whether Court of Appeal erred in application of legal test for disability under Limitation Act – Whether limitation test of reasonable discoverability of harm too restrictive and inconsistent with precedent/international law – Whether test of reasonable discoverability should apply more widely than cases of sexual abuse cases – Whether reasonable discoverability requires recognition by complainant that assault wrongful/actionable – Whether Court of Appeal further erred in law as to: causation and material contribution to harm of vulnerable persons; scope of duty of care by Department and/or social workers; false imprisonment – Whether facts support an award of exemplary damages directly or vicariously or a finding of non-delegable duty of care.[2010] NZCA 139  CA 714/2007  23 April 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
W & W v ATTORNEY-GENERAL SC 48/2010 [29 June 2010] (PDF, 45 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

29 June 2010.
Case name
P v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 58/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Duty of Care – Accident Compensation Act 2001 – Appellant alleges mental injury/PTSD as a result of sexual assault and threats/intimidation during employment with Royal New Zealand Navy – Whether ACC bar applies to mental injury suffered as a result of threats and intimidation – Whether damage materially contributed to Appellant’ s mental injury –Whether non-delegable duty of care or fiduciary duty owed to the Appellant – Whether case merits award of exemplary or vindicatory damages – Whether case should be heard without prior appeal to the Court of Appeal in order for Supreme Court to hear case at the same time as another proposed appeal from W & W v Attorney-General [2010] NZCA 139.Civ 2006 485 874    16 June 2010
Dates

Notice of Abandonment being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.

30 June 2010.
Case name
NJW v The Queen
Case number
SC 137/2010
Summary
Criminal – Sexual Offences – Whether evidence of complainant’ s sexual history directly relevant and excluded contrary to the interests of justice at trial – Whether sentence imposed by Court of Appeal excessive in the circumstances.[2010] NZCA 561  CA 247/2010  29 November  2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
W v R SC 137/2010 [8 March 2011 (PDF, 10 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

8 March 2011.
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
Transcripts
Media Releases
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
Media 1 Limited v N W Shanks and Wilson McKay Trustee Company and ors
Case number
SC 16/2008
Summary
Civil – validity of termination of lease – whether notice of termination of lease was sufficiently clear and unambiguous as to how and when the termination would operate and what steps were required by the other party to prevent the termination – whether the Court of Appeal was right to assume that the phrase in the notice “pursuant to its rights” was an invocation of the termination provisions of the lease – whether the reaction of the recipient and their legal advisors to the notice was relevant to the interpretation of the validity of the notice.[2008] NZCA 77 CA292/07 5 March 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MEDIA 1 LIMITED v N W SHANKS AND WILSON MCKAY TRUSTEE COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS SC 16/2008 [7 May 2008] (PDF, 15 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the respondent.
7 May 2008
Case name
W v The Queen
Case number
SC 74/2007
Summary
Criminal – appeal against convictions for historical sexual offending – whether the admission of evidence in rebuttal to a recent complaint allegation, which evidence the Court of Appeal held to be inadmissible, created a miscarriage of justice. [2007] NZCA 408 CA 164/07 11 September 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed .

5 December 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
W V R SC 74/2007 5 December 2007
Judgment appealed from
R v W [2007] NZCA 408 (11 September 2007)
Page 5 of 6