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.
23 December 2024
Case information summary 2024 (as at 23 December 2024) – Cases where leave granted (126 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 23 December 2024) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 116 KB)
All years
Case name
Kevin Stanton Burdett v The Queen
Case number
SC 73/2009
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against sentence – Sexual offending against girl aged between 12 and 16 years – Whether Court of Appeal erred in fixing starting point of 3.5 years’ imprisonment for a first offender charged with a single act of sexual connection when no tariff decision established for relevant type of sexual offending – Whether Court of Appeal failed to take into account availability of home detention as a sentencing option?[2009] NZCA 366 CA 115/2009 19 August 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 4 November 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BURDETT V R SC 73/2009 4 November 2009 (PDF, 34 KB)
Case name
Philip Wayne Hart v The Queen
Case number
SC 74/2009
Summary
Criminal appeal – appeal against conviction – convictions for sexual offending – the trial judge acceded to an application by the Crown for a prior consistent statement of the complainant to be admitted in terms of s 35(2) of the Evidence Act 2006 to rebut the assertion that the complainant’s evidence was fabricated in order to entitle her to ACC – whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that defence counsel asserted recent invention on the part of the complainant and thus attacked the complainant’s veracity, opening the way to evidence on that topic under s 37 and also justifying an application by the Crown for an order that the complainant’s prior consistent statement was admissible under s 35(2) – whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the trial judge did not need to direct the jury on its use of the prior consistent statement because such statements, once admitted, are admissible for the truth of their contents under the Evidence Act 2006.[2009] NZCA 276 CA 609/2008 29 June 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
15 October 2009
_______________________________
Appeal dismissed.
23 July 2010
15 October 2009
_______________________________
Appeal dismissed.
23 July 2010
Transcripts
- Hearing date 18 November 2009 SC 74/2009 (PDF, 338 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2010] NZSC 91 (PDF, 81 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
HART v R SC 74/2009 [15 October 2009] (PDF, 6 KB)
Substantive judgment
HART v R SC 74/2009 [23 July 2010] (PDF, 210 KB)
Case name
Totara Investment Limited v Crismac Limited and Ulster Limited
Case number
SC 75/2009
Summary
Civil – Interpretation of a mortgage - Whether the Court of Appeal erred as a matter of fact and law in finding that cl 9.1(d) of the mortgage did not authorise the lender to obtain security over additional property.[2009] NZCA 369 CA 599/2008 21 August 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
21 October 2009
______________________
tbc
21 October 2009
______________________
tbc
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, McGrath, Wilson, Anderson JJ.
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
Malcolm Albert Spark v The Queen
Case number
SC 77/2009
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 applies to private material that was never intended to be made public; whether the Court of Ap peal erred in determining that the possession of objectionable material for private use is a “publication” for the purposes of the Act; whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to apply the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 to interpretation of the word “publication”; whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that it was permissible to repeatedly question an accused when the accused has stated that he does not wish to provide the information sought.[2009] NZCA 345 CA 267/2009 6 August 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 16 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
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
Ri Tong Zhou v The Queen
Case number
SC 79/2009
Summary
Criminal appeal – appeal against sentence – convictions under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 – minimum period of imprisonment of eight years imposed by High Court – the basis of the appeal to the Court of Appeal was disparity in relation to the sentences imposed for similar offending by the applicant’s associates – whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal despite an apparent injustice to the applicant – whether there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice.[2009] NZCA 365 CA 209/2009 18 August 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 15 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Richard Donald Collins v The Queen
Case number
SC 80/2009
Summary
Criminal – Firearms and manufacturing and supply of drugs convictions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 61 of the Arms Act 1983 was not restricted for use in emergency situations – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to hold that s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 authorised the Police to search the applicant’s property – Whether the Court of Appeal were wrong to find that the applicant had made certain admissions before the police search.[2009] NZCA 88 CA 643/2008, CA 157/2009 4 September 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
9 February 2009
9 February 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
COLLINS V R SC 80/2009 9 February 2010 (PDF, 11 KB)
Case name
Charterhall Trustees Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council
Case number
SC 81/2009
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
_______________________
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.
_______________________
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.
Leave judgment - leave granted
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
Page 207 of 252