Subscribe to the RSS feed Print this page

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
Rajendra Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Ltd and Ors
Case number
SC 34/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Civil procedure – Alleged breach of copyright - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in striking out proceedings as an abuse of process.[2010] NZCA 111  CA 515/2009   30 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
PRASAD v INDIANA PUBLICATIONS (NZ) LIMITED And Ors SC 34/2010 [28 May 2010] (PDF, 14 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Costs to respondents $2,500.

28 May 2010.
Case name
David Paul Halford and Blue Sky Holdings Ltd (in liquidation) (as trustee of the Auckland Residential Property Trust) v R F Coughlan & Associates and Ors
Case number
SC 35/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to find that the designer of apartment units was not negligent in respect of the plans and specifications of those units; whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the issue of practical completion certificates should give rise to liability irrespective of specific reliance by an owner.[2010] NZCA 64  CA 66/2009   22 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
DAVID PAUL HALFORD AND BLUE SKY HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AS TRUSTEE OF THE AUCKLAND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TRUST v R F COUGHLAN & ASSOCIATES And Anor SC 35/2010 [13 July 2010] (PDF, 10 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs $2,500 to the 1st respondent.

13 July 2010.
Case name
Steelbro New Zealand Limited v Hanmar Maskin AB and Ors
Case number
SC 36/2010
Summary
Civil – The Court of Appeal found that the stabiliser leg on particular Steelbro sidelifter models infringed the respondent’s patent – Such models do not incorporate a separate bearing component within the support sleeve of the stabiliser - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding, by reference to the specification, that the claim did not require a separate bearing component, thereby modifying rather than construing the claim – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in disregarding certain subsequent conduct by the respondents.[2010] NZCA 83  CA 692/2008   24 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
STEELBRO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v HAMMAR MASKIN AB And Ors SC 36/2010 [11 June 2010] (PDF, 16 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to respondent.
Case name
Kacem  v Bashir
Case number
SC 37/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it was not in the children’s best interests under s 5 of the Care of Children Act 2004 to relocate to Australia.[2010] NZCA 96  CA 585/2009   25 March 2010
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
K v B SC 37/2010 [29 June 2010] (PDF, 30 KB)
Substantive judgment
K v B SC 37/2010 [8 September 2010] (PDF, 222 KB)
Dates

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved ground is whether in its reasons for judgment, and in particular paragraphs 51 and 52, the Court of Appeal adopted an erroneous approach to the effect of ss 4 and 5 of the Care of Children Act 2004.

If the appellant demonstrates that the Court of Appeal was in error, this Court’s present view is that the matter should be remitted to the appropriate lower court for reconsideration on the correct legal basis, and on an up-to-date factual basis.  It seems inappropriate for this Court to undertake that exercise.  Hence the approved ground is limited to the question of the correct legal principle and is not to be construed as extending to the application of that principle to the facts, if the appellant succeeds. 

29 June 2010

___________________________

Appeal dismissed.

8 September 2010
Transcript

Hearing date : 12 August 2010

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young  JJ.
Case name
GE Free NZ in Food and Environment Incorporated v AgResearch Limited and Anor
Case number
SC 38/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether applications by AgResearch to import new genetically modified organisms were improperly registered for consideration by ERMA under s 40 of Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 – Whether applications so broad and generic as to be non-compliant with statutory information requirements – Whether applications must contain sufficient information at outset to allow meaningful public participation – Whether acceptance of applications a proper subject for judicial review.[2010] NZCA 89 CA 380/2009   23 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
G E FREE NZ IN FOOD AND THE ENVIRONMENT INCORPORATED v AGRESEARCH LIMITED And Anor SC 38/2010 [29 June 2010] (PDF, 41 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed  with costs $2,500 to each respondent.

29 June 2010.
Case name
Gregory Campbell Oliver Nielsen v Body Corporate No. 199348 and Ors
Case number
SC 39/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Civil procedure - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the applicant had acted unreasonably in progressing his legal aid application – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding the appeal had been abandoned.[2010] NZCA 101  CA 43/2009   20 April 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
NIELSEN v BODY CORPORATE NO 199348 And Ors SC 39/2010 [29 June 2010] (PDF, 36 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed  with costs $2,500 to the respondents.

29 June 2010.
Case name
Vining Realty Group Limited v Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited and Ors
Case number
SC 40/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Misrepresentation – Quantification of Damages – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding inappropriate measure of expectation damages owed by Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks to Altimarloch Joint Venture in respect of purchase of land where water rights misrepresented – Whether proper measure of damages is difference between actual value and represented value not cost to remedy property to meet purchaser’ s original expectation.[2010] NZCA 104  CA 438/2008 and CA 213/2009   29 March 2010
Result
A The application for leave to appeal are granted.
B  The approved ground is whether the award of damages against DS & JW Moorhouse (in respect of which they are entitled to be fully indemnified by Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks) was appropriately quantified on an expectation basis.  
14 July 2010
______________________________
Appeal dismissed.
Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks are to pay the Council costs of $5,000.  They are to pay in the proportions fixed in the Court of Appeal, namely 60 per cent by Vining Realty and 40 per cent by Gascoigne Wicks.
Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks are to pay in the same proportions costs of $10,000 to Altimarloch.
In each case where costs are awarded, disbursements shall be added as agreed or fixed by the Registrar.
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
VINING REALTY GROUP LIMITED v ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED And Anor SC 40/2010 [14 July 2010] (PDF, 39 KB)
Substantive judgment
MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL v ALTIMARLOCH JOINT VENTURE LIMITED SC 33/2010 [5 March 2012] (PDF, 595 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 14 and 15 February 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Gascoinge Wicks v Altimarloch Joint Venture Limited and Ors
Case number
SC 41/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Misrepresentation – Whether Court of Appeal wrong to find that Alitmarloch Joint Venture Ltd induced by representations made by Gascoigne Wicks and Vining Realty to enter into and confirm contract for sale and purchase – Whether reasonable in the circumstances for AJVL to act in reliance on representations.[2010] NZCA 104  CA 438/2008 and CA 213/2009   29 March 2010
Result
A The application for leave to appeal are granted.
B  The approved ground is whether the award of damages against DS & JW Moorhouse (in respect of which they are entitled to be fully indemnified by Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks) was appropriately quantified on an expectation basis.

 

14 July 2010

_______________________________

Appeal dismissed.
Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks are to pay the Council costs of $5,000.  They are to pay in the proportions fixed in the Court of Appeal, namely 60 per cent by Vining Realty and 40 per cent by Gascoigne Wicks.
Vining Realty and Gascoigne Wicks are to pay in the same proportions costs of $10,000 to Altimarloch.
In each case where costs are awarded, disbursements shall be added as agreed or fixed by the Registrar.
Transcript

Hearing date : 14 and 15 February 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Abdirazak Yussuf Mussa v The Queen
Case number
SC 43/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Appellant convicted in District Court on two counts of rape – Whether Court of Appeal and District Court erred in failing to properly weigh unfairly prejudicial effect of certain evidence against its probative effect – Whether trial Judge failed to give adequate directions as to limited use to which that evidence could be put.[2010] NZCA 123  CA 281/2009    1 April  2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MUSSA v R SC 43/2010 [5 July 2010] (PDF, 16 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

5 July 2010.
Case name
Commerce Commission v Vodafone New Zealand Limited and Telecom New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 44/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Communications - Telecommunications Act 2001 - Whether the Commerce Commission erred in its calculation of the net cost of providing Telecommunications Services Obligation under the Act by ceasing to introduce new technology into the modelled network.Civ 2008 485 2194/295/ 2341    1 April  2010
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. Approved ground of appeal is whether the Commerce Commission in making its determination complied with applicable statutory provsion.
14 May 2010
__________________________
Appeal dismissed.  No order for costs.
17 November 2011
Substantive judgment
sc 4 2010 vodafone new zealand ltd v telecom new zealand ltd (PDF, 256 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
COMMERCE COMMISSION v VODAFONE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED AND TELECOM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED SC 44/2010 [14 May 2010] (PDF, 8 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 21 – 24 February 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Page 190 of 252