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
Junior Farms Ltd v Hampton Securities Ltd (In Liquidation)
Case number
SC 38/2006
Summary
Civil – conveyancing transactions – damages awarded against first respondent for value of land for which first respondent failed to compensate appellant – whether quantum erroneously calculated by trial Judge – whether trial Judge mistaken as to how original purchase price had been calculated – trial Judge’s award, confirmed by Court of Appeal, less than half of the figure claimed by appellant and unchallenged at trial – Court of Appeal’s determinations on interest not challenged. CA 218/04, CA 258/04 12 April 2006
Result
The applications for leave to appeal by both the appellant and second respondent are dismissed.
16 August 2006
16 August 2006
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Commerce Commission v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Limited
Case number
SC 39/2006
Summary
Civil – dairy industry restructuring – raw milk regulations – whether “cost of capital rate” refers to cost of equity capital rate or to “Weighted Average Cost of Capital” – Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk) Regulations 2001, reg 9(1) CA 175/05 4 May 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
17 August 2006
_____________________
The appeal is allowed and all relevant orders made in the courts below are set aside. A. The Court declares that the capital referred to in reg 9(1) of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk) Regulations 2001 is the respondent’s equity capital.
B. The respondent is to pay the appellant costs of $15,000 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar. In the absence of agreement costs below are to be fixed by the courts below.
17 August 2006
_____________________
The appeal is allowed and all relevant orders made in the courts below are set aside. A. The Court declares that the capital referred to in reg 9(1) of the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk) Regulations 2001 is the respondent’s equity capital.
B. The respondent is to pay the appellant costs of $15,000 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar. In the absence of agreement costs below are to be fixed by the courts below.
Transcripts
- Hearing date 12 December 2006 (PDF, 332 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2007] NZSC 36 (PDF, 79 KB)
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Glen Dallas Goldberg v The Queen
Case number
SC 40/2006
Summary
Criminal – appeal against conviction and sentence for wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice – appellant wrote letters purporting to be from rape complainants, suggesting that their complaints were false – whether appellant gave counsel instructions to pass the letters on to police – whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to accept breach of solicitor/client privilege – whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to exclude evidence of psychologists in sentencing – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding sentence not manifestly excessive – conduct of Crown counsel. CA 10/05 4 May 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
9 August 2006
9 August 2006
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GOLDBERG V R SC 40/2006 [9 August 2006] (PDF, 67 KB)
Case name
Qiu Jian v The Queen
Case number
SC 41/2006
Summary
Criminal Appeal – appeal against conviction for blackmail – whether standard of proof required for Crown to satisfy co-conspirators rule of evidence is on balance of probabilities or reasonable evidence of common intention – whether failure to advise defendant to testify in her own defence amounted to a miscarriage of justice – whether trial judge failed to give sufficient direction to jury on use which could be made of threats made by alleged co-conspirators. CA 495/05 3 May 2006
Result
29 September 2006 – Application for leave to appeal granted.
_____________________
Appeal allowed, conviction is quashed. New Trial ordered.
5 July 2007
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Alan Ivo Greer v The Attorney - General
Case number
SC 42/2006
Summary
Criminal – appeal against Court of Appeal judgment dismissing application for habeas corpus – whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that habeas corpus not the appropriate remedy where applicant alleges denial of appeal rights – whether a denial of appeal rights caused by lack of information and availability of appropriate appeal forms to prisoners – whether a denial of appeal rights where Court of Appeal refuses to accept for filing appeals on obsolete or incorrect forms – delay in appeal rights. CA 5/06 22 May 2006
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Henkel Kgaa v Holdfast NZ Limited
Case number
SC 43/2006
Summary
Civil – copyright infringement – appellant, who was successful in High Court, a “world leader” in the industry using same copyright works throughout the world – whether Court of Appeal failed to take account of statutory presumptions in Copyright Act 1994, s 127 – whether Court of Appeal ignored relevant authorities and misapplied the tests for infringement of compilations and for work derived from admittedly infringing copies – whether Court of Appeal relied upon two erroneous findings about the appellant’ s case in the High Court, resulting in a substantial miscarriage of justice CA 248/04 17 May 2006
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
4 August 2006
______________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 plus disbursements.
30 November 2006
4 August 2006
______________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 plus disbursements.
30 November 2006
Judgment appealed from
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Zentrum Holdings Limited and Ngahemi Properties Limited v The Commmisioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 44/2006
Summary
Civil – tax administration – in Taxation Review Authority (“TRA”) CIR argued unsuccessfully that Zentrum had benefited by a tax avoidance arrangement – on appeal to High Court CIR sought to argue that relevant transactions were shams – whether jurisdictional bar to raising sham argument for first time in High Court – whether it would have been open to CIR to employ sham argument in TRA – whether CIR v VH Farnsworth Ltd [1984] 1 NZLR 428 applies – whether sham argument is subject to time bar in Tax Administration Act 1994, s 108CA 215/05 23 May 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
19 September 2006
_________________________
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
4 April 2007
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Moshen Aghabiggi v The Queen
Case number
SC 45/2006
Summary
Criminal – appeal against conviction for sexual violation, attempted rape, and fraud – whether applicant should have been granted an adjournment to call a witness overseas and to allow exploration of potential defence – whether delay in police disclosure of complaint form, and the fact that complainant had not made complaint until later than originally thought, resulted in a miscarriage of justice – whether trial judge erred in directions to jury on defence to third count – whether overall a miscarriage of justice occurred.CA 408/05 31 May 2006
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
AGHABIGGI v R SC 45/2006 [5 October 2006] (PDF, 16 KB)
Additional document
AGHABIGGI V R SC 45/2006 [17 April 2007] (PDF, 15 KB)
Case name
Amaltal Corporation Limited v Maruha Corporation and Maruha (NZ) Corporation Limited
Case number
SC 46/2006
Summary
Civil – appeal against Court of Appeal judgment on the application of s 28 Limitation Act 1950 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in either applying the wrong legal test, or applying the correct test wrongly – tort of deceit – whether the respondents’ claim for deceit was statute barred – meaning of “reasonable diligence” in s 28 – whether, with reasonable diligence, the respondent could have discovered the deceit.Cross-appeal – commercial joint venture – whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the respondents’ action for breach of fiduciary duty – whether the Court of Appeal erred in reducing the amount of damages awarded to the respondents – correct method of calculating damages for deceit.CA 232/04 1 June 2006
Result
A. Amaltal’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents of $2,500.
B. Maruha Corporation and Maruha (NZ) are granted leave to appeal.
C. The approved grounds of the Maruha appeal are: (i) Whether Amaltal was in breach of any fiduciary duty owed by it to Maruha.
(ii) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reducing the damages awarded by the High Court to Maruha.
6 September 2006
___________________________
The appeal is allowed. The respondent is found to have breached a fiduciary duty owed to the appellants.
The judgment sum is increased to $5,832,214.92.
The respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs in this Court in the amount of $15,000 plus reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. The award of costs to the appellants in the Court of Appeal is increased to $40,000.
1 June 2007
B. Maruha Corporation and Maruha (NZ) are granted leave to appeal.
C. The approved grounds of the Maruha appeal are: (i) Whether Amaltal was in breach of any fiduciary duty owed by it to Maruha.
(ii) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reducing the damages awarded by the High Court to Maruha.
6 September 2006
___________________________
The appeal is allowed. The respondent is found to have breached a fiduciary duty owed to the appellants.
The judgment sum is increased to $5,832,214.92.
The respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs in this Court in the amount of $15,000 plus reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. The award of costs to the appellants in the Court of Appeal is increased to $40,000.
1 June 2007
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 February 2007 SC 46/2006 (PDF, 301 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2007] NZSC 40 (PDF, 88 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Wali Javad Allahyai v The Queen
Case number
SC 47/2006
Summary
Criminal – appeal against Court of Appeal judgment, dismissing appeals against conviction and sentence for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm – fresh evidence – whether the Court of Appeal erred by not admitting fresh evidence advanced on appeal to that court – further fresh evidence that should be admitted now – whether there was an unfair trial and appeal due to police conduct. CA 330/04 7 June 2006
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ALLAHYAI v R SC 47/2006 [5 October 2006] (PDF, 23 KB)
Page 234 of 252