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.

24 June 2024

Case information summary 2024 (as at 21 June 2024) –  Cases where leave granted (121 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 21 June 2024)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 125 KB)

All years

Case name
Josephine Takamore v Denise Clarke  and Nehuata Takamore & Donald Takamore
Case number
SC 131/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Customary Law – Approach to determining whether Tūhoe burial custom forms part of the common law – Whether the Court of Appeal majority erred in its analysis of the reasonableness of the Tū hoe custom – Whether the Court of Appeal majority was wrong to hold that the Tūhoe custom was insufficiently certain to form part of the common law – Whether the Court of Appeal majority was correct to hold that Tū hoe custom was a relevant cultural consideration for an executor or executrix where one or more of the whānau pani of the deceased is Tūhoe and the deceased is Tūhoe under Tūhoe custom – Whether the Court of Appeal minority judgment raised important issues about the approach to findings of fact in the High Court[2011] NZCA  587   CA 525/2009
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds of appeal are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that New Zealand law entitled the executrix to determine disposal of the body of the deceased and whether it was correct to hold that the executrix is entitled to take possession of the body of the deceased notwithstanding its burial.

 

28 March 2012

________________________________

A The appeal is dismissed.
B  The first respondent is entitled to proceed under the exhumation licence to have Mr Takamore reburied in a place of her choosing.
C  The matter is remitted back to the High Court in case any consequential orders are necessary.
D  Costs are reserved. 

18 December 2012
Transcript

Hearing dates : 17 and 18 July 2012

Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Blanchard JJ.
Case name
Vodafone New Zealand Limited v Telecom New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 4/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Communications - Telecommunications Act 2001 – Final Determination by Commerce Commission for Telecommunications Services Obligations Instrument for Local Residential Service - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in maintaining the Commerce Commission’s approach to the calculation of the costs of providing Telecommunications Services Obligations in accordance with the requirements of ‘net cost’ under s 5 of the Telecommunications Act 2001.[2009] NZCA 565  CA 192/2008    2 December 2009
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
sc 4 2010 vodafone new zealand ltd v telecom new zealand ltd (PDF, 256 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
VODAFONE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v TELECOM NEW ZEALAND LIMITED SC 4/2010 [30 March 2010] (PDF, 10 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal granted.

The approved ground is whether the Commerce Commission, in making its determination, complied with the applicable statutory provisions.

30 March 2010

_________________________

Appeal dismissed.  No order for costs.

17 November 2011
Transcript

Hearing date : 21 – 24 February 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Case name
William Patrick Jeffries v The Privacy Commissioner
Case number
SC 5/2010
Summary
Civil – Litigation privilege – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that unsolicited communication does not attract litigation privilege under s56 of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the word ‘person’ in s91(4) of the Privacy Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to apply s74 of the Evidence Act 2006 to matters before the Privacy Commissioner – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to review the Privacy Commissioner’ s decisions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not addressing s27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2009] NZCA 567  CA 339/2008  3 December 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. The approved ground is whether unsolicited communications received by the applicant while acting as a barrister are capable of attracting litigation privilege.
31 March 2010
_______________________
The appeal  is dismissed. Any claim of privilege must be referred for the determination of the Privacy Commissioner in accordance with this judgment. No order for costs is made.
12 August 2010
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
JEFFRIES v THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER SC 5/2010 [31 March 2010] (PDF, 47 KB)
Substantive judgment
JEFFRIES v THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER SC 5/2010 [12 August 2010] (PDF, 104 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 21 July 2010

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
John Hanita Paki and others v Attorney-General
Case number
SC 7/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “navigable river” in terms of s 14 of the Coal Mines Amendment Act 1903; whether the Waikato River was navigable for the purposes of s  14; whether, in the 1880s and 1890s, the Crown owed the appellants’ ancestors, as Maori and Treaty of Waitangi partners, a fiduciary duty or a relational duty of good faith not to acquire their land or taonga except with their full and informed consent, namely, whether the Crown owed an obligation to advise the original owners of the usque ad medium filum aquae principle (legal title to land runs to midpoint of riverbed) and, if so, whether the Crown breach either of those duties; whether the appellants’ ancestors had customary title to the river; whether the appellants (as representatives or otherwise of the Pouakani hapu) have standing to bring their claim; whether the appellants’ claim is time-barred under the Limitation Act 1950; whether the appellants’ claim is barred under s 12 of the Pouakani Claims Settlement Act 2000;[2009] NZCA 566  CA 691/2009   1 December 2009
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds are:   (i) Did the applicants have standing to bring the proceeding in a representative capacity?   (ii) Did s  14 of the Coalmines Amendment Act 1903 vest title in the riverbed adjoining the Pouakani lands in the Crown?   (iii) If not, did the Crown acquire title to the claimed part of the riverbed through application of the presumption of riparian ownership ad medium filum aquae by reason of its acquisition of the riparian lands?   (iv) If so, in the circumstances in which the Crown acquired the claimed part of the riverbed, was it in breach of legally enforceable obligations owed to the owners from whom title was acquired?   (v) If so, have the applicants lost their right to enforce such obligations by reason of defences available to the Crown through lapse of time?   (vi) If not, what relief is appropriate? C The Registrar is directed to set down the hearing of the first two questions only for hearing at a fixture of 2 days.  Further timetabling and direction orders for hearing of the remaining Questions will be made at or following the first hearing.  The Court may review the expression of grounds 3 to 6 if it considers it appropriate to do so after hearing the argument of questions 1 and 2.
21 July 2010
________________
The appellants have standing to bring the proceedings in a representative capacity. The riverbed adjoining the Pouakani lands is not vested in the Crown under s 261 of the Coal Mines Act 1979 and s 354 of the Resource Management Act 1991. Costs are reserved.
27 June 2012
_______________
Appeal dismissed.
29 August 2014
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
PAKI and OTHERS v ATTORNEY-GENERAL SC 7/2010 [21 July 2010] (PDF, 10 KB)
Substantive judgment
JOHN HANITA PAKI & ORS v ATTORNEY - GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CROWN [2014] NZSC 11 8 [29 August 2014] (PDF, 603 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 19 July 2010

Hearing date : 15 and 16 March 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.

____________________

Hearing date : 19 and  20 February 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.
Case name
Synlait Limited v Central Plains Water Trust and Ors
Case number
SC 9/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991 – Water rights - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that priority of hearing is determined in favour of the first applicant to file a complete application – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to give adequate consideration to whether changes to an application after lodgement could affect which test would be applicable to determine priority and whether priority is maintained irrespective of what changes are made subsequent to lodgement – Whether the Court of Appeal provided inadequate recognition of the fact that an application can lose priority due to unreasonable delay.[2009] NZCA 609 CA 544/2008. CA 588/2008  18 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave granted
SYNLAIT LIMITED v CENTRAL PLAINS WATER TRUST And Ors SC 9/2010 [31 March 2010] (PDF, 7 KB)
Hearing

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

22 June 2010.
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

The approved ground is how priority is determined as between competing applications under the Resource Management Act 1991 for a finite resource.

31 March 2010.
Case name
Valerie Morse v The Queen
Case number
SC 10/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 to a charge of ‘offensive behaviour’ under s4(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of ss5 and 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to consider art 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Whether the classification of behaviour as ‘offensive’ is a question of fact or law.[2009] NZCA 623  CA 530/2008   22 December 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. The approved ground is whether the District Court correctly interpreted and applied s 4(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981. 18 May 2010
_______________________
Appeal allowed. Conviction entered against the appellant in the District Court is set aside.
6 May 2011
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
MORSE v THE POLICE SC 10/2010 [6 May 2011] (PDF, 338 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
MORSE v THE POLICE SC 10/2010 [18 May 2010] (PDF, 9 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 5 October 2010

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ
Case name
Cyndi Marcia Fairburn v The Queen
Case number
SC 20/2010
Summary
Criminal – Murder – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by refusing to allow fresh evidence from expert witnesses[2010] NZCA 44   CA 169/2009
Result
 

Further evidence is admitted.

The appeal is allowed and the conviction is quashed.

A new trial is ordered.

17 December 2010.
Hearing

29 and 30 November 2010.

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is granted

The approved ground is whether, in the light of the further evidence tendered in this Court and in the Court of Appeal, there has been a miscarriage of justice

18 June 2010
Case name
North Shore City Council v Body Corporate 188529 and Ors
Case number
SC 27/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the appellant owed duties of care to the owners and lessees of units in a multi-unit development respectively.  [2010] NZCA 65  CA 673/2008   22 March 2010
Result
A The application for leave to appeal by the North Shore City Council is granted.
B The approved grounds are:
(i) Whether and in what circumstances a local authority which performed regulatory functions under the Building Act 1991 in relation to the construction of a multi-unit residential development owed a duty of care to purchasers of units in the building to ensure that it complied with the building code.
(ii) Assuming such a duty exists, whether it extends to:
(a) Such persons who did not themselves at the time of purchase intend personally to occupy their unit(s) (investor owners); and
(b) Persons who subsequently acquired such units from the first purchasers after a claim for breach of duty to their predecessors had accrued; and
(iii) In light of the conclusions reached on the foregoing grounds, how these issues should be determined in the particular cases. C  The application for leave to appeal by the Second Respondent, Blue Sky Holdings Ltd, is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the North Shore City Council.
13 July 2010
___________________________
Appeal dismissed, Costs to the respondents.
17 December 2010
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL v BODY CORPORATE 188529 And Ors SC 27/2010 [13 July 2010] (PDF, 13 KB)
Substantive judgment
sc 27 2010 north shore city v body corporate 188529 and ors civil judgment (PDF, 205 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 8 – 10 November 2010

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
North Shore City Council v Body Corporate 189855 and Ors
Case number
SC 28/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the appellant owed duties of care to the owners and lessees of units in a multi-unit development respectively.  [2010] NZCA 65  CA 507/2008   22 March 2010
Result

A The application for leave to appeal is granted.

B The approved grounds are:

(i)  Whether and in what circumstances a local authority which performed regulatory functions under the Building Act 1991 in relation to construction of a multi-unit residential development owed a duty of care to purchasers of units in the building to ensure that it complied with the building code.

(ii) Assuming such a duty exists, whether it extends to:

(a) Such persons who did not themselves at the time of purchase intend personally to occupy their unit(s) (investor owners); and

(b) Persons who subsequently acquired such units from the first purchasers after a claim for breach of duty to their predecessors had accrued; and

(c) The body corporate.

(iii) Whether the conclusions which would otherwise be reached are affected in circumstances where the Council declined to issue a code compliance certificate.

(iv) In light of the conclusions reached on the foregoing grounds, how these issues should be determined in the particular cases.

  13 July 2010

________________________

Appeal dismissed,

Costs to the respondents

17 December 2010
Leave judgment - leave granted
NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL v BODY CORPORATE 189855 And Anor SC 28/2010 [13 July 2010] (PDF, 9 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 8 – 10 November 2010

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ

 
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.
Page 47 of 68