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
Tess Jean Edwards v The Queen
Case number
SC 5/2006
Summary
Criminal law - appeal from Court of Appeal decision on Solicitor-General appeal against sentence for injuring with intent to injure - whether Court of Appeal erred in refusing to vacate guilty plea - whether Court of Appeal erred in allowing appeals by Solicitor-General and substituting a sentence of three and a half years' imprisonment - whether the Court of Appeal should have remitted the case to the District Court to allow the appellant to reconsider her guilty plea in light of its decision that the sentencing Judge misinformed himself in light of the Court of Appeal's decision in Taueki . CA 390/05 7 December 2005
Result
Leave to Appeal granted.
28 March 2006
_________________
20 July 2006.
Appeal dismissed.
28 March 2006
_________________
20 July 2006.
Appeal dismissed.
Judgment appealed from
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Taunoa and Others v Attorney-General and Another
Case number
SC 6/2006
Summary
Civil - prisoners claims for compensation for mistreatment by the Department of Corrections - whether Department breached the First, Second and Fourth appellants' rights not to be subjected to cruel, degrading, or disproportionately severe treatment or punishment under New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (" NZBORA"), s 9 - whether Department breached the appellants' right to natural justice under NZBORA, s 27(1) - whether the Department breached the appellants' equivalent rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR") and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ("CAT") - whether Attorney-General's failure to hold a prompt and impartial investigation of the complaints breached NZBORA, s 9 or CAT or ICCPR - whether Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners 1955 form part of customary international law - whether Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Act 2005 is inconsistent with NZBORA ss 9, 23(5), 27(1); CAT arts 2, 14, 16; ICCPR arts 10(1), 14, 26 - whether Victims' Special Claims Tribunal is independent and impartial or breaches the principles of separation of powers and equality before the law. CA 82/04 8 December 2005
Result
Leave to Appeal granted.
12 April 2006
_________________________
The appeals are dismissed.
The cross-appeals are allowed to the following extent:
1. The damages awarded to Mr Taunoa are reduced to $35,000.
2. The damages awarded to Mr Robinson are reduced to $20,000.
3. The damages awarded to Mr Kidman are reduced to $4,000.
The cross-appeal in relation to Mr Gunbie is dismissed.
Costs are reserved.
31 August 2007
Leave judgment - leave granted
Transcript
Substantive judgment / Media release
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Alan John Shirley v Wairarapa District Health Board
Case number
SC 10/2006
Summary
Civil - costs - defendant in negligence proceedings persuaded plaintiff to join second defendant - plaintiff discontinued proceedings against first defendant after accepting settlement offer - second defendant successfully defended claim in full hearing - whether second defendant entitled to costs against first defendant. CA 43/05 7 December 2005
Result
Leave to Appeal granted.
21 March 2006
_______________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 plus disbursements.
23 August 2006
21 March 2006
_______________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 plus disbursements.
23 August 2006
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment / Media release
Case name
AMP v MacAlister Todd
Case number
SC 13/2006
Summary
Civil – insurance – solicitor trustee negligently failed to recognise that GST was payable on sale of trust assets – whether solicitor’ s firm entitled to indemnity from insurer – whether Court of Appeal failed to address a principal ground of appeal – whether claim against firm arose “from a trading loss or trading liability incurred by a business managed by or carried on by the insured” – whether claim against own firm by solicitor in capacity as trustee is a claim “made against” the firm – whether causation between solicitor’s negligence and loss – which party has onus to show causation – whether evidential basis to find that trustees would have secured indemnity from trust funds had solicitor not been negligent CA 108/05 15 December 2005
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
4 July 2006
_________________________
Appeal allowed, Judgment entered for the appellant on the respondents claim. No award of costs.
8 December 2006
4 July 2006
_________________________
Appeal allowed, Judgment entered for the appellant on the respondents claim. No award of costs.
8 December 2006
Substantive judgment
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Leave judgment - leave granted
Transcript
Hearing date : 20 0ctober 2006
Case name
Trustee Executors Limited v Peter James Murray and others and Morel & Co Ltd and Jennifer Ann Morel
Case number
SC 15/2006
Summary
Civil - allotment of participatory securities - 'payment' of minimum amount within 4 months of registered prospectus - whether the tender and acceptance of a cheque on terms that it be held and its value offset against the amount payable to its drawer on settlement can "be deemed to have been paid" within the meaning of Securities Act 1978, s 37(2)(a) - whether statutory supervisor owes common law duty of care in addition to duty to exercise reasonable diligence imposed by statutory implication and Deed of Participation - whether a duty as trustee of funds received pursuant to an offer of securities can be imposed in addition to an express duty as statutory supervisor - whether exclusion clause in Deed of Participation can exclude liability except for breach of the statutory implied duty to exercise reasonable diligence - whether negligent or inadvertent breach of trust can amount to (equitable) fraud for the purposes of Limitation Act 1950, s 28. CA 86/04 22 December 2005
Result
4 April 2006 – Leave to Appeal granted
Transcript
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment / Media release
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Peter James Murray and others and Morel & Co Ltd and Jennifer Ann Morel
Case number
SC 17/2006
Summary
Civil - allotment of participatory securities - numerous causes of actions brought against respondents alleging, among other things, an allotment in breach of Securities Act 1978, s 37(2), and issuing a prospectus containing untrue statements in breach of Securities Act 1978, s 56 - causes of action struck out as an abuse of process, being time barred pursuant to the Limitation Act 1950 - whether the doctrine of “reasonable discoverability” should apply to all causes of action. CA 86/04 22 December 2005
Result
4 April 2006 – Leave to Appeal granted
Transcript
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment / Media
Transcript
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Paper Reclaim Limited v Aotearoa International Limited
Case number
SC 25/2006
Summary
Civil – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the appellant’ s liability to the respondent would be for lost commissions between 2 February 2001 and the end of a reasonable notice period – whether the letter of 2 February 2001 was a repudiation – whether damages recoverable are damages for that repudiation – basis upon which damages to be calculated – interrelationship between repudiation and resultant cancellation of a contract. CA 70/04 14 March 2006
Result
Leave to Appeal granted.
2 June 2006
2 June 2006
Leave judgment - leave granted
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment / Media release
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Aotearoa International Limited v Paper Reclaim Limited
Case number
SC 28/2006
Summary
Civil – exclusion from export venture – whether Court of Appeal erred in its determination of an appropriate notice-of-termination period – whether Court of Appeal wrong to interfere with trial Judge’s finding that respondent’s sales of waste paper to third party for export was in breach of its contract with the applicant – whether Court of Appeal wrong to deny applicant equitable relief for loss arising from breach of fiduciary duty – whether Court of Appeal wrong to interfere with trial Judge’ s finding that respondent’s principals made false affidavits and gave false evidence in denying existence of contract and therefore whether Court of Appeal erred in setting aside costs awarded on an indemnity basis. CA 70/04 14 March 2006
Result
Leave to Appeal granted.
2 June 2006
2 June 2006
Leave judgment - leave granted
paperreclaimltdvsaotearoainternationalltd 000 (PDF, 15 KB)
Substantive judgment / Media release
Judgment appealed from
Leave judgment - leave granted
Transcript
SC about ground of appeal
Case name
Brett Ronald Larsen v Rick Dees Limited
Case number
SC 29/2006
Summary
Civil appeal – agreement for sale and purchase of ten residential units – delays in settlement - vendor issued settlement notice - notice specified that on receipt from purchaser of faxed bank cheque for settlement figure, title documents would be delivered – purchaser transferred funds electronically before the time limit but confirmation fax only received after time limit – Court of Appeal allowed appeal from decision of High Court in which purchaser’s claim for specific performance was dismissed on basis that purchaser had not settled in accordance with the settlement notice – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the purchaser had fulfilled its obligation to settle in terms of the settlement notice - whether the Court of Appeal applied the correct provision of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979 with respect to the vendor’s entitlement to cancel. CA 82/05 13 March 2006
Result
Leave to Appeal granted. 2 June 2006 ____________________ The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court dismissing the respondent’s claim is restored.
The appellant is awarded costs in this Court of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. The appellant is also awarded costs in the Court of Appeal of $6,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar of that Court. 1 June 2007
The appellant is awarded costs in this Court of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. The appellant is also awarded costs in the Court of Appeal of $6,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar of that Court. 1 June 2007
Leave judgment - leave granted
LARSEN V RICK DEES LIMITED SC 29/2006 [2 June 2006] (PDF, 13 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Transcript
Judgment appealed from
Substantive judgment / Media release
Case name
The Secretary for Justice As the New Zealand Central Authority v HJ
Case number
SC 36/2006
Summary
Summary Civil appeal * Care of Children Act 2004 * children wrongfully removed to New Zealand by one parent * other parent made application for an order for children to be returned to Australia * statutory defence to an order available under s 106(1)(a) - whether the Court of Appeal erred in its construction of s 106(1)(a) * whether the Court of Appeal erred in its exercise of discretion under s 106(1)(a).
CA 149/04 11 April 2006
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
27 June 2006
___________________________
The appeal is dismissed. Costs are reserved
16 November 2006
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Page 61 of 68