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.
11 July 2024
Case information summary 2024 (as at 5 July 2024) – Cases where leave granted (123 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 5 July 2024) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 126 KB)
All years
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
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)
Judgment appealed from
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment / Media release
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
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
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Substantive judgment / Media release
Page 62 of 68