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
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
Hearing date : 8 – 10 November 2010
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
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
Hearing date : 8 – 10 November 2010
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs to Respondent $1,250.
6 May 2010Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
9 June 2010.
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
13 October 2010.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.
- sc 33 2010 marlborough district council v (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Hearing dates : 14 and 15 February 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs to respondents $2,500.
28 May 2010.
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs $2,500 to the 1st respondent.
13 July 2010.- sc 37 2010 k v b (PDF, 497 KB)
- sc 37 2010 k v b press release (PDF, 80 KB)
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
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.