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
John Carr Laidlaw and Carol Anne Laidlaw v Geoffret Francis Parsonage and Timothy John Goulding
Case number
SC 67/2009
Summary
Civil appeal – contract law - Whether a nominee is entitled to enforce a contract; Whether the phrase "or nominee" is a sufficient designation for purposes of s 4 of the Contracts (Privity) Act 1982.[2009] NZCA 291 CA 304 /2008 9 July 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the respondents. 21 September 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
K v The Queen
Case number
SC 68/2009
Summary
Criminal – Sexual Offending – Rape – Evidence – Admissibility – recent complaint and hearsay evidence – Appeal against conviction – Whether substantial miscarriage of justice established – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding (1) that the trial Judge’ s directions on admissible evidence were adequate; (2) that there was sufficient evidence of penetration; (3) That the evidence of the complainant’s sister was not inadmissible recent complaint evidence; (4) That expert evidence relating to a summary of facts was inconsequential; (5) That it was unnecessary for the trial Judge to give a reliability direction in light of the evidence of intoxication; (6) that the trial Judge correctly ruled on the inadmissibility of two recorded telephone calls.[2009] NZCA 307 CA 664 /2008 16 July 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 20 October 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
K (CA 644/2008) V R SC 68/2009 20 October 2009 (PDF, 43 KB)
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassney and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 69/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – natural justice – orders were made in the High Court against the applicant, the publisher of several websites, in respect of a defamation claim – whether the High Court judge was correct to allow an amended statement of claim to be filed and proceed to an ex parte hearing on 8 October 2008 – whether the High Court judge erred in awarding the respondent $940,000 in damages plus costs and issuing a permanent injunction against the applicant prohibiting several defamatory publications – whether the High Court judge misrepresented evidence in finding against the applicant.Civ 2005 404 001808 23 December 2009
Result
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed
Case name
Ralph Lindsay Brunie v The Queen
Case number
SC 70/2009
Summary
Criminal appeal – appeal against sentence – convictions for sexual offending – whether the sentence of six years imprisonment (reduced from seven years by the Court of Appeal) was manifestly excessive[2009] NZCA 300 CA 199/2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
7 October 2009
7 October 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BRUNIE V R SC 70/2009 7 October 2009 (PDF, 12 KB)
Case name
Conway Lewis and Johanna Lewis v Karen Betty Mason and Jeffrey Philip Meltzer as Liquidators of Global Print Strategies Limited (in Liquidation)
Case number
SC 71/2009
Summary
Civil – liquidation under s 301 of Companies Act 1993 – whether liabilities of a company in liquidation arising post-liquidation should be included in calculating the compensation payable under s 301 – whether the Court of Appeal adopted the correct legal approach in considering the issue of causation in respect of an order under s 301 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in considering the issues of culpability in respect of an order under s 301.[2009] NZCA 306 CA 676/2008 20 July 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
14 October 2009
14 October 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Red Eagle Corporation Limited v Richard John Otley Ellis
Case number
SC 72/2009
Summary
Civil appeal – whether the respondent is liable under s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 for passing on information about a third party which induced the appellant to enter into a contact with that third party[2009] NZCA 320 CA 713/2008 24 July 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
7 October 2009
____________________
Appeal allowed and the judgment of the High Court is restored. Costs $15,000 plus reasonable disbursements in this Court. Order for costs in the Court of Appeal is reversed. HighCourt to fix costs that that has not already been done.
12 March 2010
7 October 2009
____________________
Appeal allowed and the judgment of the High Court is restored. Costs $15,000 plus reasonable disbursements in this Court. Order for costs in the Court of Appeal is reversed. HighCourt to fix costs that that has not already been done.
12 March 2010
Transcripts
- sc 72 2009 red eagle corporation limited v ellis (PDF, 377 KB)
Media Releases
- press release red eagle corp ltd (PDF, 40 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Hearing date : 10 February 2010
Elias CJ, Blanchard, McGrath, Wilson, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Kevin Stanton Burdett v The Queen
Case number
SC 73/2009
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against sentence – Sexual offending against girl aged between 12 and 16 years – Whether Court of Appeal erred in fixing starting point of 3.5 years’ imprisonment for a first offender charged with a single act of sexual connection when no tariff decision established for relevant type of sexual offending – Whether Court of Appeal failed to take into account availability of home detention as a sentencing option?[2009] NZCA 366 CA 115/2009 19 August 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 4 November 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BURDETT V R SC 73/2009 4 November 2009 (PDF, 34 KB)
Case name
Philip Wayne Hart v The Queen
Case number
SC 74/2009
Summary
Criminal appeal – appeal against conviction – convictions for sexual offending – the trial judge acceded to an application by the Crown for a prior consistent statement of the complainant to be admitted in terms of s 35(2) of the Evidence Act 2006 to rebut the assertion that the complainant’s evidence was fabricated in order to entitle her to ACC – whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that defence counsel asserted recent invention on the part of the complainant and thus attacked the complainant’s veracity, opening the way to evidence on that topic under s 37 and also justifying an application by the Crown for an order that the complainant’s prior consistent statement was admissible under s 35(2) – whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the trial judge did not need to direct the jury on its use of the prior consistent statement because such statements, once admitted, are admissible for the truth of their contents under the Evidence Act 2006.[2009] NZCA 276 CA 609/2008 29 June 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
15 October 2009
_______________________________
Appeal dismissed.
23 July 2010
15 October 2009
_______________________________
Appeal dismissed.
23 July 2010
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
HART v R SC 74/2009 [23 July 2010] (PDF, 210 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 18 November 2009
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and Wilson JJ.
Case name
Totara Investment Limited v Crismac Limited and Ulster Limited
Case number
SC 75/2009
Summary
Civil – Interpretation of a mortgage - Whether the Court of Appeal erred as a matter of fact and law in finding that cl 9.1(d) of the mortgage did not authorise the lender to obtain security over additional property.[2009] NZCA 369 CA 599/2008 21 August 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
21 October 2009
______________________
tbc
21 October 2009
______________________
tbc
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, McGrath, Wilson, Anderson JJ.
Case name
The Commerce Commission v Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Limited and Telecom New Zealand
Case number
SC 76/2009
Summary
Civil – alleged breach of s 36 of the Commerce Act 1986 – the Privy Council in Telecom Corporation of New Zealand v Clear Communications [1995] 1 NZLR 385 formulated a counterfactual test (whether a hypothetical firm, not in a dominant position but otherwise in the same circumstances, would have acted as the dominant firm did) to determine whether a firm has used its dominant position in breach of s 36 – whether this test is the appropriate and necessary test for determining a breach of s 36 – if the test is reconsidered, and if the question is assessed on a factual enquiry rather than solely by apply a counterfactual analysis, whether Telecom used its dominant position in the national retail market in breach of s 36 – alternatively, whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that, on application of the counterfactual test, the Commission had not demonstrated that Telecom had used its dominant market position in breach of s 36 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in not considering whether the High Court erred in finding that Telecom did not have an anticompetitive purpose under s 36(1) of the Act.[2009] NZCA 338 CA 288/2008 4 August 2009
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
30 October 2009
__________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant must pay the respondents costs of $50,000 plus disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
1 September 2010
Transcript
Hearing date : 21 – 24 June 2010
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ
Page 199 of 244