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.

8 November 2024

Case information summary 2024 (as at 8 November 2024) –  Cases where leave granted (126 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 8 November 2024)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 116 KB)

All years

Case name
Westpac Banking Corporation v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 22/2009
Summary
Tax Law – Whether judicial review of a Commissioner’s decision is inconsistent with the statutory scheme of challenge under Part VIIIA of the Tax Administration Act 1994; whether judicial review amounted to a collateral attack on the Commissioner’s decision; Whether exceptional circumstances existed that resulted in an amended assessment falling outside the scope of s 109 and s 114 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 (the statutory scheme of challenge) and thereby justifying judicial review; Whether conscious or deliberate maladministration are the only circumstances in which an assessment may be invalid; Whether there was a breach of a legitimate expectation held by Westpac; Whether the Commissioner’s amended assessment was not an honest appraisal or a genuine exercise of judgment; Whether the Commissioner’s amended assessment was the product of an abuse of power; Whether the Commissioner’ s procedure applied in coming to an amended assessment was consistent with the law; Whether a correct assessment, reached by an improper process, is valid.[2009] NZCA  24 CA 624/07   20 February 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements to the respondent.
8 April 2009
Case name
Ian Laywood and Gary Rees v Holmes Construction Wellington Limited
Case number
SC 23/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Construction Contracts Act 2002 – Statutory Interpretation – Enforcement of adjudicator’s determination by entry as judgment – Extent to which Construction Contracts Act judgments are to be treated differently as matter of law to non-Construction Contract Act judgments vis-à-vis Insolvency legislation – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding ss 73 and 74 of the Construction Contracts Act created a special regime for the enforcement of adjudicators’ determinations that is not subject to s 29 of the District Courts Act 1947 and that entry of a judgment pursuant to ss 73 and 74 was a final judgment for the purposes of s 19(1) of the Insolvency Act 1967 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding principles of natural justice and s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 did not entitle the Appellants to an oral hearing (as opposed to judgment being delivered on the papers).[2009] NZCA  35   CA 83/2008    25 February 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to respondent. 15 May 2009
Judgment appealed from

 

Case name
Govind Prasad Saha v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 24/2009
Summary
Civil appeal – application of the foreign investment fund rules contained in Part CG of the Income Tax Act 1994 – the appellant was a partner in a firm that sold its consultancy business to a French company – as part of the sale transaction the appellant agreed to work for the consultancy business for five years from the date of settlement – as part of the sale transaction the appellant received a package of shares in the French company to be gradually released to him over a five year period – the appellant ended his employment in the consultancy business prematurely – the resulting deed of settlement provides that 50% of the unreleased shares will be transferred to the French company – whether the transfer of shares is a “disposition” for the purpose of s CG 23(5) – whether the appellant derived a gain in kind from the transfer of shares for the purposes of s CG 14(2)[2009] NZCA 76 CA 617/2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal is granted. 25 May 2009
______________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs $15,000 to respondent.
23 July 2010
 Transcript

Hearing date : 27 October 2009

Chief Justice, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Wilson JJ.

 
Case name
The Commerce Commission v Carter Holt Harvey Limited
Case number
SC 25/2009
Summary
Civil – Strike-out – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that for the purposes of s 43(5) of the Fair Trading Act 1986 the relevant knowledge was that of both the Commission and the person who had suffered loss – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to hold that knowledge of “likelihood of loss or damage” was sufficient for time to start running for a claim for relief under s 43(2)(c) and (d) of the Fair Trading Act – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to conflate discovery of a breach of the Fair Trading Act with discovery of loss or damage – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that only a minimal amount of knowledge is required to set the limitation period running under s 43 of the Fair Trading Act – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Commission discovered the loss or damage before the limitation date[2009] NZCA 40  CA 316/2007 27 February 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
25 May 2009
__________________________
Appeal allowed. The order of the Court of Appeal is set aside and the application to strike out the appellant’s proceeding is dismissed. The respondent is ordered to pay the appellant for its costs in this Court the sum of $15,000 plus disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.  The costs order made in the Court of Appeal is reversed and the costs order made in the High Court is reinstated.
27 November 2009
Transcripts
Media Releases
Case name
TFAC Limited, Geoffrey Alan Grisdale and Amanda May Grisdale v Susan Elizabeth David and UAR Limited
Case number
SC 26/2009
Summary
Civil – Fair Trading Act 1986 – Australian home services franchising operation – Applicants entered into a master franchise agreement covering Auckland’s eastern suburbs with the respondents, who owned the New Zealand master franchise – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and law in its finding that the respondents did not engage in misleading and deceptive conduct in breach of s 9 of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overlooking the High Court’s finding that the respondents had breached s 22(1) and (2) of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in treating a particular pleaded misrepresentation as a misrepresentation as to a future matter – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a particular opinion was honestly held by the first respondent and had a reasonable basis – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its finding that even if the respondents had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct the causal link necessary to justify relief under s 43 of the Act was doubtful – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its finding that the respondents were protected from liability by various disclaimer and acknowledgement clauses.[2009] NZCA 44 CA 26/2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
26 May 2009
Case name
Ivan Vladimir Joseph Erceg v Balenia Limited
Case number
SC 27/2009
Summary
Civil appeal – alleged contractual breach by the appellant – clause A4(a) of the contract stipulates that the appellant’s former solicitors are to be satisfied that the respondent has clear title to the super-yachts which form the subject of the contract – the appellant’s former solicitors have not certified the respondent’s title to the super-yachts – whether the respondent is required to give notice to the appellant of its intention to rely on his alleged breach – whether the respondent is entitled to sue before making time of the essence for performance of the contract – whether the respondent bears the onus of proving that it would have been able to show clear title to the super-– whether the respondent can treat clause A4(a) as being fulfilled for the purposes of obtaining relief – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to order specific performance of the contract.[2009] NZCA 48  CA 553/2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
27 May 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Aaron Mark Wi v The Queen
Case number
SC 28/2009
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against convictions for wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and assault with intent to injure – Substantial miscarriage of justice – Whether appellant unfairly prejudiced by trial Judge’s ruling precluding appellant from adducing evidence of lack of convictions for violent offending.[2009] NZCA 81  CA 586/2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
7 May 2009
_____________________
Appeal dismissed.
27 November 2009
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
 Transcript

Hearing date : 18 August 2009

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and Wilson JJ.

Case name
Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated v Kapiti Coast District Council and Kotuku Parks Limited
Case number
SC 29/2009
Summary
Civil appeal – ss 94A(c) & 93 Resource Management Act 1991 – application for resource consent to subdivide land adjacent to the Waikanae River Estuary Scenic Reserve – Department of Conservation gave written approval to the application – decision taken to proceed to hear the application without notification – Court of Appeal held that the approval of the Department of Conservation did not allow the first respondent to disregard the effects of the application on the Reserve when deciding whether to notify – whether the first respondent is required to consider the effects of the application on the Reserve when making the notification decision under s 93 – whether the first respondent must be “satisfied” that the adverse effects of the activity on the Reserve will be minor – whether the Court of Appeal correctly applied ss 94A(c) & 93[2009] NZCA 73  CA 695/07
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondents jointly. 16 June 2009
Case name
Elias Akle v The Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 30/2009
Summary
Civil – Commerce Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that s 4 is not the repository of the extraterritorial reach of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that proof of personal conduct in New Zealand is not critical to establishing jurisdiction in respect of overseas residents – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that conduct in New Zealand could be attributed or imputed to overseas parties in the absence of a recognised legal basis, or the requirements of s 90 being met – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that the application to set aside the protest to jurisdiction against Mr Akle should succeed in the absence of any allegation that he communicated with or directed any New Zealand actor to do any impugned act while the New Zealand actor was overseas.
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
16 June 2009
_____________________________________
It was adjudged that a notice of abandonment having been lodged the appeal is dismissed.
13 July 2009
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Darin Joseph Gardner v The Queen
Case number
SC 31/2009
Summary
Criminal appeal – Applicant convicted of murder, injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and injuring with intent to injure – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant’s trial was fair – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the discharge of only one juror in certain circumstances, rather than two, was fair – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that provocation was not available as a defence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that provocation and defence of another were not material in the applicant’s sentencing.[2009] NZCA 113   CA 665/07
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 16 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed