The following are some cases in which Anthony has acted as counsel:
Brickell v Brickell  FAM-31,  3 WLR 602,  1 All ER 508.
Orr v AB Consolidated Holdings 1978 Recent Law 281 (waiver of conditions in the law of contract).
Archer v Cutler  1 NZLR 386 (unconscionable bargains/mental capacity for contract).
Metcalfe v Skyline Holdings Limited (1982) 1 NZCPR 480 (sale of land - caveats).
Klissers Farmhouse Bakeries Limited v Allied Foods Co Limited (1982) 1 NZIPR 369 (passing off).
The Lion Nathan merger. He acted for Douglas Myers in the lengthy litigation which surrounded this contested merger.
Kupe v Ariadne & ors. He acted for Kupe in the substantial commercial litigation which it brought against Bruce Judge and others arising from the dubious means by which Mr Judge funded his acquisition of a shareholding in the company.
The Cory Wright & Salmon litigation in which he acted for the deputy chairman of that Company in litigation which was brought against him, and other directors, by the receiver. The litigation was concerned with directors’ duties.
The Kincaid insider trading litigation in which he acted for Fay, Richwhite & Co.
Magnum Corporation: Insider trading. He acted for the former managing director of Magnum Corporation in defence of the allegations of insider trading which were made against him.
New Zealand Steel – kiwifruit pollution. He acted for New Zealand Steel Limited in 36 or more proceedings which were brought against the Company by neighbours whose crops were allegedly damaged by airborne pollution from the mill at Waiuku. The claims were made in nuisance, negligence, and Rylands v Fletcher. The litigation spanned a number of years. Most of the claims were eventually settled but there was a three week trial before Anderson J of some claims involving contested liability issues.
Christchurch Casino licence application– He acted for one of the two applicants for the Christchurch Casino licence in a lengthy licence hearing.
Securities Commission & the Market Surveillance Panel of the New Zealand Stock Exchange – he was involved in some complaints initiated by the Securities Commission and the Market Surveillance Panel of the New Zealand Stock Exchange. These included a complaint relating to a company whose pension scheme was held to be unduly favourable to the employer; a firm of accountants whose published comments on the state of a newly listed company were said to have been materially deficient; and the consequences of an inaccurate statement by a company to the Stock Exchange about the reasons for the volatility of its share price.
Multi-jurisdictional dispute: Company law - He acted in the Paladin litigation – which involved numerous aspects of company law in the context of disputes to control a company listed on both the New Zealand and Hong Kong stock exchanges. It involved the co-ordination of proceedings in New Zealand, Hong Kong and Bermuda.
Rugby League cases – He acted for some rugby league players who were prevented by restrictive covenants from playing overseas and succeeded in freeing them from the constraints. The two cases (involving the players Tony Kemp and the subsequent New Zealand captain, Stephen Kearney) led to the discontinuance by the NZRFL of its opposition to New Zealand players moving to Australia to advance their skills there.
Amarillo Cell Culture Inc v Fernz Corp. He acted for Fernz Corporation in a significant bio-tech patent dispute in the mid 90s involving a low-dose interferon tablet which was alleged to infringe a US patent.
A v F-A. He acted for a husband in this lengthy matrimonial property dispute. It involved the substantial assets of a politician. It was believed to involve the largest sums in any matrimonial property dispute which had gone to Court at that time. The first instance decision was reported topically on the front page of the New Zealand Herald.
Reliance v Schaeffer. He acted for the plaintiff – a company owned by the Jardine Matheson Group of Hong Kong. Jardine had invested in two businesses in New Zealand and sought the recovery from the vendor of the substantial losses which it sustained following the purchase. The case, involving allegations of misrepresentation, went to a 10 week trial in 1998.
Blue Boats Limited v Gulf Tourist Services (1982) Limited (1985) 6 IPR 256 (passing off).
Bayer AG v Pacific Pharmaceuticals Limited (1986) 7 IPR 227, 1 TCLR 347 (passing off).
Malayan Breweries & Ors v Lion Corporation & Ors (1988) 3 Butterworths Company Reports 70 (aspects of Company law).
Malayan Breweries Limited v Lion Corporation Limited (1988) 1 PRNZ 629 (third party discovery).
Kemp v New Zealand Rugby Football League Inc  3 NZLR 463 (restraint of trade).
UPL Group Limited v Dux Engineers Limited  3 NZLR 135 (CA) 2 TCLR 687 (copyright, passing off, registered designs).
Franklin Machinery Limited v Albany Farm Centre Limited (1991) 23 IPR 649, 2 TCLR 659 (copyright).
Kearney v NZ Rugby Football League Inc (1991) 4 PRNZ 581 (security for costs).
CML v Wilson Neill (1992) 5 PRNZ 535 (insider trading).
Cory-Wright & Salmon v Peat Marwick (1992) 5 PRNZ 518 (security for costs).
Grayburn v Laing  2 NZLR 701 (directors’ duties).
CML v Wilson Neill Ltd  2 NZLR 617 (interpretation of Securities Amendment Act).
Re Smiths City Group Limited (in rec)  MCLR 122 (Companies law: scheme of arrangement).
Avis v Mainzeal  3 NZLR 357 (bailment/interpretation of contracts).
Kincaid v Capital Markets (1995) 7 NZCLC 260,718 (insider trading).
A v A (1997) 16 FRNZ 117, Giles J, (matrimonial property).
Beaumont v NZ Kiwifruit Marketing Board  3 NZLR 373 (interpretation of the Kiwifruit legislation).
NZ Kiwifruit Marketing Board v Beaumont  3 NZLR 516 (CA)(interpretation of Kiwifruit legislation).
O v A. This was a matrimonial property dispute concerning the validity of a pre-nuptial agreement, which was tried over a period of seven days by Laurenson J. The case went to the Court of Appeal.
Valda Video & Others v United Video (2000). This was a franchising dispute which was tried over several days by Justice Randerson. It involved successful claims of misrepresentation in the context of one of New Zealand’s larger indigenous franchises. The decision and subsequent developments were the subject of several articles in the media as well as comment in the NZ Recent Law Review.
Chisholm v Auckland CC (2000) 15 PRNZ 1 (protocols for TV coverage of court trials).
Chisholm v ACC (No 2) 2000) 15 PRNZ 134 (protocols for TV coverage of court trials).
Juken Nissho Limited v Parkinson & Others. This litigation went to a three week trial before Paterson J in 1999. It involved contractual disputes arising from forestry leases in Northland.
de Malmanche v de Malmanche  2 NZLR 838;  NZFLR 579; (2002) FRNZ 145. This was the first case under the Property (Relationships) Act to be considered in the High Court. It went to trial for four days in February 2002. Priestley J’s judgment has been the subject of many articles on the role and operation of the Statute.
Robinson Crothall Ltd v Snap-On Inc (2002) 16 PRNZ 430. The judgment in this case is concerned with the entitlement of individual plaintiffs to be present in Court during the trial of their claims. It arose in the context of a franchise dispute.
Kwik Kopy litigation. This was a franchising dispute in which Anthony acted for various franchisees against an Australian franchisor. It went to trial for two weeks before Laurenson J and was adjourned part heard. The parties subsequently settled their disputes.
Glaister v Amalgamated Dairies Limited  1 NZLR 829. This was a share valuation dispute involving shares in the company controlled by the Goodfellow family. Anthony acted for the plaintiff. The case went to trial for 8 days before Heath J in 2002. The plaintiff succeeded in its claims for more than $3m and in resisting a counterclaim for more than $4m.
A v B. This litigation involved a trust which was established by a US settlor under the Cook Islands’ International Trusts Act. The dispute involved about US$18m. There were three significant decisions in 2002. David Williams QC, in his role as a Judge of the High Court of the Cook Islands, delivered a decision which is reported in the International Trusts & Estates Law Reports - (2002) 4 ITELR 877. A subsequent decision in 2002 was appealed to the Cook Islands’ Court of Appeal.
Glaister v Amalgamated Dairies Ltd (2003) 16 PRNZ 536. This decision concerns the interpretation of the costs rules and whether the rejection of a mediation proposal should result in costs sanctions.
He acted as senior counsel for the CFO of Tranz Rail in the insider trading litigation which the Securities Comission initiated against Mr David Richwhite and others. The claim against the CFO was eventually settled in May 2005.
He acted as senior counsel in 2005 for the CFO of Provenco, in the insider trading litigation which was initiated against various officers of that Company.
Aotearoa International v Paper Reclaim (2006) 3 NZLR 188 (CA). This case involved a number of important legal issues including the period of reasonable notice that should be given for determining a joint venture; entitlement to indemnity costs, and whether exemplary damages are available for breach of contract.
Paper Reclaim Limited v Aotearoa International Limited  2 NZLR 1, Supreme Court. The circumstances in which the Supreme Court will receive further evidence.
Paper Reclaim Limited v Aotearoa International Limited  2 NZLR 124, Supreme Court - the circumstances in which a party can amend its case in the Supreme Court.
Paper Reclaim v Aotearoa (2007) 3 NZLR 169. Supreme Court. Period of reasonable notice to terminate a contract; the measure of damages for the wrongful repudiation of contract; the circumstances in which a fiduciary relationship will arise in a commercial contract.
X v X  NZFLR 361 (Family Court) and (2007) NZFLR 502 (High Court). whether a Court should modify a Trust pursuant to s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act, and other issues.
X v X  NZFLR 947 (High Court) leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
X v X  NZFLR 512 - s 18B of PRA.
X v X  NZFLR 956 CA. The circumstances in which a Trust should be modified under s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act.
Oxley v Lookout Holdings Ltd (2008). The interrelation of a Bermudan Trust and a New Zealand Trust including the removal of powers of appointment of a New Zealand appointor.
Fong & another v Wong (2008) This case involves the price that a director is required to pay for shares in an unlisted Company. It has been the subject of articles and comment in both the legal and business media. The case went to trial before Keane J in 2009 and to the Court of Appeal in 2010. The case involves the meaning of the term "fair value" as contrasted with the term "fair market value" in the context of a purchase of shares by one director from another director.
E v P (2009). This case involved allegations of domestic violence and applications for an Occupation Order. The client had a public profile and the identities of the parties were suppressed by judicial order. This did not stop the radio, newspapers and internet news sources from reporting as much as they thought they could get away with.
Surecare & Others v At Your Request Ltd & A Kenny  3 NZLR 102. This was a franchising case. Anthony acted for a franchisee who tried to stop a dispute going to arbitration. It was argued that the arbitration clause was contrary to public policy.
Gordon & Others v A-G (2010) Potter J. Variation of Trust under ss 64 and 64A of the Trustee Act.
Fong v Wong, Supreme Court, 13 December 2010 (the meaning of "fair value" in a compulsory share purchase).
Fong v Wong (2010) 20 PRNZ 22, whether prescription of entitlement to costs is displaced when a party discontinues a proceeding "without prejudice".
Fong v Wong (2010) 20 PRNZ 250, the circumstances in which the Supreme Court can recall its judgment.
Much of his time between 2011-15 was taken up with a case which was the subject of comprehensive secrecy orders which suppressed not only the identity of the litigants but also the topic of the litigation.
Farn & Others v Loosley  NZHC 1045 (Onus of proving testamentary capacity).
In the matter of Goldman  NZLR 357 (Entitlement to be Litigation Guardian).
Anthony has a broad practice in the Law of Trusts and Estates and at any one time is actively involved in many cases on these subjects.