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.

12 December 2025

Case information summary 2025 (as at 18 December 2025) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary 2025 (as at 18 December 2025)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 121 KB)

All years

Case name
Shane Daniel Hannigan  v The Queen
Case number
SC 20/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Evidence Act 2006, ss 43 and 94 – Appeal against conviction for arson – Propensity evidence – Whether propensity evidence admitted without regard to the balancing exercise required by s 43 to determine whether the probative value of the evidence is outweighed the risk that it would be unfairly prejudicial – Whether evidence related to the specific issue in dispute – Whether any direction to the jury as to how to use the evidence should have been given – Whether evidence amounted to separate criminal allegations that should have been brought as separate charges – Cross-examination – Whether Crown breached s 94 by cross-examining its own witness – Whether Court of Appeal should have applied Rongonui v R [2010] NZSC 92, [2011] 1 NZLR 23.CA 639/2011  [2012] NZCA 133
Result

A Leave to appeal is granted. 
B  The approved ground is whether the way in which Kirsty Hannigan was re-examined led to a substantial miscarriage of justice. 

30 May 2012

______________________

Appeal dismissed.

26 April 2013
Transcript

Hearing date : 22 October 2012

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.
Case name
Michael Peter Stiassny, Grant Robert Graham, Forestry Corporation of New Zealand Limited (in receivership), Citic New Zealand Limited (in receivership), CNI Forest Nominees Limited and Bank of New Zealand v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 21/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Goods and services tax – Restitution – Recovery of a GST payment paid by the first appellants to the respondent in the mistaken belief that they were personally liable for the debt – Whether secured creditors own the proceedings of sale of assets that are subject to registered fixed charges at the time of sale, if they are sold for less than the secured debts to which the charges relate – Whether the first appellants were entitled to apply the proceeds of sale of the Central North Island Forestry Partnership (CNIFP) assets to the payment of GST amount, in priority to the claims of the secured creditors – Whether the GST payment was “ debtor-initiated” in terms of s 95 of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 (PPSA) – Whether s 95 of the PPSA barred the recovery of the GST payment if it was made under a mistake – Whether the second and third appellants have a cause of action in restitution for the recovery of their mistaken payment – Whether the first appellants have a cause of action in restitution for the recovery of their mistaken payment – Whether the security trustees have a cause of action in restitution for the recovery of the mistaken payment made by the first appellants to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue –  Whether “good faith” is a pre-requisite for a defence of the provision of good consideration to the payer to a claim for the recovery of a payment made under a mistake – Whether the first appellants are entitled to recover GST payment pursuant to their tax challenge cause of action pursuant to the Tax Administration Act 1994.SC 775/2010   [2012] NZCA 93
Result

A  Leave to appeal is granted.

B  The approved grounds are:

(i)  whether the GST payment was a “ debtor-initiated payment” in terms of s 95 of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 so as to confer priority to the Commissioner over any claim to those moneys by any respondent;

(ii)  whether any of the appellants can recover the amount of GST so paid from the Commissioner on the basis that it was paid by the receivers under a mistaken belief that they were personally liable to pay it or on any other basis.

8 May 2012

_____________________________

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellants are to pay the respondent’ s costs in this Court in the sum of $40,000 together with reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

28 November 2012
Transcript

Hearing dates : 27 and 28 September 2012

McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Gault, Blanchard JJ.
Case name
WDB v The Queen
Case number
SC 22/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Pre-trial application – Evidence Act 2006, s 43 – Admissibility of propensity evidence – Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing appeal against admission of propensity evidence at trial – Probative value of propensity evidence in identifying the offender –– Incident of alleged offending and propensity incident allegedly different in nature – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to regard that the inevitable identification of the applicant in respect of all charges once the applicant’s identification on one charge is established is not unfairly prejudicial.CA 696/2011    [2012] NZCA106
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
9 May 2012.
Case name
Pawel Marian Misiuk v New Zealand Parole Board, Department of Corrections, New Zealand Immigration.
Case number
SC 23/2012
Summary
Criminal law – Parole – Parole Act 2002, ss 21(1) and 28(5) -  Habeas corpus - Whether the Parole Board’s exercise of its extraordinary powers under s 28(5)  to amend the applicant’s release date was in breach of section 22 of the Bill of Rights 1990 prohibiting arbitrary detention – Whether not permitting the applicant to be heard or represented at certain Parole Board sittings was in breach of s 27(1) of the Bill of Rights 1990 - Whether the chairman of the Parole Board failed to comply with the procedures set out in the Parole Act 2002 and Criminal Justice Act 1985 – Whether the Parole Board failed to comply with its own policy regarding disclosure – Whether the Parole Board’s decision was based on erroneous and irrelevant information and falsified High Court records – whether the Parole Board acted outside of its jurisdiction and abused its power.CA164/2012  [2012] NZCA 116
Dates
Application for leave to appeal  dismissed.
21 June  2012.
Case name
Gareth John Needham v The Queen
Case number
SC 24/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Expert evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold that the trial Judge should have ordered severance of count one into two alternative counts – Whether there was a breach of s 92 of the Evidence Act 2006 as trial counsel did not cross-examine four Crown witnesses on an issue of veracity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and law in relation to an issue that a Crown witness was allegedly improperly asked in evidence-in-chief – Whether evidence should have been led as to the lack of previous convictions of the appellant – Whether the Court of Appeal should have determined the admissibility of fresh good character evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the fresh evidence of an astronomer would not have been substantially helpful – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the fresh evidence of a consultant forensic pathologist would not have been substantially helpful.CA 443/2011  [2012] NZCA 95
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
14 June 2012.
Case name
SM v ASB Bank Limited
Case number
SC 25/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Relationship Property Law – Whether a notice of claim under s 42 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 should have been removed in the circumstances of the case where it is alleged that the Respondent was aware of the Applicant’s extant claims to property – Whether a third party purchaser can exercise a mortgagee’s power to possess property occupied under s 27 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. CA 6902011  [2012] NZCA 103
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the respondent.
Case name
YS v The Queen
Case number
SC 26/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence and Procedure – Admissibility of evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the verb “to obtain” in the context of s 30(5) of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court erred in its decision not to exclude the statements made by the appellants on the ground of unfairness.CA 373/2011  [2012] NZCA 114
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 May 2012.
Case name
CF v The Queen
Case number
SC 27/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence and Procedure – Admissibility of evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the verb “to obtain” in the context of s 30(5) of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court erred in its decision not to exclude the statements made by the appellants on the ground of unfairness.CA 372/2011  [2012] NZCA 114
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 May 2012.
Case name
Robert Erwood v Janet Maxted and others
Case number
SC 28/2012
Summary
Procedure – High Court Rules – Inherent Jurisdiction – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Associate Judge’s finding that the High Court at Nelson was, in the circumstances, the most convenient Court to deal with the issues raised in the bankruptcy notice – Whether a litigation guardian should have been appointed to assist the applicant – Bankruptcy – Whether a bankruptcy notice should have been issued against a person known to be solvent.CA 567/2007  [2012] NZCA 110
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay costs of $5,000 to the respondents, plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. 

3 October 2012.
Case name
Jason Lloyd Jones v The Queen
Case number
SC 29/2012
Summary
Criminal – Sentencing – Rape – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in raising the applicant’s sentence from 9.5 years to 13 years – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that a finding of ‘ significant premeditation’ in sexual offending was not restricted to the existence of a fixed intention to have non-consensual-sex prior to the offending, and that an offence would be ‘significantly’ premeditated where there was an intent to have sexual connection with the victims regardless of whether consent was forthcoming – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the victim’s consent to sexual activity with the applicant’ s co-offender prior to the rape was not relevant to sentencing – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the lower Court’s 6 month reduction for ‘previous good conduct, family circumstances and the shame experienced’ was inappropriate in light of his past offending and repeated denial of the rape. CA 376/2011  [2012] NZCA 27
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
18 June 2012.
Page 186 of 270