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.
28 November 2025
Case information summary 2025 (as at 28 November 2025) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary 2025 (as at 28 November 2025) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 120 KB)
All years
Case name
JD & CE Henson Partnership and others v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 95/2009
Summary
Civil – Tax Administration Act 1994 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining what is sufficient to constitute a statutory Notice of Assessment – Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly stated that the applicants’ assessments were subsequently amended – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that the Taxation Review Authority addressed the correctness of the assessments without objection from the applicants – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that the Taxation Review Authority had jurisdiction under the Notices of Assessment.[2009] NZCA 423 CA 661/2008 22 September 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs to the respondents of $3,000 plus disbursements. 15 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Alex Kwong Wong v The Queen
Case number
SC 96/2009
Summary
Criminal – appeal against conviction and sentence – convictions for importing methamphetamine and possessing for supply – during jury deliberations at the applicant’s retrial (following successful appeal in R v Wong [2008] 3 NZLR 1) the jury sent a note to the judge stating that they had finished deliberating, the judge sought clarification and the jury sent a second note stating that they were unable to reach a unanimous verdict on any of the charges, noting that “further effort would result in bullying” – the judge gave a standard Papadopoulos direction – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the applicant’s convictions as safe – whether there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice – whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the applicant’ s minimum period of imprisonment was set correctly – whether the High Court judge wrongly allowed the Police to destroy certain evidence after the first trial – the applicant also seeks an interlocutory order to adduce both rebuttal evidence and new evidence in the form of a market research survey.[2009] NZCA 440 CA 190/2009, CA 356/2009 28 September 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismised. 2 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Frances Mountier v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 97/2009
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Whether a local authority can invoke the Trespass Act 1980 in relation to a peaceful protest on an area designated as a road; whether local authority exclusive occupier of land; whether conviction justified under the Act without any findings of fact as to nuisance or obstruction.[2009] NZCA 451 CA 110/2009 1 October 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 16 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Greymouth Gas Kaimiro Limited and others v GXL Royalties Limited and Swift Energy New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 98/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management – Petroleum mining – Leases – Contract and interpretation – Equity – obligations – assignment – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that actual reasons for GXL Royalties Ltd’s refusal to consent to transfer of Swift Energy Ltd’s interests in a petroleum exploration permit, from Swift to Greymouth Gas Kaimiro Ltd, are irrelevant to the issue of whether consent was properly or improperly withheld – Whether Court of Appeal erred in confining the issue at trial to a purely objective test of whether it has been established that Greymouth has sufficient financial capability to meet the obligations under the permit and royalty deed – Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to account in the test for the requirement of reasonableness.[2009] NZCA 433 CA 100/2009 24 September 2009
Result
Leave to appeal is granted The approved ground is whether GXL is required to plead to an allegation that it refused consent to the transfer of Swift’s interest in the petroleum permit to Greymouth for collateral reasons unrelated to Greymouth’s financial capability to meet obligations under the permit and the deed reserving to GXL a royalty interest.
30 March 2010
_________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellants are ordered to pay the respondent costs of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
22 September 2010
30 March 2010
_________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellants are ordered to pay the respondent costs of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
22 September 2010
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Chief Justice, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Young JJ.
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Benjamin Morland Easton v Wellington City Council
Case number
SC 99/2009
Summary
Judicial review – the respondent put forward a proposal to open Manners Mall in Wellington to bus traffic for public consultation – the applicant initiated judicial review proceedings in the High Court alleging unlawful predetermination on the part of the respondent in favour of the proposal – the applicant sought an interim order to prevent the respondent from taking further action in relation to the proposal until his judicial review proceedings were heard – the High Court Judge declined to make the interim order and ordered the applicant to provide security for costs in the amount of $12,000 – the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court but varied the Judge’s order to substitute $8,000 for $12,000 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s decision.[2009] NZCA 513 CA 615 /2009 23 October 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
26 February 2010
26 February 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Wei Feng Pan v The Queen
Case number
SC 100/2009
Summary
Criminal – Offences relating to Class A drug – Appeal against conviction and sentence - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its findings about the applicant’s involvement in the importation of drugs – Whether the admission of cell-site evidence was inadmissible as being more prejudicial than probative – Whether the Court of Appeal were correct to find that the trial could proceed with 10 jurors – Whether the Court of Appeal were correct to hold that the trial Judge had not misdirected the jury on the onus of proof, or on the motive of co-accused to lie – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant had a central role in the overall crime for the purposes of sentencing – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to take into account mitigating factors – Whether the Court of Appeal had regard to principles of sentencing in the Sentencing Act 2002.[2009] NZCA 445 CA 770/2008 30 September 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 9 February 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
WEI FENG PAN v R SC 100/2009 [9 February 2010] (PDF, 10 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Moncello David Shirley v The Queen
Case number
SC 101/2009
Summary
Criminal appeal – convictions for wounding with intent, aggravated burglary and possession of a knife – whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the possibility of self-defence and provocation – whether the Court of Appeal gave insufficient weight to supplementary reports which indicated that certain of the appellant’s characteristics should have been seen as mitigating factors in sentencing – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider the possible application of section 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, given the applicant’s history and experiences in prison.[2009] NZCA 509 CA 57/2009 23 October 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 5 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SHIRLEY v R SC 101/2009 [5 March 2010] (PDF, 29 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Raymond Everest Hessell v The Queen
Case number
SC 102/2009
Summary
Criminal Appeal – The applicant appeals against sentence and aspects of the sentencing guidelines on discounts for guilty pleas issued by the Court of Appeal. The issues are: whether the Court of Appeal was right in the circumstances to issue a guideline judgment; if so, whether the guidelines are sufficiently flexible or unduly fetter the courts’ future sentencing discretion; whether a 33% discount to the defendant’s sentence is appropriate for a guilty plea at the “first reasonable opportunity”; whether lesser discounts are appropriate for guilty pleas at subsequent stages of the proceedings; whether an early guilty plea should be considered to be an indicator of remorse on the part of the accused or whether remorse should be assessed on its merits; whether credit should be given for remorse even though not given at “first reasonable opportunity”; whether the guidelines should apply to murder cases; whether guidance should be provided in applying guidelines. [2009] NZCA 450 CA 170/2009 2 October 2009
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground of appeal is whether the discount for Mr Hessell’ s guilty plea was appropriately given in accordance with sentencing principles and the Sentencing Act 2002.
19 April 2010
__________________
Appeal dismissed.
16 November 2010
19 April 2010
__________________
Appeal dismissed.
16 November 2010
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
HESSELL v R SC 102/2009 [16 November 2010] (PDF, 212 KB)
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Peter Morrison Petryszick v The Queen
Case number
SC 103/2009
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction – Criminal Procedure – Abuse of Process – Delay – Appellant granted adjournment by Court of Appeal on strict terms with which he failed to comply – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding no merit in grounds of appeal raised – Whether Court of Appeal erred in not affording the appellant additional time to investigate grounds of complaint.[2009] NZCA 515 CA 269/2008 27 October 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted on the question whether the applicant was denied his right to appeal.
20 April 2010
___________________
A The appeal is allowed and the order made by the Court of Appeal set aside. B The appellant’ s appeal against his conviction is remitted to the Court of Appeal for determination in accordance with s 385(1) of the Crimes Act 1961.
24 August 2010
20 April 2010
___________________
A The appeal is allowed and the order made by the Court of Appeal set aside. B The appellant’ s appeal against his conviction is remitted to the Court of Appeal for determination in accordance with s 385(1) of the Crimes Act 1961.
24 August 2010
Transcripts
- sc 103 2009 petryszick peter morrison v r (PDF, 431 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2010] NZSC 105 (PDF, 87 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
PETRYSZICK v R SC 103/2009 [24 August 2010] (PDF, 148 KB)
Substantive judgment / Media release
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ
Case name
Ghlenn Thomas Douglas Gollop v The Queen
Case number
SC 104/2009
Summary
Criminal Appeal – appeal against sentence – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding without evidence to the required standard that the quantum of manufacture was 250g which materially effected the level of sentence in terms of s 24 of the Sentencing Act 2002 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the minimum term of imprisonment was justified when the appellant was not represented by counsel at sentencing, contrary to s 30 of the Sentencing Act 2002.[2009] NZCA 486 CA 162/200 19 October 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
17 December 2009
17 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GOLLOP v R SC 104/2009 [17 December 2009] (PDF, 38 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Page 227 of 270