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
Aeneas Davidson v The Queen
Case number
SC 65/2012
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction – Whether trial counsel’ s conduct of the defence was deficient so as to render the applicant’s trial unfair – Evidence – Whether, in pursuing the defence, trial counsel elicited inadmissible recent complaint evidence that was prejudicial to the applicant making the verdicts unsafe. [2012]NZCA 391 CA 174/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 February 2013
28 February 2013
Case name
Godfrey Waterhouse and Robert John Waterhouse v Contractors Bonding Limited
Case number
SC 66/2012
Summary
Civil appeal – Litigation funding agreement – Law of Maintenance and Champerty ¬– Extent of Court oversight over litigation involving such agreements –Whether Court of Appeal was correct to order disclosure to the defendant of particular details of the plaintiff’s agreement to prevent potential abuse of process ¬– Whether degree of disclosure was appropriate. [2012]NZCA 399 CA 200/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved questions are:
(i) whether the appellants should be ordered to disclose the litigation agreement to the respondent; and
(ii) if so, on what terms.
14 November 2012
_____________________
tc
(i) whether the appellants should be ordered to disclose the litigation agreement to the respondent; and
(ii) if so, on what terms.
14 November 2012
_____________________
tc
Case name
Ashley Dwayne Guy v The Queen
Case number
SC 67/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – evidence – Evidence Act 2006 – whether the transcript of an interview of the complainant (“the complainant transcript” ) was inadmissible as potentially prejudicial material – whether the complainant transcript was inadmissible as a prior inconsistent statement – whether the transcript of an interview with the accused (“the accused interview transcript”) was inadmissible – whether the trial Judge’s direction to the jury on evidence relating to the complainant was appropriate – whether the Court of Appeal erred in admitting the complainant and accused interview transcripts given the fact neither counsel nor the trial Judge had had the opportunity to address the jury on these materials.[2012]NZCA 416 CA 69/2012.
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred, notwithstanding the error in the jury being given and reading the two interview transcripts which had not been put into evidence.
20 December 2012.
10 April 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.Decision reserved.
Rehearing directed.
14 November 2013.
7 October 2014.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan JJ.
Decision reserved.
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed,
New trial ordered.
19 November 2014
The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred, notwithstanding the error in the jury being given and reading the two interview transcripts which had not been put into evidence.
20 December 2012.
10 April 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.Decision reserved.
Rehearing directed.
14 November 2013.
7 October 2014.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan JJ.
Decision reserved.
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed,
New trial ordered.
19 November 2014
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 165 (PDF, 267 KB)
Substantive judgment
ASHLEY DWAYNE GUY v R [2014] NZSC 165 [19 November 2014] (PDF, 254 KB)
Case name
The Proprietors of Wakatu Incorporated and others v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 68/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Maori land – Whether, in the circumstances in which Maori land was acquired for the New Zealand Company’s Nelson settlement, the Crown was in breach of legally enforceable obligations owed to the owners from whom title was acquired – Whether the High Court erred in holding that no trust existed – Whether the High Court erred in finding that the Crown did not owe a fiduciary duty – Whether, if such obligations were owed, those owners have lost their right to enforce such obligations by reason of defences available to the Crown through lapse of time – Whether the High Court erred in finding that the appellants did not have standing to bring the proceeding.[2012]NZHC 1461 Civ 2010 442 181
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 November 2012.
28 November 2012.
Case name
Rajendra Prasad v Indiana Publications (NZ) Limited and others
Case number
SC 69/2012
Summary
Civil appeal – Copyright Act 1994 – District Court Act 1947 - whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining the ownership of the copyright in dispute – whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining the correct court processes to be followed in relation to an order for costs and insolvency proceedings. [2012]NZHC 2582 CIV 2012 404 4172
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 plus disbursements to the respondents.
6 November 2012.
Costs $2,500 plus disbursements to the respondents.
6 November 2012.
Case name
Roger Lindsay Blick v The Queen
Case number
SC 70/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Application for recall – Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal declining to recall a judgment allegedly obtained by fraud – Whether the proposed appeal can be distinguished from de Mey v R [2005] NZSC 7. [2012] NZCA 373 CA 26/2001
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 November 2012.
28 November 2012.
Case name
Sonja Marie Lawson v The Queen
Case number
SC 71/2012
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Crimes Act 1961, s 228(b) – Using a document with intent to obtain a pecuniary advantage, dishonestly and without claim of right – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss appeal against conviction ¬– Trial counsel errors – Prosecution Misconduct – Failure to consider appellant’s brief – Unfair hearing – Errors of law.[2012] NZCA 426 CA 593/2001
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
13 March 2013.
13 March 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
LAWSON v R SC 71/2012 [13 March 2013] (PDF, 44 KB)
Case name
Grant Stanley Nicholls v Airways Corporation of New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 72/2012
Summary
[2012] NZCA 444 CA 566/2011
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay to the respondent costs of $2,500, together with reasonable disbursements, to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.
14 December 2012
Case name
Barry Raymond Whitelaw v The Queen
Case number
SC 73/2012
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against sentence – Whether the appellant’ s sentence of two years, five months’ imprisonment was excessive – Whether the uplift of nine months applied to the appellant’s sentence to take account of his previous offending was in breach of the prohibition against double jeopardy contained in s 26 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. [2012] NZCA 438 CA 359/2012
Dates
Hearing
Case name
Mars New Zealand Limited v Roby Trustees Limited
Case number
SC 74/2012
Summary
Civil – Intellectual Property– Trademarks – Trade Marks Act 2002, s 17(1)(a) and s 25(1)(b) and (c) – whether the Court of Appeal failed adequately to consider the ambit of the reputation in Mars’ “ OPTIMUM” brand in determining whether registration of Roby Trustees’ “Optimise Pro” brand would be likely to cause confusion for the purposes of s 17(1)(a) – whether the Court of Appeal erred by equating its test under s 17(1)(a) with those under s 25(1)(b) and (c) – whether the Court of Appeal incorrectly determined the principles applicable to fair and notional use and imperfect recollection in comparing the two trademarks under s 25(1)(b) – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its analysis of the likelihood of prejudice to Mars’ interests under s 25(1)(c). [2012] NZCA 450 CA 30/2012
Dates
The application for leave is dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar are awarded to the respondent.
19 December 2012.
Page 190 of 270