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
Kyung Yup Kim v The Prison Manager, Mt Eden Corrections Facility
Case number
SC 80/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Habeas corpus – Applicant remanded in custody until his eligibility for surrender under s 24 of the Extradition Act 1999 has been determined – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to take into consideration the right to life and the right not to be subjected to torture under ss 8 and 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to give authorities from New Zealand and the United Nations Human Rights Committee the intensive scrutiny they warranted – Whether the lawfulness of the application to extradite the applicant is a matter capable of summary determination in a habeas corpus application – Whether challenges to the applicant’s status as an “extraditable person” are a matter capable of summary determination in a habeas corpus application. [2012] NZCA 471 CA 637/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is whether the Courts below were correct to dismiss the proceeding because the alleged deficiencies in the request to surrender and the application for a provisional warrant were not suitable for determination on a habeas corpus application.
16 November 2012
_____________________________
The appeal is dismissed. No order for costs.
20 December 2012
Transcript
Case name
Cameron John Leef v The Queen
Case number
SC 81/2012
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Crimes Act 1961, s 134(1) – Having sexual connection with a young person – Evidence Act 2006, s 44 – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that evidence of complainant’s prior sexual experience was inadmissible – Whether Court of Appeal erred that there was no miscarriage of justice as a result of the admission of inadmissible evidence.[2012] NZCA 567 CA 248/2011
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
14 March 2013.
14 March 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
LEEF v R SC 81/2012 [14 March 2013] (PDF, 57 KB)
Case name
Urs Signer v The Queen
Case number
SC 82/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Fair trial – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the charge of “participating in a criminal group” – Whether the Crown misstated its case in relation to the admissibility of evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the complaint relating to prejudicial pre-trial media coverage undermining the ability of the accused to obtain a fair trial.[2012] NZCA 492 CA 416/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 April 2013.
23 April 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIGNER & ORS V R SC 82/2012 [23 April 2013] (PDF, 75 KB)
Case name
Emily Felicity Bailey v The Queen
Case number
SC 83/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Fair trial – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the charge of “participating in a criminal group” – Whether the Crown misstated its case in relation to the admissibility of evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the complaint relating to prejudicial pre-trial media coverage undermining the ability of the accused to obtain a fair trial.[2012] NZCA 492 CA 415/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 April 2013.
23 April 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIGNER & ORS V R SC 82/2012 [23 April 2013] (PDF, 75 KB)
Case name
Steven John Baird v The Queen
Case number
SC 84/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 61(1) and (2) and the proviso to s 385(1) – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that, despite a failure on the part of the trial Judge to adequately direct the jury regarding the different position of the applicant from his co-accused, the applicant’ s convictions were inevitable and that no substantial miscarriage of justice had therefore occurred.[2012] NZCA 430 CA 722/2011
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed,
5 February 2013
5 February 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BAIRD v R SC 84/2012 [5 February 2013 (PDF, 48 KB)
Case name
Malcom Rabson v Andrew Croad and Christine Margaret Dunphy
Case number
SC 85/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Jurisdiction – Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a Court of Appeal decision to dismiss recusal applications after the substantive proceedings have been determined. CA 289/2011
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs to respondent $1,500 plus reasonable disbursements.
19 February 2013.
Costs to respondent $1,500 plus reasonable disbursements.
19 February 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
RABSON v CROAD SC 85/2012 [19 February 2013 (PDF, 61 KB)
Case name
MW V The Family Court and MVH
Case number
SC 86/2012
Summary
Civil appeal – Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1989, ss 67, 68, 87, 88 – whether High Court erroneously upheld Family Court’ s refusal to issue interim restraining order. Civ 2012 404 5261
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondent, plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
18 December 2012
Case name
P v Bridgecorp Limited (in receivership and in liquidation)
Case number
SC 87/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – evidence – contractual capacity – abuse of process – jurisdiction – discovery – conflict of interest – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to give adequate weight to the full or overall tenor of medical evidence, the context of the report writers’ briefs and the reasons for adducing these reports – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to determine the level of the applicant’s mental illness and its impact on the applicant’s contractual capacity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the application was an abuse of process – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application for particular discovery – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining leave to withdraw the admission of claim under r 15.16 of the High Court Rules – Whether the Court of Appeal applied insufficient weight to evidence of email correspondence as indicating that the applicant was self-represented – Whether the Court of Appeal applied insufficient weight to the existence of a conflict of interest on the part of Mr Cunningham – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by focusing on economic pressure and on a test of illegitimacy in relation to any threat for unreasonable pressure.[2012] NZCA 530 CA 756/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted on the following ground: Was r 15.16 of the High Court Rules correctly applied?
15 March 2013.
__________________________________
25 July 2013.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Decision reserved.
15 March 2013.
__________________________________
25 July 2013.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Decision reserved.
Case name
Daniel Brian Thomas Barrie v The Queen
Case number
SC 88/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 23(1)(b) – Right to consult and instruct a lawyer without delay and to be informed of that right – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in excluding foreign lawyers from those who may be consulted by a detainee under s 23(1)(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in the drink/drive context – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a failure by Police to explain that there is no right to consult a foreign lawyer will not constitute a failure to facilitate the right to counsel provided the opportunity to consult and instruct a New Zealand lawyer had been afforded.[2012] NZCA 485 CA 849/2011
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BARRIE v THE POLICE SC 88/2012 [15 March 2013] (PDF, 50 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
15 March 2013.
15 March 2013.
Case name
M v Minister of Immigration
Case number
SC 89/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Immigration – Bill of Rights Act 1990 ss 9, 19 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in striking out the applicant’ s case for being out of time – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no stand alone right to family life entitling the applicant, as a person currently applying for refugee status or for recognition as a protected person under the immigration Act 2009 but not holding permanent residence, to visits from his family – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Immigration Service’s refusal to allow the applicant’ s wife and child (residing in Australia) to visit him in New Zealand was not cruel, degrading or disproportionately severe treatment under s 9 of the Bill of Rights – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Immigration Service’s decision not to extend its family reunification policy to family members of asylum seekers wanting entry into New Zealand was not in breach of the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of “ethnic or national origins” under s 19 of the Bill of Rights. [2012] NZCA 489 CA 587/2011
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 plus disbursements to the respondent.
4 March 2013.
Costs $2,500 plus disbursements to the respondent.
4 March 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 192 of 270