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.
31 July 2026
Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 131 KB)
All years
Case name
Gary Owen Burgess v Susan Natalie Beaven
Case number
SC 9/2011
Summary
Civil – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Relationship Property – Whether Court of Appeal took correct approach to overturning lower court decisions and costs orders – Whether relationship property was correctly assessed under the Property (Relationships) Act, and a division of relationship property inconsistent with the Act has eventuated.[2010] NZCA 625 CA 371/2009 20 December 2010
Result
1 We grant leave to appeal and cross-appeal (and an extension of time in relation to the cross-appeal). 2 The approved grounds of appeal and cross-appeal proceed on the basis that the Court of Appeal’s assessment under s 14(2)(c) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 in favour of equal sharing was correct and are as follows: (a) was the Court of Appeal in error in adopting separation date values; (b) was there any logical or arithmetical error in the Court of Appeal’ s identification and valuation of the relationship property and its allowances for post-separation contributions; (c) should the Court of Appeal have made consequential orders in respect of the costs ordered in relation to earlier judgments and money paid by Mr Burgess to Ms Beaven; and (d) what, if any, additional or other orders are required.
22 September 2011
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed and the cross-appeal is dismissed.
B Orders B, C and D of the decision of the Court of Appeal [2010] NZCA 625 are set aside.
C The awards of costs made against Mr Burgess by John Hansen J in the Stream A litigation are set aside and in their place Mr Burgess is awarded $5,000 costs in respect of the first appeal to the High Court heard by John Hansen J.
D Ms Beaven’s gross liability to Mr Burgess is:
(a) Balance due on division of property 3,716.10
(b) Refund of money paid to Ms Beaven 36,804.31
(c) Costs and disbursements on first appeal 5,000
Total 45,520.41
E Ms Beaven is entitled to set off outstanding awards of costs in her favour totalling $15,474.16 against her gross liability producing a net figure which she must pay, and on which Mr Burgess may now execute judgment of $30,046.25. Interest will run on that sum from the date of this judgment in terms of r 11.27 of the High Court Rules.
F Ms Beaven is to pay Mr Burgess usual disbursements in relation to this appeal.
9 August 2012
22 September 2011
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed and the cross-appeal is dismissed.
B Orders B, C and D of the decision of the Court of Appeal [2010] NZCA 625 are set aside.
C The awards of costs made against Mr Burgess by John Hansen J in the Stream A litigation are set aside and in their place Mr Burgess is awarded $5,000 costs in respect of the first appeal to the High Court heard by John Hansen J.
D Ms Beaven’s gross liability to Mr Burgess is:
(a) Balance due on division of property 3,716.10
(b) Refund of money paid to Ms Beaven 36,804.31
(c) Costs and disbursements on first appeal 5,000
Total 45,520.41
E Ms Beaven is entitled to set off outstanding awards of costs in her favour totalling $15,474.16 against her gross liability producing a net figure which she must pay, and on which Mr Burgess may now execute judgment of $30,046.25. Interest will run on that sum from the date of this judgment in terms of r 11.27 of the High Court Rules.
F Ms Beaven is to pay Mr Burgess usual disbursements in relation to this appeal.
9 August 2012
Media Releases
- sc 9 2011 burgess v beaven media release (PDF, 84 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
BURGESS v BEAVEN SC 9/2011 [22 September 2011] (PDF, 106 KB)
Substantive judgment
BURGESS v BEAVEN SC 9/2011 [9 August 2012] (PDF, 193 KB)
Transcript
Blanchard, Tipping, William Young, Chambers, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Sher Afzal Khan v Keith William Reid
Case number
SC 21/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Application to set aside bankruptcy notice – Court of Appeal declined application for an extension of time for filing the appeal –Mr Khan had already been adjudicated bankrupt and that adjudication was final and binding under s 61 of the Insolvency Act 2006 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and in law in considering that no satisfactory explanation had been given for initial delay and that, in any event, the present application would fail[2011] NZCA 22 CA 242/2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
KHAN v REID SC 21/2011 [1 June 2011] (PDF, 12 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with cocts of $2,500 to the respondent.
1 June 2011.
Case name
TN v The Queen
Case number
SC 22/2011
Summary
[2011] NZCA 8 CA 797/2010 CA 885/2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Not publicly available
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
31 March 2011.
Case name
Kathy Apostolakis v Damir De Polo
Case number
SC 30/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Family Law – Whether the appellant’s decision to represent herself caused her undue disadvantage – Whether relevant facts were not taken into account by the Family Court.Civ 2009 485 2550 22 July 2010
Dates
Notice of abandonment being filed, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
22 June 2011.
Case name
M v The Queen
Case number
SC 68/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sexual Offences – Evidence Act 2006 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding admission at trial of expert evidence relating to “counterintuitive” evidence given by child abuse victims– Whether expert evidence met “substantially helpful” test under s 25 Evidence Act – Whether linking by prosecutor in closing address of expert evidence with circumstances of particular complainant led to unfair trial where no direction given to jury on proper use of expert evidence.[2011] NZCA 191 CA 23/2009
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
8 November 2011.
8 November 2011.
Case name
DSL Logistics Limited v New Zealand Sports Merchandising Limited
Case number
SC 6/2010
Summary
Civil – Contract – Law of entire obligations – Termination of contract for the storage and dispatch of merchandise – whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the law of entire obligations to the contract – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its construction of Appendix B work as an entire obligation – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to take into consideration the substantial performance of the contract by the applicants – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of clause 7.5 of the standard form agreement[2009] NZCA 566 CA 691/2009 1 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the respondent.
30 March 2010.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Stiassny and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 8/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Defamation – Appellant ordered by High Court to pay $920,000 in damages to Respondents for defamation and breach of contract – Appellant previously found by High Court to be in contempt of Court for breach of interim injunction and failure to pay costs, and debarred from defending defamation suit – Appeal to Court of Appeal struck out except for appeal as to quantum of damages awarded – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in granting in part Respondents’ strike-out application on the grounds of Appellant’s continuing contempt of Court – Whether strike-out application by Respondents made out of time – Whether Court of Appeal judge acted under a conflict of interest. [2009] NZCA 566 CA 453/2009 22 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIEMER v STIASSNY AND ANOR SC 8/2010 [20 May 2010] (PDF, 20 KB)
Dates
Applications for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 May 2010.
Case name
Valerie Morse v The Queen
Case number
SC 10/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 to a charge of ‘offensive behaviour’ under s4(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of ss5 and 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to consider art 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Whether the classification of behaviour as ‘offensive’ is a question of fact or law.[2009] NZCA 623 CA 530/2008 22 December 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. The approved ground is whether the District Court correctly interpreted and applied s 4(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981. 18 May 2010
_______________________
Appeal allowed. Conviction entered against the appellant in the District Court is set aside.
6 May 2011
_______________________
Appeal allowed. Conviction entered against the appellant in the District Court is set aside.
6 May 2011
Media Releases
- media release morse 1 (PDF, 89 KB)
Substantive judgment
MORSE v THE POLICE SC 10/2010 [6 May 2011] (PDF, 338 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
MORSE v THE POLICE SC 10/2010 [18 May 2010] (PDF, 9 KB)
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ
Case name
Philip James Whitley v The Queen
Case number
SC 12/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the decision of the District Court ordering a judge only trial under s 361D of the Crimes Act 1961; whether the denial of a jury trial was a justifiable limitation on the right to a jury under s 24(e) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2009] NZCA 623 CA 530/2008 22 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
WHITLEY v R SC 12/2010 [18 March 2010] (PDF, 15 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
18 March 2010.
Case name
Daniel Thomas Spencer Riddiford and Yvonne Ada Riddiford an d another v Her Majesty’s Attorney-General
Case number
SC 21/2010
Summary
Civil – application for special leave to appeal High Court decision relating to a claim for compensation in respect of the acquisition of an esplanade reserve – Whether the High Court erred in not reversing an order of the Land Valuation Tribunal awarding costs against the applicant – Whether the High Court erred in declining to allow a rehearing – whether the High Court and the Tribunal erred in their determination of a number of other related mattersCiv 2006 485 833 – 22 May 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2.500 to the respondent.
26 May 2010.
Page 40 of 50