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.

19 June 2026

Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 89 KB)
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 126 KB) 

All years

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
Idea Services Limited v Phillip William Dickson
Case number
SC 25/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Minimum Wage Act 1983 – Definition of ‘ work’ – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that ‘work’ includes time engaged in a ‘sleepover’ – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the appellant must pay at least the minimum wage rate for each hour of work.[2011] NZCA 14  CA 405/2010
Leave judgment - leave granted
IDEA SERVICES LIMITED v DICKSON SC 25/2011 [19 May 2011] (PDF, 35 KB)
Dates

A  The application for leave to appeal is granted.

B  The approved grounds are:

(a) Whether sleepovers constitute “work” under s 6 of the Minimum Wage Age 1983; and

(b) If so, whether the Act is complied with if an employee’ s average rate of pay over a pay period is not less than the prescribed minimum.

19 May 2011
Case name
Shane Andrew Ellis v The Queen
Case number
SC 53/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Juries Act 1981 – Applicant convicted in High Court at Wellington by jury trial on three counts of importing methamphetamine – Jury selected in accordance with Juries Act – Whether trial was unfair as jury unrepresentative of population, in particular New Zealand’ s rural population, and did not constitute trial by applicant’s peers.[2011] NZCA 90 CA 739/2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ELLIS v R SC 53/2011 [2 June 2011] (PDF, 55 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

2 June 2011.
Case name
Michael Andrew Keith Hastie  v The Queen
Case number
SC 120/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the trial Judge should have given a Papadopoulos direction.[2011] NZCA 498   CA 153/2011
Result

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

The approved grounds of appeal are whether the directions given to the jury before it delivered its verdicts were appropriate and, if not, whether this gave rise to a substantial miscarriage of justice?

9 February 2012

_______________________

Appeal dismissed.

23 July 2012
Transcript

Hearing date : 7 June 2012

Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Chambers JJ
Case name
William Patrick Jeffries v The Privacy Commissioner
Case number
SC 5/2010
Summary
Civil – Litigation privilege – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that unsolicited communication does not attract litigation privilege under s56 of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the word ‘person’ in s91(4) of the Privacy Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to apply s74 of the Evidence Act 2006 to matters before the Privacy Commissioner – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to review the Privacy Commissioner’ s decisions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not addressing s27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2009] NZCA 567  CA 339/2008  3 December 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. The approved ground is whether unsolicited communications received by the applicant while acting as a barrister are capable of attracting litigation privilege.
31 March 2010
_______________________
The appeal  is dismissed. Any claim of privilege must be referred for the determination of the Privacy Commissioner in accordance with this judgment. No order for costs is made.
12 August 2010
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
JEFFRIES v THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER SC 5/2010 [31 March 2010] (PDF, 47 KB)
Substantive judgment
JEFFRIES v THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER SC 5/2010 [12 August 2010] (PDF, 104 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 21 July 2010

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
William Patrick Jeffries v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 22/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to give effect to the criteria for consent to overseas investment as set out in s 14A of the Overseas Investment Act 1973; Whether the “standard conditions” for granting consent imposes a continuing obligation on consent-holders to carry out the proposals they made to the Minister in order to secure such consent; Whether releasing information supplied by the appellant pursuant to s 6(c) of the Official Information Act 1982 would prejudice the maintenance of the law or would breach the appellant’s confidence.[2010] NZCA 38  CA 338/2008  26 February 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
RIDDIFORD And Anor v ATTORNEY-GENERAL SC 21/2010 [25 May 2010] (PDF, 10 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Costs $2.500 to the respondent.

26 May 2010.
Case name
Jeremy William Mataira v The Queen
Case number
SC 53/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Assault – Appeal against convictions based on alleged misconduct at trial – Whether Appellant denied ability to mount a credible appeal to Court of Appeal because evidence of alleged misconduct at trial unavailable.[2010] NZCA 190   CA 162/2009   14 May 2010
Dates

Notice of Abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal  is deemed to be dismissed.

13 August 2010.
Case name
Arthur William Taylor v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 92/2010
Summary
Civil – Judicial Review – Judicature Amendment Act 1972 – Visiting arrangements for maximum-security prisoner and young daughter – High Court declined appellant interim relief against prison manager’ s decision restricting previous monthly contact visits with daughter in interests of child and prisoner safety – Whether Court of Appeal erred in declining to make mandatory interim relief order against prison manager’s discretion despite finding that courts have jurisdiction to order mandatory interim relief against the Crown – Whether Court of Appeal should have commented on respondent’s cross-appeal when High Court observations founding cross-appeal made only in obiter.[2010] NZCA 371  CA 165/2010   16 August 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TAYLOR v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SC 92/2010 [8 December 2010] (PDF, 12 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

8 December 2010.
Case name
Henry David Levin and Barry Philip Jordan v Patrick Ikiua, Kenti Apa, Tess Apa, Mark Crosbie, Andrew David Smith.
Case number
SC 123/2010
Summary
Civil – Liquidators’ right under s 298 of the Companies Act 1993 to recover property which a liquidated company has disposed of to certain entities – Whether the company must have had a proprietary interest in the property – Whether s 298 applies only to transactions where the directors are duty bound to obtain fair value in return for the disposition of property – Whether the company had legitimately transferred its assets – Whether the directors of the company had breached their duties by disposing of all profits.[2010] NZCA 509 CA 508/2009  12 November 2010
Dates
Notice of Abandonment being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.
Case name
Arthur William Taylor v The Queen
Case number
SC 5/2009
Summary
Criminal Appeal – kidnapping and escaping from lawful custody – appeal against conviction and sentence – whether a plea of previous acquittal was available to the applicant at his trial – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that whether the applicant was in lawful custody was an issue for the judge – whether the sentence was excessive [2008] NZCA 558  CA 61/2008  17 December 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
15 May 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TAYLOR v R SC 5/2009 [15 May 2009] (PDF, 15 KB)
Judgment appealed from

The Queen v Taylor [2008] NZCA 558 17 December 2008
Page 22 of 24