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
Arthur William Taylor v The Department of Corrections and another.
Case number
SC 35/2009
Summary
Civil – Disciplinary proceedings - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the decision of the Hearing Adjudicator to refer a charge to a Visiting Justice was not subject to s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly found the decision of the Hearing Adjudicator did not breach natural justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that s 134 of the Corrections Act 2004 does not require a Hearing Adjudicator to provide notice to a prisoner that his or her charge is being referred to a Visiting Justice, or to allow the prisoner the opportunity to be heard on that referral – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Hearing Adjudicator had not taken into account irrelevant circumstances – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to hold that s 134(2)(a) of the Corrections Act does not exclude consideration of a prisoner’ s past disciplinary record.[2009] NZCA 129 CA 318/2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
24 July 2009
24 July 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
William Patrick Jeffries v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 41/2009
Summary
Civil – Judicial Review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that as the Appellant was not a participant in the statutory scheme under review the Appellant did not possess public interest standing to review the identified pleaded decisions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 27(1) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 has no application to decision making under the Official Information Act 1982CIV 2006 – 485-2161 20 May 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal refused. Costs $2,500 plus disbursements to the respondent.
3 June 2009
3 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
William Patrick Jeffries v The Privacy Commissioner
Case number
SC 42/2009
Summary
Civil – Judicial Review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a barrister may not invoke the privilege of general immunity against civil liability in respect of his participation in court proceedings against the Privacy Commissioner in relation to the barrister’s preparation and conduct of court proceedings and thereafter – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that a barrister conducting litigation before a court comes within the definition of “agency” in s 2 of the Privacy Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that “any person” in s 91(4) of the Act includes persons who are not “agencies” pursuant to s 2 of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that the Privacy Commissioner’s failure to abide her notice obligations under ss 70 and 73 of the Act was understandable and not a relevant consideration in assessing her decision-makingCIV 2006 – 485-860 22 May 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal refused. Costs $2,500 plus disbursements to the respondent. 3 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Arthur William Taylor v The Queen
Case number
SC 19/2008
Summary
Criminal – appeal against conviction and sentence – charges of escape from lawful custody and unlawful detention – whether the Court of Appeal was correct in finding in R v Carolyn Rochelle Taylor [2007] NZCA 318 that the applicant was at the time in lawful custody – whether the Trial Judge was correct to reject a plea under s 357 Crimes Act 1961 for previous acquittal on the unlawful detention charge - whether the sentence was excessive, or a minimum term appropriate.CRI 2005 085 5744 19 December 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TAYLOR v R SC 19/2008 [26 May 2008] (PDF, 17 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
26 May 2008.
Case name
Roderick William Nielsen v Dysart Timbers Limited
Case number
SC 54/2008
Summary
Civil – Costs – whether the Court of Appeal correctly applied an objective test to the issue of whether the appellant intended a settlement offer to remain open for acceptance after the Supreme Court had granted leave to appeal.[2008] NZCA 280 CA 630/07 6 August 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
28 October 2008
___________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
15 May 2009
28 October 2008
___________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
15 May 2009
Media Releases
- media release nielsen v dysart (PDF, 89 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Case name
Stephen William Garret v The Queen
Case number
SC 57/2008
Summary
Criminal - Appeal against sentence – Grievous bodily harm with intent to injure – Whether 3½ years imprisonment manifestly excessive for vigilante attack given early offer of guilty plea to lesser charge of which ultimately convicted and $20,000 reparation payment as requested by victim – Whether sentencing Judge erred in law in finding appellant had leadership role in operation.[2008] NZCA 294 CA 176/2008 12 August 2008
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 October 2008.
20 October 2008.
Case name
Shane Edward Williams v The Queen
Case number
SC 61/2008
Summary
Criminal appeal – appeal against conviction – conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine – section 25(b) New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – whether High Court Judge should have stayed the criminal proceedings after making finding of undue delay in bringing the applicant to trial – stay granted in relation to eight co-accused – whether applicant should have received same remedy.[2008] NZCA 296 CA 664/2007 12 August 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
3 November 2008
________________________
Appeal dismissed.
15 May 2009
3 November 2008
________________________
Appeal dismissed.
15 May 2009
Media Releases
- williams press release (PDF, 78 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
WILLIAMS v R SC 61/2008 [3 November 2008] (PDF, 12 KB)
Substantive judgment
SHANE EDWARD WILLIAMS v R SC 61/2008 [15 May 2009] (PDF, 48 KB)
Transcript
Case name
William Patrick Jeffries v The Attorney--General
Case number
SC 84/2008
Summary
Civil – Administrative law – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to observe principles of natural justice by deciding an application for indemnity costs and making findings on the motive of the Appellant ‘on the papers’ – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in taking into account the Appellant’ s standing on the judicial review proceedings when that was already under appeal separately to the Court.[2008] NZCA 426 CA 150/2008 20 October 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
4 February 2009
4 February 2009
Transcripts
- Hearing date 7 July 2009 (PDF, 122 KB)
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Peter William Russel v The Queen
Case number
SC 3/2007
Summary
Criminal – Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967 – trial Judge awarded costs to defendants acquitted on charges of conspiracy to defraud and money laundering brought by Serious Fraud Office – Court of Appeal majority held that High Court Judge had erred in failing to take account of risk of a substantial award inhibiting the exercise of proper prosecutorial function – whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the cost award because it was “disproportionate” – whether Court of Appeal wrongly interpreted s 5(1) of the Act. CA 475/2005 6 December 2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
29 May 2007
_____________________
Appeal allowed, Costs order in the High Court reinstated.
Costs to appellant in Court of Appeal, $12,000 together with reasonable expenses.
Costs to appellant in Supreme Court, $20,000 together with reasonable expenes.
29 May 2007
_____________________
Appeal allowed, Costs order in the High Court reinstated.
Costs to appellant in Court of Appeal, $12,000 together with reasonable expenses.
Costs to appellant in Supreme Court, $20,000 together with reasonable expenes.
Leave judgment - leave granted
REID And Ors V R SC 95/2006 [29 May 2007] (PDF, 17 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Substantive judgment / Media release
Case name
Manu Chhotubhai Bhanabhai and Douglas Mark Andrew Burgress v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 11/2007
Summary
Civil appeal – as part of an agreement to settle GST arrears arising from the development of an apartment complex, solicitors for property developers gave an undertaking to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue that arrears would be cleared using proceeds from the sale of certain apartment units – in the event, GST arrears not paid – property developers put into liquidation - liquidators commenced proceedings, to which Commissioner was party, against the directors for reckless trading – proceedings settled in favour of liquidators with large cash payment, although no portion of payment could be applied towards the debt owed to the Commissioner – in separate proceedings, giving rise to present application, Commissioner awarded compensation against solicitors in their personal capacity for breach of undertaking – whether factual findings and reasoning at first instance were incorrect - whether the Court of Appeal erred in treatment of certain evidence going towards the nature of the undertaking – whether, given the antecedent proceedings by the liquidators, the claim by the Commissioner amounted to an abuse of process. CA 218/05 20 December 2006
Result
Leave to appeal dismissed. 26 April 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 23 of 24