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.
22 September 2026
Case information summary (as at 18 September 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 112 KB)
Case information summary (as at 18 September 2026) – Currently unavailable
All years
Case name
Kevin Tito v Aroha Tito and John Andrew
Case number
SC 92/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Trusts – Whether there was a breach of the Trust Order in relation to the election of trustees – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in accepting this breach of the Trust Order – Whether the Court of Appeal should have considered further the issue relating to a respondent’s receipt of trust monies – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the applicant was seeking the removal of the respondents as trustees – Whether the Trust has failed to act in the interests of the owners. [2012] NZCA 493 CA 856/2011
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
14 March 2013.
14 March 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TITO v TITO & ANOR SC 92/2012 [14 March 2013] (PDF, 59 KB)
Case name
Jane Chapman Siemer v Kate Fardell as executrix of the estate of John Robert Fortesque Fardell
Case number
SC 7/2011
Summary
Civil – Pre-trial security for costs – Appeal against a Court of Appeal decision refusing to dispense with security for costs in an appeal before that Court – Whether the procedure adopted by the Court lacked procedural fairness – Whether the Court properly exercised discretion – Whether the Court’s ruling wrong on the merits – Section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether right to justice at trial court level violated. [2010] NZCA 586 CA 450/2010 3 December 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIEMER v FARDELL SC 7/2011 [31 March 2011] (PDF, 48 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
31 March 2011.
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
Allan Brian Miller and Michael John Carroll v The New Zealand Parole Board and The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 15/2011
Summary
Civil – Judicial Bias – Whether the Court of Appeal bench was properly selected – Whether the Court of Appeal applied the correct test for judicial bias – Whether the Parole Board was independent – Whether the appellant Carroll was properly recalled from parole – Whether preventive detention is consistent with the rehabilitation purpose of art 10(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[2010] NZCA 600 CA 67/2009 8 December 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 March 2011.
Case name
Kerry John Williams v The Queen
Case number
SC 18/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Right to a fair trial – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 24, 25; Sentencing Act 2002, s 30 – Applicant convicted by jury on charges of conspiracy to supply methamphetamine, supply and manufacture of methamphetamine – Applicant lost legal representation during the course of the trial – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant’s right to a fair trial was not impaired, as a result of the trial continuing shortly after counsel for the applicant withdrew CA 137/04 19 May 2005
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
WILLIAMS v R SC 18/2011 [9 June 2011] (PDF, 12 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
9 June 2011.
Case name
Steven John Cleave v The Queen
Case number
SC 32/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm – Whether appellant was denied right to elect to give evidence of self-defence by defence counsel – Whether defence counsel failed to follow instructions by not proceeding with forensic testing. [2011] NZCA 40 CA 127/2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CLEAVE v R SC 32/2011 [5 July 2011] (PDF, 43 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
5 July 2011.
5 July 2011.
Case name
John George Russell v The Taxation Review Authority & Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 56/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Bias – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that any apparent bias on the part of Judge Barber in the Taxation Review Authority was “cured” by the effective rehearing held by Justice Wylie in the High Court – Whether the Court of Appeal took into account irrelevant matters or gave insufficient weight to relevant matters or made erroneous factual findings.[2011] NZCA 158 CA 65/2009
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 to the second respondent.
26 August 2011.
Costs $2,500 to the second respondent.
26 August 2011.
Case name
John Anthony Edwards v Wellington Regional Council
Case number
SC 67/2011
Summary
Civil – Costs – Whether the Court of Appeal was right to uphold a decision of the Acting Registrar of that Court fixing security for costs on an appeal from the High Court – Section 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 – Appeal directly from the High Court – Whether a decision of the High Court to stay proceedings until a further statement of claim with adequate pleadings is submitted, and the leave of a Judge to file it is granted, is sufficiently exceptional to allow a direct appeal against the judgment to this Court. [2011] NZCA 260 CA 176/2011
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,5000 to the respondent.
Case name
Rodney John Humphries v Ewan Robert Carr
Case number
SC 86/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contract – Application of principle that a party should not be entitled to take advantage of his or her own wrong – Whether respondent should have been precluded from enforcing judgment for specific performance following his breach of a settlement agreement.[2011] NZCA 314 CA 565/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 to the respondent.
28 September 2011.
Costs $2,500 to the respondent.
28 September 2011.
Case name
Robert Michael Symons, Gregory John Symons and others v Wiltshire Investments Limited
Case number
SC 92/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Appeal against Court of Appeal upholding a summary decision of the High Court – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the refusal by the respondents to produce critical relevant documents that are in the respondent’s sole possession did not constitute a failure by the respondent to discharge the onus on a summary judgment application to establish that the appellants had no arguable defence – Whether the use of residual discretion to refuse an application for summary judgment under r 12.2 of the High Court Rules was justified – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the confidentiality can be a valid ground for refusal to disclose relevant documentation to the Court and the defendants in a summary judgment application. [2011] NZCA 397 CA 534/2010
Result
Leave to appeal is granted in relation to the indebtedness associated with Opus Fintek Ltd (in receivership). The approved question is whether the Associate Judge ought to have entered summary judgment despite the non disclosure of the 2009 settlement agreement between Opus Fintek Ltd and Hats Holdings Ltd.
17 November 2011
_________________________________
A Leave to appeal is extended to cover the indebtedness of Fibroin Initiatives Ltd.
B The appeal is allowed with the result that the entry of summary judgment is set aside but with leave reserved to the respondent to seek summary judgment once it has disclosed the settlement agreement to the appellants.
C The awards of costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside. 9 August 2012
___________________________________
17 October 2012:
Judgment recalled and reissued. A Leave to appeal is extended to cover the indebtedness of Fibroin Initiatives Ltd.
B The appeal is allowed with the result that the entry of summary judgment is set aside.
C Upon disclosure of the settlement agreement to the appellants, the application for summary judgment is, at the option of the respondent, to be reheard in the High Court with the appellants at liberty to resist the claim (and, if they think appropriate, produce additional evidence) on the basis of (i) defences associated with, or arising out of the disclosure of the settlement agreement and (ii), subject to the leave of the High Court being obtained, on any other basis. The appellants are also at liberty to make such interlocutory applications to the High Court as they see fit. D The awards of costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.
17 November 2011
_________________________________
A Leave to appeal is extended to cover the indebtedness of Fibroin Initiatives Ltd.
B The appeal is allowed with the result that the entry of summary judgment is set aside but with leave reserved to the respondent to seek summary judgment once it has disclosed the settlement agreement to the appellants.
C The awards of costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside. 9 August 2012
___________________________________
17 October 2012:
Judgment recalled and reissued. A Leave to appeal is extended to cover the indebtedness of Fibroin Initiatives Ltd.
B The appeal is allowed with the result that the entry of summary judgment is set aside.
C Upon disclosure of the settlement agreement to the appellants, the application for summary judgment is, at the option of the respondent, to be reheard in the High Court with the appellants at liberty to resist the claim (and, if they think appropriate, produce additional evidence) on the basis of (i) defences associated with, or arising out of the disclosure of the settlement agreement and (ii), subject to the leave of the High Court being obtained, on any other basis. The appellants are also at liberty to make such interlocutory applications to the High Court as they see fit. D The awards of costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.
Leave judgment - leave granted
sc 92 2011 symons v wiltshire investments ltd (PDF, 10 KB)
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ
Page 45 of 51