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
Benjamin Izaak Stanley v The Queen
Case number
SC 77/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – jury trials – jury directions – whether trial judges should give a “demeanour direction” in a case where there is a risk that the jury might place weight on the demeanour of a witness as a factor relevant to determining the credibility and reliability of that witness – whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that, despite the Crown prosecutor’s comments in closing and the trial Judge’ s summing up, a demeanour direction was not required – whether a miscarriage of justice occurred at the appellant’s trial. [2012] NZCA 462 CA 672/2011
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
7 February 2013.
7 February 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
STANLEY v R SC 77/2012 [7 February 2013] (PDF, 51 KB)
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
Lisa Marie Colleen Mandic and Stephen Neil Dohnt
Case number
SC 4/2011
Summary
Civil – Interpretation of a Glasgow lease – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its approach and conclusions as to the interpretation of the lease’s particular rental review formula. [2010] NZCA 576 CA 787/2009 3 December 2010
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal conclusion as to the valuation methodology provided by cl 13(b) of the lease is correct.
18 March 2011
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellants are to pay the respondent costs of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements in connection with this appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
11 November 2011
18 March 2011
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellants are to pay the respondent costs of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements in connection with this appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
11 November 2011
Date of hearing
23 March 2011
Judges
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Transcripts
- sc 4 2011 mandic lisa marie anor v cornwall park (PDF, 634 KB)
Media Releases
- media release mandic dohnt (PDF, 90 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
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
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
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
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
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
Substantive judgment
Transcript
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
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
Bruce Benjamin Shepherd v The Queen
Case number
SC 84/2010
Summary
Criminal – appeal against conviction and sentence – applicant was convicted on 20 counts of sexual offending against eight complainants – during re-examination of one complainant the judge intervened to clarify the meaning of an earlier question from counsel for the defence in cross-examination and sought the complainant’s answer – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the questioning did not give rise to a miscarriage of justice – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that particular conduct of the applicant’s counsel at trial did not give rise to a miscarriage of justice .[2010] NZCA 351 CA 105/2009 5 August 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SHEPHERD v R SC 84/2010 [1 April 2011] (PDF, 10 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
1 April 2011Page 19 of 22