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
Allan Jack West v Geoffrey Allan West, David John Cameron West and The Partners of Langley Twigg Law
Case number
SC 56/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Particular discovery – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the High Court was functus officio and could not grant particular discovery.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
9 October 2019
B There is no order as to costs.
9 October 2019
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
William George Graham Cameron Cleary v Ewart & Ewart
Case number
SC 9/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s dismissal of the applicant’s claim against his lawyer for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
12 April 2018
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
12 April 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CLEARY v EWART & EWART [2018] NZSC 28 [12 April 2018] (PDF, 206 KB)
Case name
Jiri Kupec v The Queen
Case number
SC 92/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the trial Judge correctly applied the formulation of recklessness adopted in Cameron v R [2017] NZSC 89 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial Judge was correct to dismiss a defence submission that, if the applicant proved an innocent state of mind, an acquittal should follow – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that the trial Judge’ s direction on the applicant’s out of court statement was adequate.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
22 November 2018
22 November 2018
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JIRI KUPEC v R [2018] NZSC 113 [22 November 2018] (PDF, 41 KB)
Case name
Peter Anthony Williams v Trevor Nelson Cameron and Robin Whalley and Richards Woodhouse
Case number
SC 78/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining an application for extension of time to appeal, on the basis that the applicant alleges that the respondents’ lawyers have acted in breach of Rules of Conduct and Client Care. [2016] NZCA 317 CA136/2016
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed
B The applicant must pay the respondents costs of $2,500
5 September 2016
B The applicant must pay the respondents costs of $2,500
5 September 2016
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Jacqueline Ann Cameron v The Queen
Case number
SC 142/2016
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Appeal against sentence – Social Security Act 1964, s 127 – Crimes Act 1961, s 228(b) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its calculation of the debt owed by the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusion regarding the applicant’s counsel – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding there was no miscarriage of justice. [2016] NZCA 536 CA505/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
21 August 2017
21 August 2017
Date of Judgment
01 January 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Court of Appeal decision
Case name
Morton v The Queen
Case number
SC 86/2015
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against pre-trial ruling – Evidence Act 2006, s 49 – Appellant charged as party to offending when principals convicted in previous trial – Whether exceptional circumstances exist to direct that convictions are not conclusive evidence of principal offending.[2015] NZCA 322 CA 266/2015
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (M v R [2015] NZCA 322).B The approved question is:“Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of ss 44 and 49 of the Evidence Act 2006”.
27 August 2015
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B Permission under s 49(2)(a) of the Evidence Act 2006 is given to the appellant to adduce evidence from himself and the co-defendants in which they may give their accounts of their interactions with the complainant on the night of the offending and as to the prior sexual relationship of one of the co-defendants with the complainant.
C Permission is refused in respect of the recantation and inconsistent conduct evidence and the evidence referred to in [74] (other than that identified in [77]).
D There is no direction under s 49(2)(b).
5 May 2016
27 August 2015
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B Permission under s 49(2)(a) of the Evidence Act 2006 is given to the appellant to adduce evidence from himself and the co-defendants in which they may give their accounts of their interactions with the complainant on the night of the offending and as to the prior sexual relationship of one of the co-defendants with the complainant.
C Permission is refused in respect of the recantation and inconsistent conduct evidence and the evidence referred to in [74] (other than that identified in [77]).
D There is no direction under s 49(2)(b).
5 May 2016
Date of hearing
18 November 2015
Judges
Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, O’Regan JJ.
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Substantive judgment
Case name
Cameron John Leef v The Queen
Case number
SC 81/2012
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Crimes Act 1961, s 134(1) – Having sexual connection with a young person – Evidence Act 2006, s 44 – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that evidence of complainant’s prior sexual experience was inadmissible – Whether Court of Appeal erred that there was no miscarriage of justice as a result of the admission of inadmissible evidence.[2012] NZCA 567 CA 248/2011
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
14 March 2013.
14 March 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
LEEF v R SC 81/2012 [14 March 2013] (PDF, 57 KB)
Case name
Paul Joseph Cameron v The Queen
Case number
SC 54/2009
Summary
Criminal appeal – murder – whether statements made by the appellant were made in circumstances adversely affecting their reliability and ought to have been excluded – whether statements made by the appellant were influenced by oppression and ought to have been excluded – whether statements made by the appellant were improperly obtained and ought to have been excluded - whether the appellant’s conviction was a substantial miscarriage of justice[2009] NZCA 87 CA 568/2008 24 March 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 12 August 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Paul Joseph Cameron v The Queen
Case number
SC 30/2008
Summary
High Court Gisborne CRN 2006 016 00325Criminal appeal – Evidence Act 2006 ss 28, 29 and 30 – admissibility of “scenario evidence” (evidence obtained by an investigative technique whereby police invite a suspect to participate with an undercover police officer in a constructed event designed to simulate criminal activity) – applicant made statements to undercover police officer posing as gang leader that were admitted in Court against him – whether, under s 29(4)(d), a threat, promise or representation must only be taken into account in determining whether a statement was influenced by oppression if it were made by a person in authority – further, whether evidence should be excluded for unreliability or improperly being obtained under s 28 and s 30 respectively.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CAMERON v R SC 30/2008 [1 August 2008] (PDF, 14 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
1 August 2008
Case name
Lionel Andrew West v The Official Assignee
Case number
SC 82/2007
Summary
Civil appeal – disposal of applicant’s beneficial interest in property on insolvency – whether the Official Assignee was prevented from selling the applicant’s interest in the trust property when the applicant had been discharged from bankruptcy – whether the Official Assignee was free to choose which property comprised the applicant’s 1/3 share in the trust property –whether the Court of Appeal applied Cameron v Official Assignee (1987) 9 NZTC 6,187 correctly – whether the Official Assignee’s mistaken belief that he replaced the applicant as trustee of the property formed a cause of action in negligence - whether all debts owed by the applicant had been paid and whether this fact affected the ability of the Official Assignee to sell the property interest – whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the applicant to introduce new evidence – whether the Magna Carta prevented the Official Assignee from disposing of the applicant’s property interest. [2007] NZCA 523 CA 53/06 20 November 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs of $1500 to the respondent. 11 March 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 1 of 2