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.

4 September 2026

Case information summary (as at 4 September 2026) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 116 KB)
Case information summary (as at 4 September 2026)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 132 KB) 

All years

Case name
Nicholas Paul Alfred Reekie  v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections and Visiting Justice to Springhill Correctional Facility
Case number
SC 102/2013
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
NICHOLAS PAUL ALFRED REEKIE v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2014] NZSC 63 [29 May 2014] (PDF, 240 KB)
Recall judgment
NICHOLAS PAUL ALFRED REEKIE v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2014] NZSC 98 [30 July 2014] (PDF, 9 KB)

Summary
 

Security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application to review the Registrar’s decision refusing to dispense with security for costs.

[2013] NZCA 422    CA 170/2013
Dates

27 November 2013 and 5 December 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

29 May 2014.

Application for recall dismissed.

30 July 2014.
Case name
Adrian James Leason, Peter Reginald Leo Murnane and Samuel Peter Frederick Land v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 131/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Trespass – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relation to its interpretation and application of the principle ex turpi causa non oritur actio – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by refusing to order a full trial in light of the assumed wrongful conduct given its obligations at international law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relation to its interpretation or application of defence of another and/or necessity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relation to the interpretation and application of the law governing admissibility of additional evidence on appeal.[2013] NZCA 509  CA 642/2011
Dates

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

5 February 2014.
Case name
Razdan Rafiq v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.
Case number
SC 134/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss application to review the Registrar’s decision refusing to waive security for costs – Whether waiver of security for costs is in the interests of justice.  [2013] NZCA 586  CA 577/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
19 February 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
RAZDAN RAFIQ v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2014] NZSC 7 [19 February 2014] (PDF, 41 KB)
Recall judgment
RAZDAN RAFIQ v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2014] NZSC 104 [6 August 2014] (PDF, 47 KB)
Case name
Jay Maui Wallace v Chief Executive of Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 1/2012
Summary
Habeus Corpus – Whether Appellant is subject to the laws of New Zealand – Whether Appellant is being arbitrarily detained because of alleged procedural failings pertaining to hearings in the High Court and Court of Appeal.[2011] NZCA  678  CA 783/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
21 March 2012.
Case name
B v The Queen
Case number
SC 6/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Evidence Act 2006, s 25 – Admissibility of expert opinion evidence – Appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, which held that the trial Judge’s refusal to allow the defence to call an expert did not cause a miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the applicant was not prejudiced by this refusal[2011] NZCA 654  CA 196/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
3 April 2012.
Case name
Rita Wilson v David Murray Blanchett and Grant Edward Burns
Case number
SC 7/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Company Law – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that there was no arguable defence to the Respondents’ application for summary judgment – Whether certain payments transferred to the Applicant were made with valuable consideration per s 298(2) of the Companies Act 1993[2011] NZCA  647  CA 521/2010.
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondents.

24 February 2012.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v The Chief Justice and The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 15/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Court of Appeal Rules (Civil) 2005, r 35 – Appeal against Court of Appeal decision to decline review of Acting Registrar’s decisions as to security for costs – Whether rule 35 violates the rule of law as it is neither fixed nor predictable – Whether Court of Appeal judgment amounts to an unlawful restriction to court access by imposing a financial barrier to court access and without providing an analysis of the merits of the appeal – Whether Court of Appeal judgment amounts to unlawful governmental protection by preventing appeal challenge to a Crown Judge’s decision to strike out a statutory claim against a Crown officer – Whether rule 35 as currently applied is inconsistent with s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and art 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. CA 558/2011  [2012]  NZCA68
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
15 May 2012.
Case name
Ronald van Wakeren v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 16/2012
Summary
Administrative law – Habeas Corpus – Habeas Corpus Act 2001, s 16 (1A) – Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to grant writ of Habeas Corpus – Improper composition of bench – Error in Warrant for Imprisonment – Breach of natural justice.CA 66/2012  [2012]  NZCA 22
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
5 April 2012.
Case name
Michael Peter Stiassny, Grant Robert Graham, Forestry Corporation of New Zealand Limited (in receivership), Citic New Zealand Limited (in receivership), CNI Forest Nominees Limited and Bank of New Zealand v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 21/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Goods and services tax – Restitution – Recovery of a GST payment paid by the first appellants to the respondent in the mistaken belief that they were personally liable for the debt – Whether secured creditors own the proceedings of sale of assets that are subject to registered fixed charges at the time of sale, if they are sold for less than the secured debts to which the charges relate – Whether the first appellants were entitled to apply the proceeds of sale of the Central North Island Forestry Partnership (CNIFP) assets to the payment of GST amount, in priority to the claims of the secured creditors – Whether the GST payment was “ debtor-initiated” in terms of s 95 of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 (PPSA) – Whether s 95 of the PPSA barred the recovery of the GST payment if it was made under a mistake – Whether the second and third appellants have a cause of action in restitution for the recovery of their mistaken payment – Whether the first appellants have a cause of action in restitution for the recovery of their mistaken payment – Whether the security trustees have a cause of action in restitution for the recovery of the mistaken payment made by the first appellants to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue –  Whether “good faith” is a pre-requisite for a defence of the provision of good consideration to the payer to a claim for the recovery of a payment made under a mistake – Whether the first appellants are entitled to recover GST payment pursuant to their tax challenge cause of action pursuant to the Tax Administration Act 1994.SC 775/2010   [2012] NZCA 93
Result

A  Leave to appeal is granted.

B  The approved grounds are:

(i)  whether the GST payment was a “ debtor-initiated payment” in terms of s 95 of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 so as to confer priority to the Commissioner over any claim to those moneys by any respondent;

(ii)  whether any of the appellants can recover the amount of GST so paid from the Commissioner on the basis that it was paid by the receivers under a mistaken belief that they were personally liable to pay it or on any other basis.

8 May 2012

_____________________________

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellants are to pay the respondent’ s costs in this Court in the sum of $40,000 together with reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

28 November 2012
Transcript

Hearing dates : 27 and 28 September 2012

McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Gault, Blanchard JJ.
Case name
Gareth John Needham v The Queen
Case number
SC 24/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Expert evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold that the trial Judge should have ordered severance of count one into two alternative counts – Whether there was a breach of s 92 of the Evidence Act 2006 as trial counsel did not cross-examine four Crown witnesses on an issue of veracity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and law in relation to an issue that a Crown witness was allegedly improperly asked in evidence-in-chief – Whether evidence should have been led as to the lack of previous convictions of the appellant – Whether the Court of Appeal should have determined the admissibility of fresh good character evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the fresh evidence of an astronomer would not have been substantially helpful – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the fresh evidence of a consultant forensic pathologist would not have been substantially helpful.CA 443/2011  [2012] NZCA 95
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
14 June 2012.
Page 15 of 24