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
Patricia Pickering  v The Queen
Case number
SC 52/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – evidence – jury directions – what duty does the Crown Solicitor have to inform the defence in a timely manner when the Crown proposes resiling from an earlier agreement not to offer propensity evidence – is it fair that defence consent to vital propensity evidence can be implied when the evidence and propensity issues were not raised by the Crown with either the defence or with the trial Judge – was the trial Judge’s direction to the jury in respect of inferences/circumstantial evidence adequate – whether there was a miscarriage of justice arising from the Crown Solicitor’s use of emotive and inappropriate language in his closing address – whether the High Court should have permitted the “Lammie” evidence to be received as fresh evidence.[2012]NZCA 311  CA   546/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
3 October 2012.
Case name
Tiroa E and Te Hapa B Trusts v Chief Executive of Land Information and others.
Case number
SC 58/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Overseas Investment Act 2005 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first, second and third respondents had applied the correct test under s 16(1)(a) of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first, second and third respondents had not taken into account irrelevant considerations – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first, second and third respondents had obtained reasonably adequate information to reach decision that s 16(1)(a) of the Act had been satisfied.  [2012]NZCA 355  CA  88/2012, CA 284/2012
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
 
The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to both Milk New Zealand Holdings Ltd and the Crown respondents.
17 October 2012.
Case name
Philip Dean Taueki v The Queen
Case number
SC 64/2012
Summary
Criminal – s 56 of the Crimes Act 1961 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the applicant’s defence of peaceable possession – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant did not have possession of the land acquiesced by all other persons – whether the Crown’s guarantee under the Treaty of Waitangi guarantee of “ full, exclusive and undisturbed possession” of all land collectively owned is relevant to whether the applicant did have peaceable possession.    [2012]NZCA 428  CA  383/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted with regard to the first charge of assault. The approved ground is whether Mr Taueki had a defence
under s 56 of the Crimes Act 1961 to that first charge.
14 November 2012
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
TAUEKI v R SC 64/2012 [14 November 2012] (PDF, 11 KB)
Substantive judgment
TAUEKI v R [2013] NZSC 146 [17 December 2013] (PDF, 217 KB)
Case name
Aeneas Davidson v The Queen
Case number
SC 65/2012
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction – Whether trial counsel’ s conduct of the defence was deficient so as to render the applicant’s trial unfair – Evidence – Whether, in pursuing the defence, trial counsel elicited inadmissible recent complaint evidence that was prejudicial to the applicant making the verdicts unsafe.   [2012]NZCA 391  CA  174/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 February 2013
Case name
The Proprietors of Wakatu Incorporated and others v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 68/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Maori land – Whether, in the circumstances in which Maori land was acquired for the New Zealand Company’s Nelson settlement, the Crown was in breach of legally enforceable obligations owed to the owners from whom title was acquired – Whether the High Court erred in holding that no trust existed – Whether the High Court erred in finding that the Crown did not owe a fiduciary duty – Whether, if such obligations were owed, those owners have lost their right to enforce such obligations by reason of defences available to the Crown through lapse of time – Whether the High Court erred in finding that the appellants did not have standing to bring the proceeding.[2012]NZHC 1461  Civ 2010 442 181
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 November 2012.
Case name
Greenpeace of New Zealand Incorporated
Case number
SC 97/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a contentious or political purpose could not be a charitable purpose – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that purposes or activities carried on by the charity or its representatives or agents that are illegal or unlawful preclude charitable status even if only minor or ancillary.[2012] NZCA 533      CA 333/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted on the following ground:
Were the views expressed by the Court of Appeal in its judgment [2012] NZCA 533 at [55]-[68] and [96]-[97] of its reasons correct?
8 March 2013
____________________
A The appeal against the Court of Appeal’s determination that a political purpose cannot be a charitable purpose is allowed.
B The appeal against the Court of Appeal’ s determination that purposes or activities that are illegal or unlawful preclude charitable status is dismissed.               
C The matter of the charitable status of the objects of Greenpeace of New Zealand Inc is remitted to the chief executive of the Department of Internal Affairs and the Charities Board for reconsideration in light of this decision.
D No order for costs is made.
6 August 2014
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
RE GREENPEACE OF NEW ZEALAND INC SC 97/2012 [8 March 2013] (PDF, 7 KB)
Supreme court decision
RE GREENPEACE OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED [2014] NZSC 105 [6 August 2014] (PDF, 360 KB)
Case name
Mohammad Hamidzadeh v The Queen
Case number
SC 101/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against sentence – Sentencing Act 2002, ss 102 and 104 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its approach to sentence – Whether imposition of life sentence was manifestly unjust – Whether imposition of minimum period of imprisonment of 15 years six months was manifestly unjust – Whether Court of Appeal correctly assessed the role of provocation in sentencing for murder convictions given abolition of partial defence of provocation.  [2012] NZCA 550  CA 627/2011
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
HAMIDZADEH v R SC 101/2012 [16 April 201 (PDF, 52 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
16 April 2013.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassny and others
Case number
SC 20/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Strike out application – Whether a cause of action can be struck out before any statement of defence has been filed and the plaintiff’s evidence contested – Judicial bias – Whether a Judge shows bias by requesting the defendant to carry out some action against the plaintiff in relation to a separate proceeding.[2011] NZCA 1  CA 718/2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIEMER v STIASSNY SC 20/2011 [20 April 2011] (PDF, 10 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed, with costs $1500.00 plus disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar to the Attorney-General.

20 April 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.
Case name
AVM v The Queen
Case number
SC 34/2011
Summary
Criminal – Evidence Act 2006, ss 37 and 85 – Whether Crown ought to have disclosed material in its possession regarding expert witness to defence, in order to prevent ‘trial by ambush’ – Whether cross-examination of expert was in substance a challenge to witness’ veracity and s 37 was properly complied with (ie leave should have been sought) – Whether leave should have been sought based on s 85, ss 7 and 8 or common law – Whether in all the circumstances, the applicant had a fair trial. [2011] NZCA 84  CA 438/2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
M(SC34/2011) v R SC 34/2011 [20 June 2011] (PDF, 51 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

20 June 2011.
Page 16 of 24