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
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassny and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 49/2011
Summary
Civil – Costs – Defamation – Whether Court of Appeal, in considering quantum of damages awarded against applicant, erred by: not considering applicant’s substantive defence of truth; upholding finding of liability in the circumstances. [2011] NZCA 106 CA 826/2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIEMER v STIASSNY SC 49/2011 [3 June 2011] (PDF, 99 KB)
Recall judgment
SIEMER v STIASSNY SC 49/2011 [21 October 2011 (PDF, 46 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
3 June 2011.
Case name
David Ingram Rowley and Barrie James Skinner v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 51/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Name Suppression – Interim name suppression order granted in the District Court, but overturned in High Court, with a Court of Appeal majority upholding the High Court’s decision – Whether Court of Appeal majority correctly applied the test for name suppression appeals – Whether Court of Appeal majority was right to uphold the view of the High Court Judge that the possible impact on financing of a defence was an irrelevant consideration – Whether Court of Appeal majority was correct in supporting the High Court Judge’s finding that the District Court Judge had failed to take into account a relevant consideration, namely the interest in clients of the appellants in knowing of the charges faced – Whether Court of Appeal majority was justified in holding that the High Court could make its own evaluation of the factors for and against name suppression if the District Court took into account irrelevant considerations or failed to take into account a relevant consideration.[2011] NZCA 160 CA 112/2011
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is declined.
7 July 2011.
7 July 2011.
Case name
Marcell Sydney Geros v The Queen
Case number
SC 77/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Conviction – Whether defence counsel advice to plead guilty caused a miscarriage of justice – Whether defence counsel prevented relevant evidence being adduced – Sentencing – Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive – Application for bail to prepare the case.[2011] NZCA 122 CA 321/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
16 September 2011.
16 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
Case name
FCM v Refugee Status Appeals Authority and Chief Executive of the Department of Labour
Case number
SC 105/2011
Summary
Civil – declining to review amount of security for costs fixed by Court of Appeal registrar.[2011] NZCA 441 CA 653/2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
24 November 2011.
24 November 2011.
Case name
Shelley Anne Francis Mitchell v Trustees Executors Limited
Case number
SC 115/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Summary judgment against guarantor of defaulted loan – That the respondent breached its duty to act fairly in relation to the sale and letting of the mortgaged property, in particular through its non-compliance with the Property Law Act 2007, and the appellant therefore has a defence to the action – That this conduct entitles the appellant to re-open the loan contract for oppression.[2011] NZCA 519 CA 217/2010
Dates
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
1 March 2012.
1 March 2012.
Case name
Xing Hua Du v Ming Gu
Case number
SC 127/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Joint Venture Agreement – The applicant and respondent were parties to a joint venture agreement, the terms of which were breached by the respondent, but the respondent raised a number of positive defences – The Court of Appeal held that the respondent was allowed to avoid the joint agreement because of the applicant’s failure to comply with ss 63 and 64 of the Real Estate Agents Act 1976 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the termination of the agency agreement between the applicant and a real estate agency required, by way of reasonable notice, not less than 14 days notice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that, because the agency agreement was still afoot, and because ss 63 and 64 of the Real Estate Agents Act were not complied with, the joint venture agreement was voidable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the respondent’s cancellation of the joint venture agreement was a valid exercise of her rights under s 63(3) of the Real Estate Agents Act.[2011] NZCA 577 CA 867/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the respondent.
6 March 2012.
6 March 2012.
Case name
Courtney Pauline Churchward v The Queen
Case number
SC 134/2011
Summary
Criminal – Conviction – Murder – Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing appeal against conviction – Whether Court of Appeal took correct approach to directions concerning accused’s youth and possible effect on intent – Availability of diminished responsibility defence.[2011] NZCA 531 CA 610/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
5 April 2012.
5 April 2012.
Case name
RL And WL v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development and others.
Case number
SC 2/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reinstating the High Court’s decision to strike out the appellant’s proceedings for judicial review but with restrictions; whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 20 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, the Treaty of Waitangi and other international human rights obligations. [2009] NZCA 596 CA 503/2008 15 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with no order for costs.
10 March 2009
Case name
John Hanita Paki and others v Attorney-General
Case number
SC 7/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “navigable river” in terms of s 14 of the Coal Mines Amendment Act 1903; whether the Waikato River was navigable for the purposes of s 14; whether, in the 1880s and 1890s, the Crown owed the appellants’ ancestors, as Maori and Treaty of Waitangi partners, a fiduciary duty or a relational duty of good faith not to acquire their land or taonga except with their full and informed consent, namely, whether the Crown owed an obligation to advise the original owners of the usque ad medium filum aquae principle (legal title to land runs to midpoint of riverbed) and, if so, whether the Crown breach either of those duties; whether the appellants’ ancestors had customary title to the river; whether the appellants (as representatives or otherwise of the Pouakani hapu) have standing to bring their claim; whether the appellants’ claim is time-barred under the Limitation Act 1950; whether the appellants’ claim is barred under s 12 of the Pouakani Claims Settlement Act 2000;[2009] NZCA 566 CA 691/2009 1 December 2009
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds are: (i) Did the applicants have standing to bring the proceeding in a representative capacity? (ii) Did s 14 of the Coalmines Amendment Act 1903 vest title in the riverbed adjoining the Pouakani lands in the Crown? (iii) If not, did the Crown acquire title to the claimed part of the riverbed through application of the presumption of riparian ownership ad medium filum aquae by reason of its acquisition of the riparian lands? (iv) If so, in the circumstances in which the Crown acquired the claimed part of the riverbed, was it in breach of legally enforceable obligations owed to the owners from whom title was acquired? (v) If so, have the applicants lost their right to enforce such obligations by reason of defences available to the Crown through lapse of time? (vi) If not, what relief is appropriate? C The Registrar is directed to set down the hearing of the first two questions only for hearing at a fixture of 2 days. Further timetabling and direction orders for hearing of the remaining Questions will be made at or following the first hearing. The Court may review the expression of grounds 3 to 6 if it considers it appropriate to do so after hearing the argument of questions 1 and 2.
21 July 2010
________________
The appellants have standing to bring the proceedings in a representative capacity. The riverbed adjoining the Pouakani lands is not vested in the Crown under s 261 of the Coal Mines Act 1979 and s 354 of the Resource Management Act 1991. Costs are reserved.
27 June 2012
_______________
Appeal dismissed.
29 August 2014
B The approved grounds are: (i) Did the applicants have standing to bring the proceeding in a representative capacity? (ii) Did s 14 of the Coalmines Amendment Act 1903 vest title in the riverbed adjoining the Pouakani lands in the Crown? (iii) If not, did the Crown acquire title to the claimed part of the riverbed through application of the presumption of riparian ownership ad medium filum aquae by reason of its acquisition of the riparian lands? (iv) If so, in the circumstances in which the Crown acquired the claimed part of the riverbed, was it in breach of legally enforceable obligations owed to the owners from whom title was acquired? (v) If so, have the applicants lost their right to enforce such obligations by reason of defences available to the Crown through lapse of time? (vi) If not, what relief is appropriate? C The Registrar is directed to set down the hearing of the first two questions only for hearing at a fixture of 2 days. Further timetabling and direction orders for hearing of the remaining Questions will be made at or following the first hearing. The Court may review the expression of grounds 3 to 6 if it considers it appropriate to do so after hearing the argument of questions 1 and 2.
21 July 2010
________________
The appellants have standing to bring the proceedings in a representative capacity. The riverbed adjoining the Pouakani lands is not vested in the Crown under s 261 of the Coal Mines Act 1979 and s 354 of the Resource Management Act 1991. Costs are reserved.
27 June 2012
_______________
Appeal dismissed.
29 August 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 19 July 2010 (PDF, 266 KB)
- Hearing date 15-16 March 2011 SC 7/2010 (PDF, 940 KB)
- Hearing date 19 and 20 February 2013 SC 07/2010 (PDF, 768 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2012 ] NZSC 50 (PDF, 87 KB)
- MR [2014] NZSC 118 (PDF, 102 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Page 17 of 24