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
David Owen Crequer v Chief Exectutive, Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 30/2010
Summary
Civil – Denial of order for habeas corpus – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to hear the appeal on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.[2010] NZCA 75 CA 125/2010 16 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs to Respondent $1,250.
6 May 2010
Case name
Dick Halton Headley v The Queen
Case number
SC 31/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961 – Abduction – whether Judge Boshier erred in making public certain Family Court judgments – whether the Court of Appeal erred in giving insufficient weight to this publication, or other information released on a website – whether a stay of proceedings, or a change in venue should have been granted – whether the Court of Appeal erred by giving insufficient weight to the applicant’s right to a fair trial – whether the lack of experienced counsel and the appointment of an “amicus” prevented the applicant from adequately presenting his case – whether the inability to call a witness to give evidence undermined the applicant’s defence – whether police conduct in light of alleged conflicts of interest was unfair – whether the applicant was denied legal assistance to present his defence[2010] NZCA 71 CA 18/2009 16 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
HEADLEY v R SC 31/2010 [9 June 2010] (PDF, 30 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
9 June 2010.
Case name
Nathan Stanley Gedye v Colin Robert South, Diane Lee South and Richard James Bureel as Trustees of the South Family Trust
Case number
SC 56/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Building Act 1991 – Alleged breach of vendor warranty for compliance with the Act – interpretation of limitation defence in s 91(2) of the Act – the Court of Appeal held the “act or omission on which the proceedings are based” to be the giving of the contractual warranty rather than the building work itself – the 10 year limitation period in s 91(2) therefore did not bar the respondent’s claim – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding s 91(2) inapplicable[2010] NZCA 207 CA 567/2009 20 May 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
5 October 2010.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 67/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Habeas Corpus – Contempt of Court – Whether Court of Appeal properly applied Habeas Corpus Act 2001 to contempt order of Supreme Court in Siemer v Solicitor-General [2010] NZSC 54 – Whether Applicant given proper notice of details of breach of injunction – Whether Supreme Court contempt order founded on a proper evidential basis – Whether there now remains a lawful basis for Applicant to be detained – Whether Applicant was properly served with original injunction[2010] NZCA 292 CA 424/2010 7 July 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
16 July 2010.
Case name
Chala Sani Abdula v The Queen
Case number
SC 80/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal - whether the applicant was denied his right to an interpreter under s 24(g) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; whether the adequacy of evidence called by the defence at trial and the Court of Appeal's refusal of an application to call further medical and scientific evidence gave rise to a miscarriage of justice.[2010] NZCA 332 28 July 2010
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the applicant was denied his right to an interpreter under s 24(g) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
4 November 2010
___________________________________
Appeal dismissed.
1 November 2011
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the applicant was denied his right to an interpreter under s 24(g) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
4 November 2010
___________________________________
Appeal dismissed.
1 November 2011
Transcripts
- Hearing date 25 March 2011 SC 80/2010 (PDF, 490 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2011 ] NZSC 130 (PDF, 90 KB)
Substantive judgment
ABDULA v R SC 80/2010 [1 November 2011] (PDF, 149 KB)
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 2011
Case name
R I G v Chief Executive Officer, Ministry of Social Development and others
Case number
SC 90/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to waive security for costs for the applicant’s appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal. [2010] NZCA 362 CA 261/2009 10 August 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
17 November 2010
Case name
Arthur William Taylor v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 92/2010
Summary
Civil – Judicial Review – Judicature Amendment Act 1972 – Visiting arrangements for maximum-security prisoner and young daughter – High Court declined appellant interim relief against prison manager’ s decision restricting previous monthly contact visits with daughter in interests of child and prisoner safety – Whether Court of Appeal erred in declining to make mandatory interim relief order against prison manager’s discretion despite finding that courts have jurisdiction to order mandatory interim relief against the Crown – Whether Court of Appeal should have commented on respondent’s cross-appeal when High Court observations founding cross-appeal made only in obiter.[2010] NZCA 371 CA 165/2010 16 August 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
8 December 2010.
Case name
Pawel Marian Misiuk v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 105/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal - Habeas Corpus application - Whether the High Court’ s failure to issue a warrant to detain the applicant as required by s44(1) of the Bail Act 2000 at time of the applicant’s hearing meant that all subsequent warrants issued for the applicant's commitment to prison were also invalid.[2010] NZCA 480 CA 672/2010 20 October 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed,
16 November 2010.
Case name
DJB v The Queen
Case number
SC 114/2010
Summary
Criminal – Evidence Act 2006 – Admissibility of prior consistent statements – whether the complainant’s prior consistent statements to third parties, led in evidence in chief within a video interview, were admissible in application of s 35(2) of the Act – Admissibility of statements made by the defendant – whether evidence given by the complainant’ s mother of a statement made by the defendant should have been excluded on the basis that the risk of an unfairly prejudicial effect on the proceeding outweighed its limited probative value pursuant to s 8 of the Act[2010] NZCA 493 CA 110/2010 29 October 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the evidence of complaints to two family members was admissible.
25 February 2011
____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
9 June 2011
25 February 2011
____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
9 June 2011
Media Releases
- sc114 2010 media release (PDF, 85 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
B v R SC 114/2010 [25 February 2011] (PDF, 137 KB)
Substantive judgment
B(SC 114/2010) v R SC 114/2010 [9 June 2011] (PDF, 66 KB)
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Page 18 of 24