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.
31 July 2026
Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 131 KB)
All years
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
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.Page 18 of 24