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
Jamie Ahsin v The Queen
Case number
SC 96/2012
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Crimes Act 1961, s 66(1) – Party to murder –Providing assistance to principal offender – Concept of withdrawal – Whether Court of Appeal was correct that appellant’s actions could not amount to a withdrawal of assistance[2011] NZCA 75     CA 133/2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved question is whether the trial judge should have directed the jury as to withdrawal in relation to s 66(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961.
11 March 2013
____________________
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.
New trial ordered.
30 October 2014
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
AHSIN v R SC 96/2012 [11 March 2013] (PDF, 7 KB)
Supreme court decision
JAMIE NGAHUIA AHSIN v R AND RAELEEN MATEWAI NOYLE RAMEKA v R [2014] NZSC 153 [30 October 2014] (PDF, 761 KB)
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
The New Zealand Māori Council and Waikato Rivers and Dams Claims Trust v Her Majesty’s Attorney-General, The Minister of Finance and The Minister of State Owned Enterprises
Case number
SC 98/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Application for direct appeal – Whether the High Court was right to dismiss the New Zealand  Māori Council’ s application for review. [2012] NZHC 3338 Civ 2012 485 2187
Result
Leave to appeal, and to appeal direct to this Court, is granted. The approved ground of appeal is whether the High Court was right to dismiss the application for review.
_____________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
27 February 2013
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
THE NEW ZEALAND MAORI COUNCIL v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL SC 98/2012 [27 February 2013] (PDF, 353 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 1 February 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.
Case name
Credit Suisse Private Equity Inc and another v Eric Meserve Houghton  and others
Case number
SC 100/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Limitation periods – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that representees’ individual claims had been brought when the first respondent filed his claim on a representative basis – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that representees did not have to opt in to the proceedings before limitation periods expired in order to bring timely individual claims[2012] NZCA 545  CA204/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted on the following ground: Are the claims of some or all of the shareholders represented by the First Respondent (Mr Houghton) time-barred by virtue of limitation provisions in the Limitation Act 1950 or the Fair Trading Act 1986? 8 April 2013 ____________________ The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of $25,000 are awarded to the first respondent plus usual disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary).  The appellants and the second and fourth respondents are liable jointly and severally for the costs and disbursements.  We certify for second counsel.

9 April 2014
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
CREDIT SUISSE PRIVATE EQUITY LLC v ERIC MESERVE HOUGHTON [2014] NZSC 37 [9 April 2014] (PDF, 436 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 15 October 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, Glazebrook, Arnold, Gault, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Lisa Marie Colleen Mandic and Stephen Neil Dohnt
Case number
SC 4/2011
Summary
Civil – Interpretation of a Glasgow lease – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its approach and conclusions as to the interpretation of the lease’s particular rental review formula. [2010] NZCA 576  CA 787/2009   3 December  2010
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal conclusion as to the valuation methodology provided by cl 13(b) of the lease is correct.
18 March 2011
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellants are to pay the respondent costs of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements in connection with this appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
11 November 2011
Date of hearing
23 March 2011
Judges
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
MANDIC v THE CORNWALL PARK TRUST BOARD (INC) SC 4/2011 [18 March 2011] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
MANDIC v THE CORNWALL PARK TRUST BOARD (INC) SC 4/2011 [11 November 2011] (PDF, 251 KB)
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Heron and others
Case number
SC 6/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Procedure – Whether the Court of Appeal’ s holding that there is no automatic right of appeal against a High Court order fixing security for costs is consistent with natural justice – Whether the Court of Appeal addressed the appellant’s arguments – Whether the fact that r 20.13(2) of the High Court Rules was adopted by the Rules Committee has International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights implications.[2010] NZCA 610  CA 190/2010  14 December  2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The ground approved is whether leave of the Court of Appeal was required under s 67 of the Judicature Act for the applicant’s appeal against security for costs fixed by order of the High Court or whether appeal was available as of right under s 66 of the Judicature Act.
30 March 2011
_______________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs reserved.
8 November 2011
________________________
Application for recall of judgment of 8 November 2011 is dismissed.
Both applications for costs are dismissed.
9 December 2011
________________________
2nd Application for recall - dismissed.
14 December 2011
________________________
Abuse of process. Dismissed. No further application in relation to [2011] NZSC 133 to be accepted by the Registry.
21 May 2021
Recall judgment
9 December 2011 Recall and costs (PDF, 48 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 15 August 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ
Case name
Gary Owen Burgess v Susan Natalie Beaven
Case number
SC 9/2011
Summary
Civil – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Relationship Property – Whether Court of Appeal took correct approach to overturning lower court decisions and costs orders – Whether relationship property was correctly assessed under the Property (Relationships) Act, and a division of relationship property inconsistent with the Act has eventuated.[2010] NZCA 625  CA 371/2009   20 December  2010
Result
1 We grant leave to appeal and cross-appeal (and an extension of time in relation to the cross-appeal). 2 The approved grounds of appeal and cross-appeal proceed on the basis that the Court of Appeal’s assessment under s 14(2)(c) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 in favour of equal sharing was correct and are as follows: (a) was the Court of Appeal in error in adopting separation date values; (b) was there any logical or arithmetical error in the Court of Appeal’ s identification and valuation of the relationship property and its allowances for post-separation contributions; (c) should the Court of Appeal have made consequential orders in respect of the costs ordered in relation to earlier judgments and money paid by Mr Burgess to Ms Beaven; and (d) what, if any, additional or other orders are required.
22 September 2011
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed and the cross-appeal is dismissed.
B Orders B, C and D of the decision of the Court of Appeal [2010] NZCA 625 are set aside.
C The awards of costs made against Mr Burgess by John Hansen J in the Stream A litigation are set aside and in their place Mr Burgess is awarded $5,000 costs in respect of the first appeal to the High Court heard by John Hansen J. 
D Ms Beaven’s gross liability to Mr Burgess is:
(a) Balance due on division of property  3,716.10
(b) Refund of money paid to Ms Beaven 36,804.31
(c)  Costs and disbursements on first appeal    5,000   
Total        45,520.41
E Ms Beaven is entitled to set off outstanding awards of costs in her favour totalling $15,474.16 against her gross liability producing a net figure which she must pay, and on which Mr Burgess may now execute judgment of $30,046.25.  Interest will run on that sum from the date of this judgment in terms of r 11.27 of the High Court Rules.
F Ms Beaven is to pay Mr Burgess usual disbursements in relation to this appeal.
9 August 2012
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
BURGESS v BEAVEN SC 9/2011 [22 September 2011] (PDF, 106 KB)
Substantive judgment
BURGESS v BEAVEN SC 9/2011 [9 August 2012] (PDF, 193 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 23 April 2012

Blanchard, Tipping, William Young, Chambers, Anderson JJ.
Case name
The Attorney-General and Lindsay Gow v Erin Alice Leigh
Case number
SC 11/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Defamation Act 1992 – Absolute Privilege – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Briefing Paper and oral statements did not form part of the “proceedings in the House of Representatives” and therefore were not protected by absolute privilege[2010] NZCA 624  CA 483/2009 17 December  2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the communications by Mr Gow to the Minister for the Environment were the subject of absolute privilege.
11 April 2011
___________________
Appeal dismissed.
16 September 2011
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
ATTORNEY-GENERAL IN RESPECT OF THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND GOW V LEIGH SC 11/2011 11 April 2011
Substantive judgment
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v LEIGH SC 11/2011 [16 September 2011] (PDF, 117 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 16 August 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.

 
Substantive judgmen / Media release
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Maritime New Zealand v Survey Nelson Limited
Case number
SC 14/2011
Summary
Judicial Review – Decision to approve Safe Ship Management Company – Maritime Transport Act 1995 – Maritime Rules – Error of Law – Whether Court of Appeal correct, after finding error of law, to reverse High Court position and grant relief to Survey Nelson Ltd ­– Whether Court of Appeal possessed jurisdiction to reinstate approval where this effectively required the issue of a new approval[2010] NZCA 629   CA 245/2010  21 December 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MARITIME NEW ZEALAND v SURVEY NELSON LIMITED SC 14/2011 [2 June 2011] (PDF, 71 KB)
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $2,500 plus disbursements and other necessary payments, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. 

2 June 2011.
Case name
Shirleen Shia Ling Sim v Moncrieff Pastoral Limited
Case number
SC 19/2011
Summary
Civil – Deemed abandonment – Whether Court of Appeal correct to decline application for order granting extension of time to appeal as well as making associated orders – whether leave ought to be granted to adduce new evidence. [2011] NZCA 21   CA 706/2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIM v MONCRIEFF PASTORAL LIMITED SC 19/2011 [9 May 2011] (PDF, 45 KB)
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $2,500.

9 May 2011.
Page 54 of 80