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
Carol Margaret Down v The Queen
Case number
SC 48/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991 – Summary Proceedings Act 1957 – Applicant convicted of four counts of discharge of a contaminant under s 15 RMA – Whether s 15 discharge offences are infringement offences as defined in s 2(1) SPA and therefore required leave of District Court Judge or Registrar to lay informations under s 21 SPA and also s 78A SPA applicable – Whether Court of Appeal correct to find prosecution saved in any case by s 204 SPA and did not result in a nullity.[2011] NZCA 119 CA 819/2009
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved grounds are:
(i) whether the laying of the informations on the discharge counts required leave of a District Court Judge or Registrar under s 21 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957; and
(ii) if so, whether in the absence of such leave prior to the laying of the informations the proceedings were validated by s 204 of that Act.
5 August 2011
________________________________
Appeal dismissed.
3 April 2012
The approved grounds are:
(i) whether the laying of the informations on the discharge counts required leave of a District Court Judge or Registrar under s 21 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957; and
(ii) if so, whether in the absence of such leave prior to the laying of the informations the proceedings were validated by s 204 of that Act.
5 August 2011
________________________________
Appeal dismissed.
3 April 2012
Transcripts
- Hearing date 29 November 2011 SC 48/2011 (PDF, 579 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2012] NZSC 21 (PDF, 83 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
DOWN v R SC 48/2011 [5 August 2011] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
DOWN v R SC 48/2011 (PDF, 154 KB)
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
Anthony Phillip Musson v Ministry of Fisheries
Case number
SC 55/2011
Summary
Civil – Fisheries levies – That the District Court erred in granting judgment to the Ministry of Fisheries against the appellant.Civ 2011 425 043
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs to the respondent in the sum of $1500.00 plus disbursements.
27 June 2011.
Case name
Mahana Makarini Edmonds v The Queen
Case number
SC 57/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Party offences – Section 66(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 – Appellant was convicted of manslaughter after Mr Pahau, one of his associates, killed Mr Niwa through a single stab wound inflicted by a knife - Whether the jury must be directed that knowledge of the possession of the particular type of weapon used in the commission of the principal offence is required under s 66(2). [2011] NZCA 147 CA 588/2010
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the trial Judge should have directed the jury that they could not convict the appellant unless satisfied that he knew the principal offender was carrying a knife.
15 August 2011
________________________
Appeal dismissed.
20 December 2011
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the trial Judge should have directed the jury that they could not convict the appellant unless satisfied that he knew the principal offender was carrying a knife.
15 August 2011
________________________
Appeal dismissed.
20 December 2011
Transcripts
- Hearing date 6 October 2011 SC 57/2011 (PDF, 267 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2011] NZSC 159 (PDF, 86 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
EDMONDS v R SC 57/2011 [15 August 2011] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
EDMONDS v R SC 57/2011 [20 December 2011] (PDF, 201 KB)
Case name
Body Corporate 207624 and others v North Shore City Council
Case number
SC 58/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Negligence – Leaky building – Whether applicant hotel unit owners owed a duty of care by respondent council – Whether applicant penthouse apartment owners owed a duty of care by council – Whether intended use of building as residential or non-residential a controlling factor in determining whether local authority owes duty of care – How duty of care in respect of a mixed-use building should be determined – Whether council can owe duty of care for negligent misstatement based upon code compliance certificates in absence of specific reliance by applicants.[2011] NZCA 164 CA 760/2009
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is whether and to what extent the respondent local authority owed a duty of care to the body corporate and/or all or some of the appellant unit owners in exercising its regulatory functions under the Building Act 1991 in relation to the construction of the Spencer on Byron building which contains a mixture of non-residential and residential apartments. 5 August 2011 _________________________________ A The appeal is allowed.
B The orders made in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.
C The appellants’ claim against the respondent is permitted to proceed in the High Court.
D The appellants are entitled to costs in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. If the parties cannot agree quantum, costs are to be fixed in the respective Courts.
E The respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs in this Court in the sum of $40,000 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar. 11 October 2012
B The approved ground is whether and to what extent the respondent local authority owed a duty of care to the body corporate and/or all or some of the appellant unit owners in exercising its regulatory functions under the Building Act 1991 in relation to the construction of the Spencer on Byron building which contains a mixture of non-residential and residential apartments. 5 August 2011 _________________________________ A The appeal is allowed.
B The orders made in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.
C The appellants’ claim against the respondent is permitted to proceed in the High Court.
D The appellants are entitled to costs in the High Court and the Court of Appeal. If the parties cannot agree quantum, costs are to be fixed in the respective Courts.
E The respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs in this Court in the sum of $40,000 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar. 11 October 2012
Leave judgment - leave granted
Transcript
Hearing dates : 20, 21 and 26 March 2012
Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Chambers JJ.
Case name
Warren Bruce Fenemor v The Queen
Case number
SC 60/2011
Summary
Criminal – Admissibility of propensity evidence –That some items of evidence admitted were inadmissible propensity evidence – That the trial Judge’s directions on the use of that evidence were inadequate – That the trial Judge erred in preventing the appellant from demonstrating his account of the incident.[2011] NZCA 206 CA 457/2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted in part. The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold, following R v Degnan that propensity evidence may be led by the Crown despite that evidence having previously been led at a trial which resulted in an acquittal.
We refuse leave to appeal on the other proposed grounds as they do not, in our view, meet the statutory criteria.
23 August 2011
_________________
Appeal dismissed.
21 October 2011
We refuse leave to appeal on the other proposed grounds as they do not, in our view, meet the statutory criteria.
23 August 2011
_________________
Appeal dismissed.
21 October 2011
Media Releases
- media release fenemor (PDF, 82 KB)
Substantive judgment
sc 60 2011 warren bruce fenemor v the queen (PDF, 130 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 4 October 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Pacific Farms Limited and Pacific Farms Development Limited v Palmerston North City Council and Palmerston North Industrial & Residential Developments Limited
Case number
SC 64/2011
Summary
Civil – Resource Management Act 1991 – Issue of consents without notice ¬– High Court declining to quash consents or grant declarations on terms sought by appellants – Whether Court of Appeal correct to set aside all of High Court’s declarations (and leave feasibility of a rehearing to the parties) on basis that late revelation of a relevant consent and regional plan meant that the critical issues were unable to be addressed in any meaningful way – Whether, in light of that finding, Court of Appeal correct to order parties to bear their own costs and set aside High Court costs orders – Extent of differentiation and/or overlap of functions and jurisdiction of Territorial Authorities and Regional Councils – Effect of regional plan on status of activity for notification purposes – Effect of principles of natural justice on Court of Appeal decision, particularly its decision to determine proceedings on a ground not the subject of pleadings or submissions by the parties. [2011] NZCA 187 CA 116/2010
Dates
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
6 July 2011.
6 July 2011.
Case name
John Anthony Edwards v Wellington Regional Council
Case number
SC 67/2011
Summary
Civil – Costs – Whether the Court of Appeal was right to uphold a decision of the Acting Registrar of that Court fixing security for costs on an appeal from the High Court – Section 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 – Appeal directly from the High Court – Whether a decision of the High Court to stay proceedings until a further statement of claim with adequate pleadings is submitted, and the leave of a Judge to file it is granted, is sufficiently exceptional to allow a direct appeal against the judgment to this Court. [2011] NZCA 260 CA 176/2011
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,5000 to the respondent.
Case name
Keith Allenby v H, Middlemore Hospital of Counties Manukau District Health Board and Accident Compensation Corporation
Case number
SC 70/2011
Summary
The case is clearly one in respect of which leave should be granted and we therefore grant leave.The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in answering the question before it in the negative.30 June 2011.[2011] NZCA 251 CA 586/2010
Result
The case is clearly one in respect of which leave should be granted and we therefore grant leave. The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in answering the question before it in the negative.
30 June 2011
_______________________
A The appeal is allowed. The question framed in the High Court is answered “yes”.
B Costs are reserved.
9 May 2012
30 June 2011
_______________________
A The appeal is allowed. The question framed in the High Court is answered “yes”.
B Costs are reserved.
9 May 2012
Media Releases
- media release sc 70 2011 allenby v h ors (PDF, 85 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
ALLENBY v H SC 70/2011 [30 June 2011] (PDF, 10 KB)
Substantive judgment
ALLENBY v H SC [9 May 2012] (PDF, 310 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 16 February 2012
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Right to Life New Zealand Inc v The Abortion Supervisory Committee
Case number
SC 73/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that none of statutory functions or powers of Abortion Supervisory Committee entitle or require Committee to scrutinise or review certifying consultants’ particular clinical decisions or diagnoses after the fact – Whether judicial review requires that applicant identify a decision challenged – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding counselling services provided under CSA Act were “adequate” – Whether Court of Appeal erred in implicitly finding no State and common law interest in preservation of life of unborn child which ought to influence interpretation of CSA Act.[2011] NZCA 246 CA 522/2009
Result
A. Leave to appeal is granted.
B. The approved grounds are:
(a) Whether the respondent Committee’s functions under ss 14(1)(a), (i) and (k) and 36 of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 empower it to review or scrutinise the decisions of certifying consultants and form its own view about the lawfulness of their decisions to the extent necessary to perform its functions.
(b) If so, whether there is any evidential foundation for the High
Court’ s finding that “the approval rates [for abortions] seems remarkably high, bearing in mind that under s 187(A) [of the Crimes Act 1961] the consultants must form a good faith opinion that continuance of the pregnancy would result in serious danger to the mother’s health”.
(c) Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to consider whether
certifying consultants are obeying the “abortion law” (as defined) and, if so, whether there is any evidential foundation for the High Court’s finding that “there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants”.
26 August 2011
_________________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
9 August 2012
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Page 56 of 80