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
Stephen Thomas Hudson v The Queen
Case number
SC 100/2010
Summary
[2010] NZCA 417 CA 51/2010 13 September 2010.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The permitted grounds of appeal are whether:
(i) the evidence in relation to previous acts of violence involving the appellant; and
(ii) the evidence of admissions by the appellant to witnesses that he was responsible for the deceased’s murder should have been admitted at the trial and if so whether adequate directions to the jury in respect of such evidence were given by the trial Judge.
15 December 2010
__________________________
Appeal dismissed.
19 May 2011
B The permitted grounds of appeal are whether:
(i) the evidence in relation to previous acts of violence involving the appellant; and
(ii) the evidence of admissions by the appellant to witnesses that he was responsible for the deceased’s murder should have been admitted at the trial and if so whether adequate directions to the jury in respect of such evidence were given by the trial Judge.
15 December 2010
__________________________
Appeal dismissed.
19 May 2011
Transcripts
- Hearing date 7 April 2011 SC 100/2010 (PDF, 371 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2011] NZSC 51 (PDF, 88 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
HUDSON v R SC 100/2010 [15 December 2010] (PDF, 36 KB)
Substantive judgment
HUDSON v R SC 100/2010 [19 May 2011] (PDF, 223 KB)
Case name
Peter Muller v The Queen
Case number
SC 104/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s application to adduce fresh alibi evidence – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the admission of identification evidence at trial, while in error, did not amount to a miscarriage of justice requiring the setting aside of the verdict – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no miscarriage of justice arose from the failure to grant a stay due to delay[2010] NZCA 380 CA 439/2009 18 August 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MULLER v R SC 104/2010 [16 D ecember 2010 (PDF, 53 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
16 December 2010.
Case name
M D M v Serious Fraud Office
Case number
SC 112/2010
Summary
Refusal to grant name suppression.CRI 2010 404 338 19 October 2010
Dates
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.
25 November 2010.
Case name
CJH v The Queen
Case number
SC 113/2010
Summary
Refusal to grant name suppression.CRI 2008 006 2346 Judge Harvey
Dates
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.
25 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.
Case name
Azeeez Mahomed v The Queen
Case number
SC 117/2010
Summary
Criminal – Murder – Whether Court of Appeal erred in pre-trial ruling admitting certain propensity/narrative evidence against the applicant – Whether Court of Appeal in dismissing appeal erred in concluding trial Judge not required to give specific directions on propensity evidence at trial – Whether evidence of applicant’s low intellectual capacity and wife’s post-natal depression should have been admitted at trial – Whether trial Judge was entitled to comment on applicant’s decision not to give evidence – Whether new evidence of accident purportedly explaining daughter’s injuries should be admitted.[2010] NZCA 419 CA 779/2009 14 September 2010.
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted,
The approved grounds are:
(i) Whether the evidence concerning the child’s being left in the car on 19 December 2007 was admissible; and
(ii) If so, whether the Judge’s directions relating to that evidence were adequate.
8 February 2011
__________________________
Appeal dismissed.
19 May 2011
The approved grounds are:
(i) Whether the evidence concerning the child’s being left in the car on 19 December 2007 was admissible; and
(ii) If so, whether the Judge’s directions relating to that evidence were adequate.
8 February 2011
__________________________
Appeal dismissed.
19 May 2011
Media Releases
- mahomed v the queen press release (PDF, 87 KB)
Substantive judgment
MAHOMED v R SC 97/2010, SC 117/2010 [19 May 2011] (PDF, 321 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 17 February 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Christopher Ian Freakley v The Queen
Case number
SC 126/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – appeal against sentence – whether the sentencing judge should have taken into account the fact the applicant was found not guilty on a count of aggravated robbery.[2010] NZCA 497 CA 26/2010 29 October 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
FREAKLEY v R SC 126/2010 [7 March 2011] (PDF, 45 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
7 March 2011.
Case name
Karen McGrath v Accident Compensation Corporation
Case number
SC 127/2010
Summary
Civil – Accident Compensation Act 2001 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that the ACC had a reasonable basis under s 110(3) Accident Compensation Act to require the Applicant to undergo a vocational independence assessment.[2010] NZCA 535 CA 302/2009 19 November 2010
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal in [2010] NZCA 535 has correctly interpreted and applied s 110(3) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001.
8 March 2011
___________________
A The appeal is allowed and the notice given on 9 September 2008 by the Accident Compensation Corporation is quashed.
B Costs are reserved. Counsel may file memoranda if necessary.
7 July 2011
B The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal in [2010] NZCA 535 has correctly interpreted and applied s 110(3) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001.
8 March 2011
___________________
A The appeal is allowed and the notice given on 9 September 2008 by the Accident Compensation Corporation is quashed.
B Costs are reserved. Counsel may file memoranda if necessary.
7 July 2011
Media Releases
- sc 127 2010 karen mcgrath v acc press release (PDF, 84 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young J.
Case name
David Cullen Bain v The Queen
Case number
SC 13/2009
Summary
[2009] NZCA CA 769/2008 30 January 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
24 February 2009
_______________________
A The appeal is allowed. B The disputed evidence is excluded and the material in issue is to be excised.
18 March 2009
24 February 2009
_______________________
A The appeal is allowed. B The disputed evidence is excluded and the material in issue is to be excised.
18 March 2009
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
BAIN V R SC 13/2009 [6 March 2009] (PDF, 12 KB)
Additional document
Transcript hearing date 2 March 2009 (PDF, 352 KB)
Substantive judgment
BAIN v R (REASONS) SC 13/2009 [6 March 2009] (PDF, 158 KB)
Recall judgment
BAIN v R SC 13/2009 [25 May 2009] (PDF, 11 KB)
Additional document
Transcript hearing date 11 June 2009 (PDF, 39 KB)
Supreme court decision
BAIN v R SC 13/2009 [11 June 2009] (PDF, 16 KB)
Case name
Ports of Auckland Limited v Southpac Trucks Limited
Case number
SC 18/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Carriage of Goods Act 1979 – Statutory Interpretation – Proper meaning of s 6 “not liable as such” – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its application of the statutory exemption conferred in s 6 of the Carriage of Goods Act – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its conclusion that fork lift operator negligently driving into truck and causing $60,000 damage was exempt from liability under s 16(2) of the Carriage of Goods Act with the consequence that Ports of Auckland Ltd could not be held vicariously liable.[2008] NZCA 573 CA 355/2007 22 December 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
3 April 2009
__________________________
Appeal allowed and the judgment of the High Court is restored. Appellant awarded costs of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements. Costs order in the Court of Appeal is reversed.
30 October 2009
3 April 2009
__________________________
Appeal allowed and the judgment of the High Court is restored. Appellant awarded costs of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements. Costs order in the Court of Appeal is reversed.
30 October 2009
Transcripts
- Hearing date 6 October 2009 (PDF, 150 KB)
Media Releases
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 61 of 80