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
Raymond Everest Hessell v The Queen
Case number
SC 102/2009
Summary
Criminal Appeal – The applicant appeals against sentence and aspects of the sentencing guidelines on discounts for guilty pleas issued by the Court of Appeal. The issues are: whether the Court of Appeal was right in the circumstances to issue a guideline judgment; if so, whether the guidelines are sufficiently flexible or unduly fetter the courts’ future sentencing discretion; whether a 33% discount to the defendant’s sentence is appropriate for a guilty plea at the “first reasonable opportunity”; whether lesser discounts are appropriate for guilty pleas at subsequent stages of the proceedings; whether an early guilty plea should be considered to be an indicator of remorse on the part of the accused or whether remorse should be assessed on its merits; whether credit should be given for remorse even though not given at “first reasonable opportunity”; whether the guidelines should apply to murder cases; whether guidance should be provided in applying guidelines. [2009] NZCA 450 CA 170/2009 2 October 2009
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground of appeal is whether the discount for Mr Hessell’ s guilty plea was appropriately given in accordance with sentencing principles and the Sentencing Act 2002.
19 April 2010
__________________
Appeal dismissed.
16 November 2010
19 April 2010
__________________
Appeal dismissed.
16 November 2010
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
HESSELL v R SC 102/2009 [16 November 2010] (PDF, 212 KB)
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Peter Morrison Petryszick v The Queen
Case number
SC 103/2009
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction – Criminal Procedure – Abuse of Process – Delay – Appellant granted adjournment by Court of Appeal on strict terms with which he failed to comply – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding no merit in grounds of appeal raised – Whether Court of Appeal erred in not affording the appellant additional time to investigate grounds of complaint.[2009] NZCA 515 CA 269/2008 27 October 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted on the question whether the applicant was denied his right to appeal.
20 April 2010
___________________
A The appeal is allowed and the order made by the Court of Appeal set aside. B The appellant’ s appeal against his conviction is remitted to the Court of Appeal for determination in accordance with s 385(1) of the Crimes Act 1961.
24 August 2010
20 April 2010
___________________
A The appeal is allowed and the order made by the Court of Appeal set aside. B The appellant’ s appeal against his conviction is remitted to the Court of Appeal for determination in accordance with s 385(1) of the Crimes Act 1961.
24 August 2010
Transcripts
- sc 103 2009 petryszick peter morrison v r (PDF, 431 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2010] NZSC 105 (PDF, 87 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
PETRYSZICK v R SC 103/2009 [24 August 2010] (PDF, 148 KB)
Substantive judgment / Media release
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ
Case name
Mana PropertyTrustee Ltd v James Development Ltd
Case number
SC 105/2009
Summary
Civil – Interpreting terms of a sale and purchase agreement – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by equating non-performance at the time of settlement with an automatic right to cancel – Whether the Court of Appeal were wrong to find that clause 18.3 of the agreement for sale and purchase was essential.[2009] NZCA 483 CA 241/2000 19 October 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
1 March 2010
______________________
Appeal allowed. It is declared that the respondent’ s purported cancellation on 3 November 2008 of its contract with the appellant was of no effect. The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for outstanding issues to be determined in light of this judgment. The costs order made in the Court of Appeal is set aside. Costs are reserved. Counsel should file memoranda.
23 July 2010
1 March 2010
______________________
Appeal allowed. It is declared that the respondent’ s purported cancellation on 3 November 2008 of its contract with the appellant was of no effect. The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for outstanding issues to be determined in light of this judgment. The costs order made in the Court of Appeal is set aside. Costs are reserved. Counsel should file memoranda.
23 July 2010
Media Releases
- sc 105 2009 mana v james 23 july 2010 (PDF, 85 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Substantive judgment /Media release
Judgment appealed from
Case name
MA v The Attorney General
Case number
SC 106/2009
Summary
Civil – the applicant was granted recognition of status as a refugee in 1996 and New Zealand citizenship in 1997 – in 2001 the applicant was discharged on the offence of making a false statement in his refugee claim – certain documents obtained by the Police in a search of the applicant’ s home were passed to the Refugee Status Branch of the New Zealand Immigration Service – in 2006 notice was given to the applicant of intended determination of revocation of refugee status – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the search of the applicant’s home was lawful – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that privilege did not attach to certain communications between the applicant and his refugee advisor – whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that Police lawfully provided certain documents to the New Zealand Immigration Service.[2009] NZCA 490 CA 565/2007 20 October 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 31 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Attorney-General v Tamil X v Refugee Status Appeals Authority and Y
Case number
SC 107/2009
Summary
Immigration – whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting Article 1F of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees; whether the Court erred in not remitting an Article 1F inquiry to the Refugee Status Appeals Authority[2009] NZCA 488 CA 109/2008 20 October 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
10 March 2010
__________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The respondent’s application for recognition of refugee status is remitted to the Refugee Status Appeals Authority for consideration in accordance with the Court of Appeal’s order.
C Costs are reserved and counsel may submit memoranda if necessary.
27 August 2010
10 March 2010
__________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The respondent’s application for recognition of refugee status is remitted to the Refugee Status Appeals Authority for consideration in accordance with the Court of Appeal’s order.
C Costs are reserved and counsel may submit memoranda if necessary.
27 August 2010
Media Releases
- MR [2010] NZSC 107 (PDF, 84 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Judgment appealed from
Substantive judgment / Media release
Case name
Contract Pacific Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 114/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Taxation – Whether the Commissioner satisfied the time limits contained in s 46 of the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985 – Whether Contract Pacific had already been paid a refund for the purposes of s 241 (6) (a) of the Taxation (Taxpayer Assessment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2001. [2009] NZCA 568 CA 759/2009 4 December 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
4 March 2010
__________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs $15,000 to the respondent, plus disbursements.
16 November 2010
4 March 2010
__________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs $15,000 to the respondent, plus disbursements.
16 November 2010
Transcripts
- sc 114 2009 contract pacific v ird (PDF, 384 KB)
Media Releases
- sc 114 2009 contract pacific media (PDF, 85 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Matthew John Birchler v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 116/2009
Summary
Criminal – appeal directly from the High Court under s 144A(1)(a) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 – intended appeal against the determination of the High Court by way of case stated under s 107 of the Summary Proceedings Act – whether direct appeal to the Supreme Court appropriate given that the Court of Appeal has previously refused leave to appeal on this point on the basis that there were no grounds for challenge to the well established interpretation of s 108 of the Summary Proceedings Act in Davis v Mingins (HC, Rot, AP 48/91, 30/10/91, Fisher J). CRI 2009 485 83 25 November 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
18 March 2010
_____________________________
Appeal allowed. Order made in the High Court remitting the matter for consideration in the District Court is quashed.
Reasons to be given later.
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment / Media release
Transcript
Case name
The Attorney-General of New Zealand v Mervyn Chapman
Case number
SC 120/2009
Summary
Civil – Crown liability for judicial breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by holding that the Attorney-General is the correct defendant in an action alleging breaches of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 by a Registrar and judges of the Court of Appeal – If not, whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by holding that the Attorney-General is not entitled to the same immunities as the person who committed the alleged breaches.[2009] NZCA 552 CA 245/2008 25 November 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. The approved ground is whether Bill of Rights damages can be ordered against the Attorney-General on behalf of the Crown for breach of fair trial rights by judicial conduct in respect of which the judicial officer is immune from liability.
31 March 2010
31 March 2010
Transcripts
- Hearing date 6 December 2010 SC 120/2009 (PDF, 782 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2011] NZSC 110 (PDF, 108 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
John Bevan-Smith v Raupo Publishing (NZ) Limited
Case number
SC 2/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – breach of contract – book publication - whether Court of Appeal should have granted extension of time to file case on appeal – whether agreement between applicant and defendant void because of deceptive conduct – whether the defendant breached due diligence obligations in contract - whether the Court received misleading evidence regarding the motive’ s of the defendant – whether High Court made correct findings of fact especially regarding timing of events – whether the Court of Appeal should have reconsidered findings of fact made by the High Court – whether High Court correctly interpreted relevant clauses in contract –whether quantum of lost book sales correctly calculated – whether case should be remitted to the Court of Appeal to be reheard or to the High Court for a new trial.[2007] NZCA 579 CA 57/07 14 December 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $1,500 to the respondent.
9 April 2008
Case name
Elders New Zealand Limited v PGG Wrightson Lmited
Case number
SC 7/2008
Summary
Civil – Contract Law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that an amalgamation approved under Part 15 of the Companies Act 1993 has the legal consequences provided for in s 219 of that Act – Whether an amalgamating company is entitled to “pick and choose” between Part 13 and Part 15 of the Companies Act 1993 – Whether the terms of the amalgamation order created the effect prescribed in Part 13 even though the order was made pursuant to Part 15 – Whether the applicant was bound by the Part 15 order although the order did not state that the applicant was bound.[2007] NZCA 596 CA 277/06 21 December 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
18 April 2008
_______________________
Appeal dismissed.Costs to respondent $15,000, together with reasonable disbursements.
5 December 2008
18 April 2008
_______________________
Appeal dismissed.Costs to respondent $15,000, together with reasonable disbursements.
5 December 2008
Media Releases
- sc 7 elders nz ltd v pggwrightson ltd press release (PDF, 89 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Page 65 of 80