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
Siuake Lisiate v The Queen
Case number
SC 49/2013
Summary
Appeal against conviction – Inadequate directions by trial judge on s 66(1)(d) of the Crimes Act 1961 – Expert witnesses – Breach of Code of Conduct for expert witnesses (Sch 4, High Court Rules) – Trial judge misdirected jury or gave inadequate directions as to the use of Crown expert evidence on the interpretation of text messages – Admissibility of propensity evidence – Unfair trial – Miscarriage of justice. [2013] NZCA 129 CA 31/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
21 August 2013.
21 August 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
LISIATE v R [2013] NZSC 80 [21 August 2013] (PDF, 50 KB)
Case name
Christopher Jacob Junior Shadrock v The Queen
Case number
SC 69/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Murder – Crimes Act 1961, s 167(b) and (d) – Whether trial Judge misdirected jury by referring to degrees of murder – Whether Court of Appeal correct to conclude there was no miscarriage of justice. [2013] NZCA 282 CA 496/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SHADROCK v R [2013] NZSC 96 [9 October 2013] (PDF, 64 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
9 October 2013
Case name
Terence Mario Tere The Queen
Case number
SC 70/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Murder / Accessory after the fact – Crimes Act 1961, s 167(b) and (d) – Whether trial Judge misdirected jury by referring to degrees of murder – Whether Court of Appeal correct to conclude there was no miscarriage of justice. [2013] NZCA 282 CA 462/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SHADROCK v R [2013] NZSC 96 [9 October 2013] (PDF, 64 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
9 October 2013
Case name
Samuela Faletalavai Helu v Immigration and Protection Tribunal and the Minister of Immigration
Case number
SC 72/2013
Summary
Civil – Immigration – Immigration Act 1987, s 105 – International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, arts 12(4), 17(1), and 23 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the protection offered by art 12(4) of the ICCPR is limited to New Zealand citizens – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Tribunal’s approach to s 105 of the Immigration Act and arts 17(1) and 23 of the ICCPR was correct – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its evaluation of the correct approach to be taken in assessing the risk of reoffending under s 105(1) – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there was no evidence that the applicant’ s youth would reduce his risk of re-offending.[2013] NZCA 276 CA 395/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.The approved questions are:(a) Did the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, in assessing whether it would not be contrary to the public interest to allow Mr Helu to remain in New Zealand:
(i) fail to take into account all relevant considerations;
or (ii) apply the incorrect test.
(b) Even if either or both of those questions are answered in the affirmative would the Tribunal nevertheless necessarily have come to the same decision, given its findings of fact?
3 October 2013
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The Tribunal’s confirmation of the deportation order is quashed.
C The appeal to the Tribunal is remitted to it for reconsideration in the course of which the Tribunal is to apply the test under s 105 of the Immigration Act 1987 that is set out in paras [167] to [176] of the reasons.
D Costs are reserved. Application may be made in writing if necessary.
26 March 2015
(i) fail to take into account all relevant considerations;
or (ii) apply the incorrect test.
(b) Even if either or both of those questions are answered in the affirmative would the Tribunal nevertheless necessarily have come to the same decision, given its findings of fact?
3 October 2013
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The Tribunal’s confirmation of the deportation order is quashed.
C The appeal to the Tribunal is remitted to it for reconsideration in the course of which the Tribunal is to apply the test under s 105 of the Immigration Act 1987 that is set out in paras [167] to [176] of the reasons.
D Costs are reserved. Application may be made in writing if necessary.
26 March 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 4 March 2014 SC 72/2013 (PDF, 327 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 28 (PDF, 251 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Ridgecrest New Zealand Limited v IAG New Zealand
Case number
SC 76/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Insurance – Whether, when more than one insured event occurs during the term of a policy of insurance in materially the same form as the policy issued by the Respondent to the Appellant, the insured may on each occasion recover the cost, up to the amount of the sum insured, of restoring the property to the condition in which it was prior to the event – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by answering a different question than the preliminary question put to it – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by disregarding the agreed facts and substituting other facts.[2012] NZCA 291 CA 811/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal correct to conclude that Ridgecrest is not entitled to be paid for the damage resulting from each of the earthquakes up to the limit of the sum insured.
11 November 2013
______________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The preliminary question is answered “yes” but subject to the caveats identified in [62].
C The appellant is awarded costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar in relation to the appeal.
D The orders for costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside and the respondent is to pay the appellant costs in those courts to be fixed by those courts.
27 August 2014
11 November 2013
______________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The preliminary question is answered “yes” but subject to the caveats identified in [62].
C The appellant is awarded costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar in relation to the appeal.
D The orders for costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside and the respondent is to pay the appellant costs in those courts to be fixed by those courts.
27 August 2014
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 117 (PDF, 87 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Transcript
Hearing date : 10 March 2014
McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Blanchard, Tipping JJ.
McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Blanchard, Tipping JJ.
Case name
Maka Tuikolovatu v the Queen
Case number
SC 96/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Murder / Accessory after the fact – Crimes Act 1961, s 167(b) and (d) – Whether trial Judge misdirected jury by referring to degrees of murder – Whether Court of Appeal correct to conclude there was no miscarriage of justice. [2013] NZCA 282 CA 527/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SHADROCK v R [2013] NZSC 96 [9 October 2013] (PDF, 64 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
9 October 2013
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
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
- Hearing day 1 August 2013 SC 97/2012 (PDF, 464 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 105 (PDF, 96 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
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
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
- sc 9 2011 burgess v beaven media release (PDF, 84 KB)
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
Blanchard, Tipping, William Young, Chambers, Anderson JJ.
Case name
SNC v The Queen
Case number
SC 101/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006 – Admissibility of evidence “improperly obtained” by police pursuant to a warrantless search – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the District Court Judge’ s decision to admit the evidence in exercise of the balancing test required by subs 30(2) of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal failed to give sufficient weight to and/or erred in its assessment of the listed factors in paras 30(3)(a), (b) and (d) of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal gave too much weight to the importance of the evidence to the case of the prosecution[2011] NZCA 402 CA 191/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
18 October 2011.
18 October 2011.
Case name
Josephine Takamore v Denise Clarke and Nehuata Takamore & Donald Takamore
Case number
SC 131/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Customary Law – Approach to determining whether Tūhoe burial custom forms part of the common law – Whether the Court of Appeal majority erred in its analysis of the reasonableness of the Tū hoe custom – Whether the Court of Appeal majority was wrong to hold that the Tūhoe custom was insufficiently certain to form part of the common law – Whether the Court of Appeal majority was correct to hold that Tū hoe custom was a relevant cultural consideration for an executor or executrix where one or more of the whānau pani of the deceased is Tūhoe and the deceased is Tūhoe under Tūhoe custom – Whether the Court of Appeal minority judgment raised important issues about the approach to findings of fact in the High Court[2011] NZCA 587 CA 525/2009
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds of appeal are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that New Zealand law entitled the executrix to determine disposal of the body of the deceased and whether it was correct to hold that the executrix is entitled to take possession of the body of the deceased notwithstanding its burial.
28 March 2012
________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The first respondent is entitled to proceed under the exhumation licence to have Mr Takamore reburied in a place of her choosing.
C The matter is remitted back to the High Court in case any consequential orders are necessary.
D Costs are reserved.
18 December 2012
B The approved grounds of appeal are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that New Zealand law entitled the executrix to determine disposal of the body of the deceased and whether it was correct to hold that the executrix is entitled to take possession of the body of the deceased notwithstanding its burial.
28 March 2012
________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The first respondent is entitled to proceed under the exhumation licence to have Mr Takamore reburied in a place of her choosing.
C The matter is remitted back to the High Court in case any consequential orders are necessary.
D Costs are reserved.
18 December 2012
Transcripts
- Hearing date 17-18 July 2012 SC 131/2011 (PDF, 1 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2012] NZSC 116 (PDF, 92 KB)
Substantive judgment
TAKAMORE v CLARKE SC 131/2011 [18 December 2012] (PDF, 556 KB)
Page 15 of 17