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
 EW  and PW  v Attorney-General
Case number
SC 36/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – Appeal directly from High Court – Negligence – whether only nominal damages should be awarded for a breach of duty of care in child welfare cases unless the duty required the defendant to commence proceedings – whether there was a duty to commence proceedings – whether vicarious liability exists where child is placed back with family from whom they have been removed – whether test of causation correctly applied – Limitation Act 1950 – whether reasonable discoverability test should be expanded beyond sexual abuse cases – whether reasonable discoverability and disability tests were correctly applied – whether facts supported a finding of exemplary damages – whether a non-delegable duty of care existed – whether applicants were falsely imprisoned when held in secure units – whether applicants were required to prove a ‘ counter-factual’ to justify an award of damages – whether the ACC legislation barred the applicant’s claims – whether High Court made correct findings of fact – whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify an appeal directly to the Supreme Court.CIV 199-485-85 and CIV 2001 - 485 - 864 Wellington High Court28 November 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
15 August 2008

Case name
 Commerce Commission v Infratil Limited
Case number
SC 37/2008
Summary
Civil – Appeal – Trade Practices – Competition – Appropriate test for accessory liability in context of Commerce Act 1986 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in law in departing from orthodox test for accessory liability in Commerce Act context and in applying a test that required knowledge of the facts at a higher level of detail than is required by the orthodox test – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in treating a defendant’ s belief that there was no breach of s 47 of the Commerce Act as a relevant factor in applying the orthodox test for accessory liability.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates

Application for leave to appeal is refused, with costs $2,500 to the respondent.

19 September 2008

Case name
R v The Queen
Case number
SC 45/2008
Summary
Criminal appeal – alleged miscarriage of justice in terms of s 385(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1961 – appellant found guilty on six representative counts alleging sexual offending against the complainant – whether the fact that evidence from several potential witnesses was not put before the jury at the trial and the fact that the trial Judge refused to discharge the jury after the complainant made contact with members of the jury have resulted in a miscarriage of justice.[2008] NZCA 196 CA 32/07 30 June 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
8 October 2008
Case name
Michael Spackman v The Queenstown Lakes District Council and others
Case number
SC 48/2008
Summary
Civil resource management applicant sought judicial review of Councils decision to grant resource consent for neighbouring subdivision into four lots error conceded at trial relief granted in the form of revoked approval for one lot and restriction on consent notice for another applicant appealed form of relief Whether the Court of Appeal erred in making allegedly contradictory findings and relying on those findings when deciding whether to grant relief in favour of the applicant whether the Court of Appeal erred when deciding that various discretionary factors overcame the applicant's right to be heard again in respect of the whole subdivision application for leave to appeal out of time[2008] NZCA 234   CA 193/07   11 July 2008
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Costs of $2000 to both the first and second respondents.

24 October 2008

Case name
Alfred Taenga Mata v The Queen
Case number
SC 60/2008
Summary
Criminal appeal – Supreme Court Act s 14 – leap-frog appeal against District Court judgment – whether exceptional circumstances exist so as to justify taking the appeal directly to the Supreme Court.Evidence Act 2006 s 43 – District Court judgment ruled that certain “propensity” evidence is admissible at the applicant’s up-coming trial for robbery – the incident of propensity that the Crown sought to adduce occurred one year later than the incident that is the subject of the current proceedings, and resulted in charges being brought against the applicant – whether a non-proven criminal allegation is capable of being used as propensity evidence – whether, in deciding whether propensity evidence should be admitted under s 43, courts are required to follow common law principles – whether the specific robbery allegation sought to be adduced as propensity evidence meets the threshold of similar fact evidence that can be considered as an “other matter” when assessing the prejudicial effect of the evidence under s 43(4).CRI 2007-092-006967 14th August 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 

15 September 2008

Case name
Television  New Zealand Limited v Simunovich Fisheries Limited and others
Case number
SC 70/2008
Summary
Civil – Defamation – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the repetition and conduct rules of pleading apply to a defence of truth – whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that a defendant may not seek to prove the truth of imputations by reference to the opinions or assertions of others – did the Court of Appeal err in holding that s 38 does not permit third party assertions and opinion to be pleaded for the defence of truth – was the Court of Appeal wrong to find that a defendant is not entitled to rely on third party assertions as publication facts on which a defence of honest opinion is based, but must identify true statements of facts in the publication which may not include the fact that others made allegations or expressed opinions.[2008] NZCA  350  CA 447/07 CA 584/07     8 September  2008
Result

Application for leave to appeal granted.

1 December 2008

________________________

Appeal dismissed.

Costs $15,000 to the respondent jointly with one half of their disbursements.

26 August 2009

Case name
Xiao Qiong Huang and others v The Minister of Immigration and The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 74/2008
Summary
Civil – Immigration – whether when interpreting domestic law the Court of Appeal failed to take into account relevant considerations, such as international conventions on the Rights of the Child, on Civil and Political Rights and on the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment – whether the Court of Appeal applied the incorrect test of judicial review to a human rights case – whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the facts to the law under the Wednesbury test.[2008] NZCA 377   CA 262/06   19 September  2008
Case name
Diagnostic Medlab Limited v Auckland District Health Board and others
Case number
SC 80/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – judicial review – the Auckland region District Health Boards (ARDHBs) put out to tender the provision of its community laboratory services – the successful tenderer was Lab Tests Auckland Limited (Lab Tests) and the incumbent provider, Diagnostic Medlab Limited (DML), applied to the High Court for judicial review of the ARDHBs’ decision on the basis that the decision was procedurally flawed – the application was successful in the High Court and but an appeal to the Court of Appeal by Lab Tests was allowed – whether the Court of Appeal failed to interpret the provisions of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 (PHDA) as contemplating and requiring supplementing by principles of natural justice – whether the Court of Appeal applied a wrong and unduly restrictive approach to judicial review in the context of a contracting decision for an essential public health service – whether the Court of Appeal sanctioned a result which undermined the principles of natural justice, compromised the integrity of the relevant contracting process, and eroded public trust and confidence in decision-making by DHBs generally – whether the Court of Appeal failed to recognise that the PHDA contemplates a significant community voice in decisions affecting public health, including by way of meaningful consultation in accordance with expectations established by documents required by the PHDA – whether the Court of Appeal failed to apply any or an appropriate level of scrutiny to the DHBs’ decision on the grounds of unreasonableness – whether the Court of Appeal failed to pay any or proper respect to the High Court’s identification and evaluation of the relevant factual context, and that Court’s advantages as a primary fact-finder and adjudicator of mixed questions of law and fact. [2008] NZCA 385  CA 154/07  25 September 2008
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Costs $2,5000 to the first respondents (jointly)  and $2,500 to the second respondent.

Case name
Eric Barry Stewart v The Queen
Case number
SC 81/2008
Summary
Criminal Appeal – fraudulent use of medical certificates on ACC forms appeal against conviction – motive to lie – whether the prosecutor’ s comments to the jury about the applicant’s motive to lie amounted to a miscarriage of justice – whether the trial judge should be required to correct these comments in summing up – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the prosecutor’s questioning of defence expert witness did not amount to a miscarriage of justice because the witness did not provide the applicant with a defence – whether this questioning was without foundation, an error of law and unfair [2008] NZCA 341 CA 231/07 2 September 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted
5 February 2009
_________________________
Appeal allowed, convictions quashed. No order for retrial.
28 May 2009
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Frank Onyebu Aroh v The Queen
Case number
SC 86/2008
Summary
Criminal appeal – importing cocaine and heroin and exporting cocaine – appeal against conviction and sentence – miscarriage of justice – whether undue pressure placed on jury who deliberated until approx 1am – whether judge gave correct directions regarding similar fact evidence – whether judge’s directions regarding the defendant’s earlier trial were prejudicial[2008] NZCA 457  CA 106/07      5 November 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

30 March 2009