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
Gareth John Needham v The Queen
Case number
SC 24/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Expert evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold that the trial Judge should have ordered severance of count one into two alternative counts – Whether there was a breach of s 92 of the Evidence Act 2006 as trial counsel did not cross-examine four Crown witnesses on an issue of veracity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and law in relation to an issue that a Crown witness was allegedly improperly asked in evidence-in-chief – Whether evidence should have been led as to the lack of previous convictions of the appellant – Whether the Court of Appeal should have determined the admissibility of fresh good character evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the fresh evidence of an astronomer would not have been substantially helpful – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the fresh evidence of a consultant forensic pathologist would not have been substantially helpful.CA 443/2011  [2012] NZCA 95
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
14 June 2012.
Case name
Loktronic Industries Limited v Stephen John Diver and others
Case number
SC 32/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Tort – Evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its statement of the test for the element of knowledge in the tort of inducing breach of contract – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning findings of fact that were open to the trial judge and not plainly wrong – Whether the Court of Appeal imposed a more onerous duty on the appellant in its cross-examination of its witnesses at trial than is consistent with s 92(1) of the Evidence Act 2006. CA  258/2011  [2012] NZCA131
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $1,000 payable to each set of respondents making submissions.

24 July 2012.
Case name
K A  v The Queen
Case number
SC 40/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Joinder – Crimes Act 1961, s 345D – The applicant was convicted on a charge of sexual violation – His brother was a co-accused at the same trial in relation to discrete offending – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and law in finding that the trial Judge’s powers under s 345D were validly invoked and exercised. [2012]NZCA 183  CA 274/2011
Dates
Hearing
Case name
Gerald Thondhlana v The Queen
Case number
SC 50/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Counsel error – Appeal against conviction of assault with intent to injure – Whether counsel failed to call relevant medical evidence – Whether counsel adequately argued self-defence – Whether Crown witnesses were cross-examined on inconsistent statements – Whether a miscarriage of justice occurred[2012]NZCA 233  CA   536/2011
Dates
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.
14 November 2012.
Case name
Arthur William Taylor v The Queen
Case number
SC 53/2012
Summary
Criminal Law – Appeal against Conviction and Sentence – Whether the Court of Appeal was in error in holding that there was a sufficient factual foundation for the charge to go to the jury – Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive (due to disproportionate uplift for previous offending or failure to take into account undue delay) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing interception evidence to be admitted – Whether the Applicant’s right of appeal was deprived (through failure to present to the Applicant a pre-trial ruling on admissibility and/or failure to offer an opportunity for the Applicant to make submissions after the hearing) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that there had been no breach of the Applicant’s right to trial without undue delay[2012]NZCA 332  CA  371/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 November 2012.
Case name
Neil Stuart Johnston v Christopher Frederick Schurr and Deam & Shearer
Case number
SC 61/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 – Whether a manager appointed under the Act can be liable in damages for acting without reasonable care – Whether the incapacity of a client brings the retainer of a solicitor to an end, even if the solicitor continues to act in relation to the client’s affairs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to findings of fact made by the trial Judge.  [2012]NZCA 363  CA  616/2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted in relation to both respondents. The approved ground is whether the claims against the first and second respondents were properly dismissed. 27 November 2012 _____________________ A The appeal is allowed in part.  The judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the insurance issue are set aside.  The question whether Mr Schurr is liable to the appellant in respect of the surrender of the insurance policies is to be determined in the High Court. B  In all other respects the appeal is dismissed. C  In respect of the appeal to this Court, the appellant is to pay costs to Mr Schurr and Deem & Shearer in the sums of $15,000 and $25,000 respectively together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar. D  The orders for costs made in the High Court and Court of Appeal are affirmed. 12 June 2015
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
NEIL STUART JOHNSTON v CHRISTOPHER FREDERICK SCHURR [2015] NZSC 82 [12 June 2015] (PDF, 359 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 17 February 2015

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan JJ.
Case name
Visy Board Pty Limited v Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 63/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Competition Law – Commerce Act 1986, s 4 – Application of the Commerce Act 1986 to conduct outside New Zealand – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the phrase “to the extent that such conduct affects a market in New Zealand” in s 4(1) of the Act encompasses conduct that merely “relates to” a market in New Zealand – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that whether or not a person is “carrying on business in New Zealand” is a question of fact involving a wide variety of factors, not one of which is essential for marking a positive finding – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to interpret properly r 6.29 of the High Court Rules. [2012]NZCA 383   CA  312/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 November 2012.
Case name
Ashley Dwayne Guy v The Queen
Case number
SC 67/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – evidence – Evidence Act 2006 – whether the transcript of an interview of the complainant (“the complainant transcript” ) was inadmissible as potentially prejudicial material – whether the complainant transcript was inadmissible as a prior inconsistent statement – whether the transcript of an interview with the accused (“the accused interview transcript”) was inadmissible – whether the trial Judge’s direction to the jury on evidence relating to the complainant was appropriate – whether the Court of Appeal erred in admitting the complainant and accused interview transcripts given the fact neither counsel nor the trial Judge had had the opportunity to address the jury on these materials.[2012]NZCA 416  CA  69/2012.
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred, notwithstanding the error in the jury being given and reading the two interview transcripts which had not been put into evidence.
20 December 2012.

10 April 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.Decision reserved.
Rehearing directed.
14 November 2013.

7 October 2014.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan  JJ.
Decision reserved.

Appeal allowed, conviction quashed,
New trial ordered.
19 November 2014
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
ASHLEY DWAYNE GUY v R [2014] NZSC 165 [19 November 2014] (PDF, 254 KB)
Case name
Sonja Marie Lawson v The Queen
Case number
SC 71/2012
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Crimes Act 1961, s 228(b) – Using a document with intent to obtain a pecuniary advantage, dishonestly and without claim of right – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss appeal against conviction ¬– Trial counsel errors – Prosecution Misconduct – Failure to consider appellant’s brief – Unfair hearing – Errors of law.[2012] NZCA 426  CA 593/2001
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
13 March 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
LAWSON v R SC 71/2012 [13 March 2013] (PDF, 44 KB)
Case name
Kovinantie Vahafolua Fukofuka v The Queen
Case number
SC 95/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 126(2)(a) – Judicial warnings about identification evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred through the trial Judge’s failure to sum up in terms of s 126(2)(a). [2012] NZCA 510     CA 216/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted. 
B The approved ground is: was the Court of Appeal correct to find no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred despite the error in the Judge’s direction under s 126 of the Evidence Act 2006? 
18 April 2013
________________
tc
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
KOVINANTIE VAHAFOLUA FUKOFUKA V R SC 95/2012 [18 April 2013] (PDF, 30 KB)
Substantive judgment
FUKOFUKA v R [2013] NZSC 77 [16 August 2013] (PDF, 150 KB)
Page 7 of 16