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
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Heron and others
Case number
SC 6/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Procedure – Whether the Court of Appeal’ s holding that there is no automatic right of appeal against a High Court order fixing security for costs is consistent with natural justice – Whether the Court of Appeal addressed the appellant’s arguments – Whether the fact that r 20.13(2) of the High Court Rules was adopted by the Rules Committee has International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights implications.[2010] NZCA 610  CA 190/2010  14 December  2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The ground approved is whether leave of the Court of Appeal was required under s 67 of the Judicature Act for the applicant’s appeal against security for costs fixed by order of the High Court or whether appeal was available as of right under s 66 of the Judicature Act.
30 March 2011
_______________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs reserved.
8 November 2011
________________________
Application for recall of judgment of 8 November 2011 is dismissed.
Both applications for costs are dismissed.
9 December 2011
________________________
2nd Application for recall - dismissed.
14 December 2011
________________________
Abuse of process. Dismissed. No further application in relation to [2011] NZSC 133 to be accepted by the Registry.
21 May 2021
Recall judgment
9 December 2011 Recall and costs (PDF, 48 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 15 August 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ
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
Media Releases
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

Hearing date : 23 April 2012

Blanchard, Tipping, William Young, Chambers, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Maritime New Zealand v Survey Nelson Limited
Case number
SC 14/2011
Summary
Judicial Review – Decision to approve Safe Ship Management Company – Maritime Transport Act 1995 – Maritime Rules – Error of Law – Whether Court of Appeal correct, after finding error of law, to reverse High Court position and grant relief to Survey Nelson Ltd ­– Whether Court of Appeal possessed jurisdiction to reinstate approval where this effectively required the issue of a new approval[2010] NZCA 629   CA 245/2010  21 December 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MARITIME NEW ZEALAND v SURVEY NELSON LIMITED SC 14/2011 [2 June 2011] (PDF, 71 KB)
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $2,500 plus disbursements and other necessary payments, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. 

2 June 2011.
Case name
Sher Afzal Khan v Keith William Reid
Case number
SC 21/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Application to set aside bankruptcy notice – Court of Appeal declined application for an extension of time for filing the appeal ­–Mr Khan had already been adjudicated bankrupt and that adjudication was final and binding under s 61 of the Insolvency Act 2006 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and in law in considering that no satisfactory explanation had been given for initial delay and that, in any event, the present application would fail[2011] NZCA 22  CA 242/2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
KHAN v REID SC 21/2011 [1 June 2011] (PDF, 12 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with cocts of $2,500 to the respondent.

1 June 2011.
Case name
Kathy Apostolakis v Damir De Polo
Case number
SC 30/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Family Law – Whether the appellant’s decision to represent herself caused her undue disadvantage – Whether relevant facts were not taken into account by the Family Court.Civ 2009 485 2550  22 July 2010
Dates

Notice of abandonment being filed, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.

22 June 2011.
Case name
Jordan James Ataria v The Queen
Case number
SC 31/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sentencing – Whether the Judge was entitled to determine particular matters of fact at the sentencing stage, and whether there was sufficient evidence to support those findings of fact – Whether the appellant’s sentence should be reduced on account of an alleged disparity with the sentence imposed on certain other offenders in this case[2010] NZCA 559 CA 120/2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ATARIA v R SC 31/2011 [17 June 2011] (PDF, 29 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
17 June  2011.
Case name
Lewis Gaire Herdman Thompson v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 52/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Tax – The appellant deregistered for GST from 30 November 1999 – Commissioner of Inland Revenue later made tax assessments on the basis that the appellant was not able to deregister at this time because of subsequent land transactions – Whether there were reasonable grounds for the Court of Appeal to make a finding of fact that the appellant would have made taxable supplies greater than $30,000 through these transactions after deregistration – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to set the end of the appellant’s GST period at 31 January 2001 instead of February 2000.  [2011] NZCA 132  CA 580/2009
Result
Appeal dismissed.
Costs of $15,000 plus disbursement to the respondent.
10 May 2012.
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
sc 52 2011 lewis gaire herdman thompson v cir leave judgment (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
sc 52 2011 thompson v cir (PDF, 209 KB)
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is granted on the following grounds:

A When did the appellant become entitled to be de-registered for GST purposes?

B In light of that determination, and the circumstances in which they took place, did the second and third sales of land attract GST?

22 August 2011.
Hearing
1 March 2012.
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Decision reserved.
Case name
Kunal Nand Reddy v The Queen
Case number
SC 66/2011
Summary
Criminal – Evidence of good character – That failure of trial counsel to adduce evidence of the appellant’s good character caused a miscarriage of justice – Trial process – That the trial Judge’ s directions were insufficiently clear – That the process by which the jury delivered its verdicts was unsafe – Accessory after the fact – That the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 71(1) of the Crimes Act 1961.[2011] NZCA 181   CA 75/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
11 November 2011.
Case name
Right to Life New Zealand Inc v The Abortion Supervisory Committee
Case number
SC 73/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that none of statutory functions or powers of Abortion Supervisory Committee entitle or require Committee to scrutinise or review certifying consultants’ particular clinical decisions or diagnoses after the fact – Whether judicial review requires that applicant identify a decision challenged – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding counselling services provided under CSA Act were “adequate” – Whether Court of Appeal erred in implicitly finding no State and common law interest in preservation of life of unborn child which ought to influence interpretation of CSA Act.[2011] NZCA 246   CA 522/2009
Result

A. Leave to appeal is granted. 
B. The approved grounds are: 
(a) Whether the respondent Committee’s functions under ss 14(1)(a), (i) and (k) and 36 of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 empower it to review or scrutinise the decisions of certifying consultants and form its own view about the lawfulness of their decisions to the extent necessary to perform its functions.

(b) If so, whether there is any evidential foundation for the High
Court’ s finding that “the approval rates [for abortions] seems remarkably high, bearing in mind that under s 187(A) [of the Crimes Act 1961] the consultants must form a good faith opinion that continuance of the pregnancy would result in serious danger to the mother’s health”.

(c) Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to consider whether
certifying consultants are obeying the “abortion law” (as defined) and, if so, whether there is any evidential foundation for the High Court’s finding that “there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants”.

26 August 2011

_________________________________

The appeal is dismissed.

9 August 2012
Transcript

Hearing date : 13 March 2012

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Robert Frank Terry v Rosalind Megan McLellan and The Public Trustee
Case number
SC 75/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Public Trustee powers – That the High Court failed to take into account the fact that directions in previous proceedings between the parties had not been followed – That the High Court made various errors of fact and law.Civ  2010 4189 123
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
30 August 2011.
Page 8 of 16