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
William Patrick Jeffries v The Privacy Commissioner
Case number
SC 5/2010
Summary
Civil – Litigation privilege – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that unsolicited communication does not attract litigation privilege under s56 of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the word ‘person’ in s91(4) of the Privacy Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to apply s74 of the Evidence Act 2006 to matters before the Privacy Commissioner – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to review the Privacy Commissioner’ s decisions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not addressing s27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2009] NZCA 567 CA 339/2008 3 December 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. The approved ground is whether unsolicited communications received by the applicant while acting as a barrister are capable of attracting litigation privilege.
31 March 2010
_______________________
The appeal is dismissed. Any claim of privilege must be referred for the determination of the Privacy Commissioner in accordance with this judgment. No order for costs is made.
12 August 2010
31 March 2010
_______________________
The appeal is dismissed. Any claim of privilege must be referred for the determination of the Privacy Commissioner in accordance with this judgment. No order for costs is made.
12 August 2010
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
DSL Logistics Limited v New Zealand Sports Merchandising Limited
Case number
SC 6/2010
Summary
Civil – Contract – Law of entire obligations – Termination of contract for the storage and dispatch of merchandise – whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the law of entire obligations to the contract – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its construction of Appendix B work as an entire obligation – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to take into consideration the substantial performance of the contract by the applicants – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of clause 7.5 of the standard form agreement[2009] NZCA 566 CA 691/2009 1 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the respondent.
30 March 2010.
Case name
John Hanita Paki and others v Attorney-General
Case number
SC 7/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of “navigable river” in terms of s 14 of the Coal Mines Amendment Act 1903; whether the Waikato River was navigable for the purposes of s 14; whether, in the 1880s and 1890s, the Crown owed the appellants’ ancestors, as Maori and Treaty of Waitangi partners, a fiduciary duty or a relational duty of good faith not to acquire their land or taonga except with their full and informed consent, namely, whether the Crown owed an obligation to advise the original owners of the usque ad medium filum aquae principle (legal title to land runs to midpoint of riverbed) and, if so, whether the Crown breach either of those duties; whether the appellants’ ancestors had customary title to the river; whether the appellants (as representatives or otherwise of the Pouakani hapu) have standing to bring their claim; whether the appellants’ claim is time-barred under the Limitation Act 1950; whether the appellants’ claim is barred under s 12 of the Pouakani Claims Settlement Act 2000;[2009] NZCA 566 CA 691/2009 1 December 2009
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds are: (i) Did the applicants have standing to bring the proceeding in a representative capacity? (ii) Did s 14 of the Coalmines Amendment Act 1903 vest title in the riverbed adjoining the Pouakani lands in the Crown? (iii) If not, did the Crown acquire title to the claimed part of the riverbed through application of the presumption of riparian ownership ad medium filum aquae by reason of its acquisition of the riparian lands? (iv) If so, in the circumstances in which the Crown acquired the claimed part of the riverbed, was it in breach of legally enforceable obligations owed to the owners from whom title was acquired? (v) If so, have the applicants lost their right to enforce such obligations by reason of defences available to the Crown through lapse of time? (vi) If not, what relief is appropriate? C The Registrar is directed to set down the hearing of the first two questions only for hearing at a fixture of 2 days. Further timetabling and direction orders for hearing of the remaining Questions will be made at or following the first hearing. The Court may review the expression of grounds 3 to 6 if it considers it appropriate to do so after hearing the argument of questions 1 and 2.
21 July 2010
________________
The appellants have standing to bring the proceedings in a representative capacity. The riverbed adjoining the Pouakani lands is not vested in the Crown under s 261 of the Coal Mines Act 1979 and s 354 of the Resource Management Act 1991. Costs are reserved.
27 June 2012
_______________
Appeal dismissed.
29 August 2014
B The approved grounds are: (i) Did the applicants have standing to bring the proceeding in a representative capacity? (ii) Did s 14 of the Coalmines Amendment Act 1903 vest title in the riverbed adjoining the Pouakani lands in the Crown? (iii) If not, did the Crown acquire title to the claimed part of the riverbed through application of the presumption of riparian ownership ad medium filum aquae by reason of its acquisition of the riparian lands? (iv) If so, in the circumstances in which the Crown acquired the claimed part of the riverbed, was it in breach of legally enforceable obligations owed to the owners from whom title was acquired? (v) If so, have the applicants lost their right to enforce such obligations by reason of defences available to the Crown through lapse of time? (vi) If not, what relief is appropriate? C The Registrar is directed to set down the hearing of the first two questions only for hearing at a fixture of 2 days. Further timetabling and direction orders for hearing of the remaining Questions will be made at or following the first hearing. The Court may review the expression of grounds 3 to 6 if it considers it appropriate to do so after hearing the argument of questions 1 and 2.
21 July 2010
________________
The appellants have standing to bring the proceedings in a representative capacity. The riverbed adjoining the Pouakani lands is not vested in the Crown under s 261 of the Coal Mines Act 1979 and s 354 of the Resource Management Act 1991. Costs are reserved.
27 June 2012
_______________
Appeal dismissed.
29 August 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 19 July 2010 (PDF, 266 KB)
- Hearing date 15-16 March 2011 SC 7/2010 (PDF, 940 KB)
- Hearing date 19 and 20 February 2013 SC 07/2010 (PDF, 768 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2012 ] NZSC 50 (PDF, 87 KB)
- MR [2014] NZSC 118 (PDF, 102 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Case name
Valerie Morse v The Queen
Case number
SC 10/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 to a charge of ‘offensive behaviour’ under s4(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of ss5 and 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to consider art 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Whether the classification of behaviour as ‘offensive’ is a question of fact or law.[2009] NZCA 623 CA 530/2008 22 December 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. The approved ground is whether the District Court correctly interpreted and applied s 4(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1981. 18 May 2010
_______________________
Appeal allowed. Conviction entered against the appellant in the District Court is set aside.
6 May 2011
_______________________
Appeal allowed. Conviction entered against the appellant in the District Court is set aside.
6 May 2011
Media Releases
- media release morse 1 (PDF, 89 KB)
Substantive judgment
MORSE v THE POLICE SC 10/2010 [6 May 2011] (PDF, 338 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
MORSE v THE POLICE SC 10/2010 [18 May 2010] (PDF, 9 KB)
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ
Case name
Philip James Whitley v The Queen
Case number
SC 12/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the decision of the District Court ordering a judge only trial under s 361D of the Crimes Act 1961; whether the denial of a jury trial was a justifiable limitation on the right to a jury under s 24(e) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2009] NZCA 623 CA 530/2008 22 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
WHITLEY v R SC 12/2010 [18 March 2010] (PDF, 15 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
18 March 2010.
Case name
Jason Mark Ferguson v The Queen
Case number
SC 14/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Murder – Provocation – Whether defendant’ s confession to police admissible given his intellectual disability (defendant seeks to adduce new evidence) – Whether sentence of detention in secure care should be substituted pursuant to the Intellectual Disabilities (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 and Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 – Whether substitution of sentence is required under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2010] NZCA 2 CA 594/2008 3 February 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
FERGUSON v R SC 14/2010 [29 July 2010] (PDF, 47 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
29 July 2010.
Case name
Kimberly Birkenfeld v Anthony Bruce Kendall and Yachting New Zealand Incorporated
Case number
SC 17/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court (Access to Court Documents) Amendment Rules 2009 and the Court of Appeal (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2009 are valid; whether the application of those Rules had a prejudicial effect on the preparation of the appellant’s case. [2009] NZCA 619 CA 793/2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. No order for costs.
21 April 2010.
Case name
Cyndi Marcia Fairburn v The Queen
Case number
SC 20/2010
Summary
Criminal – Murder – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by refusing to allow fresh evidence from expert witnesses[2010] NZCA 44 CA 169/2009
Result
Further evidence is admitted.
The appeal is allowed and the conviction is quashed.
A new trial is ordered.
17 December 2010.
Hearing
29 and 30 November 2010.
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is granted
The approved ground is whether, in the light of the further evidence tendered in this Court and in the Court of Appeal, there has been a miscarriage of justice
18 June 2010
Case name
Brett Stephen Taylor v The Queen
Case number
SC 26/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Unlawful sexual connection – whether the trial Judge erred in his failure to give directions in relation to the unreliability of the complainant’s evidence pursuant to s 122 of the Evidence Act 2006 – whether the inadequacy of the trial Judge’s directions regarding prejudice caused a substantial miscarriage of justice – whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to admit new expert evidence on appeal[2010] NZCA 69 CA 147/2009 16 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TAYLOR v R SC 26/2010 [20 July 2010] (PDF, 45 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 July 2010.
Case name
Steelbro New Zealand Limited v Hanmar Maskin AB and Ors
Case number
SC 36/2010
Summary
Civil – The Court of Appeal found that the stabiliser leg on particular Steelbro sidelifter models infringed the respondent’s patent – Such models do not incorporate a separate bearing component within the support sleeve of the stabiliser - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding, by reference to the specification, that the claim did not require a separate bearing component, thereby modifying rather than construing the claim – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in disregarding certain subsequent conduct by the respondents.[2010] NZCA 83 CA 692/2008 24 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to respondent.
Page 38 of 55