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
Chala Sani Abdula v The Queen
Case number
SC 80/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal - whether the applicant was denied his right to an interpreter under s 24(g) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; whether the adequacy of evidence called by the defence at trial and the Court of Appeal's refusal of an application to call further medical and scientific evidence gave rise to a miscarriage of justice.[2010] NZCA 332 28 July 2010
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the applicant was denied his right to an interpreter under s 24(g) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
4 November 2010
___________________________________
Appeal dismissed.
1 November 2011
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the applicant was denied his right to an interpreter under s 24(g) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
4 November 2010
___________________________________
Appeal dismissed.
1 November 2011
Transcripts
- Hearing date 25 March 2011 SC 80/2010 (PDF, 490 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2011 ] NZSC 130 (PDF, 90 KB)
Substantive judgment
ABDULA v R SC 80/2010 [1 November 2011] (PDF, 149 KB)
Case name
Hi-Gene Limited v Swisher Hygiene Franchise Corporation
Case number
SC 87/2010
Summary
Civil – Arbitration Act 1996 – Respondent sought to register foreign arbitral award made in North Carolina against New Zealand-based appellant in High Court – Appellant not present at arbitration and adjournment refused by arbitrators – Whether recognition and enforcement of award should be refused in New Zealand on grounds appellant unable to present case at arbitration and rules of natural justice breached – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding same high threshold should apply to grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement of foreign arbitral award under r 36(1)(a)(ii) and (1)(b)(ii) of First Schedule to Arbitration Act – Whether Court of Appeal wrong to hold appellant had onus to seek formal decision from arbitrators on adjournment application – Whether Court of Appeal wrong in holding rr 18 and 24(2) had no application to foreign arbitral awards.[2010] NZCA 359 CA 346/2010 9 August 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
3 November 2010
Case name
Westpac New Zealand Limited v Map & Associates Limited
Case number
SC 98/2010
Summary
Civil – Knowing assistance in breach of trust – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Westpac did not have reason to refuse to follow the instructions of its account holder – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 87 of the Judicature Act 1908.[2010] NZCA 404 CA 193/2009 6 September 2010.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that Westpac had breached its mandate.
C The application for leave to cross-appeal is refused.
2 February 2011
_______________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $15,000.00 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.
16 August 2011
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that Westpac had breached its mandate.
C The application for leave to cross-appeal is refused.
2 February 2011
_______________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $15,000.00 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.
16 August 2011
Transcripts
- Hearing date 31 May 2011 SC 98/2010 (PDF, 725 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2011] NZSC 89 (PDF, 85 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Bostik New Zealand Limited v Stephen Graham Lockwood & Wadham Goodman Trustees Limited as trustees of the Island Trust.
Case number
SC 102/2010
Summary
Civil – Negligent misstatement – Respondent alleges misrepresentation in respect of waterproofing product suitability to waterproof large deck – Whether Court of Appeal erred in disturbing findings of fact in High Court as to falsity of representation and suitability of product and in remitting proceeding to High Court for reconsideration – Whether Court of Appeal gave undue weight to Bostik’s own technical literature regarding suitability of waterproofing product which post-dated the events in issue.[2010] NZCA 436 CA 381/2009 24 September 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
8 December 2010
Case name
R S v The Queen
Case number
SC 103/2010
Summary
Criminal – Exclusion of evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that what specific drug, if any, a police constable is searching for under s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 is a factual rather than legal issue - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that whether s 23(1)(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act had been breached is a factual rather than legal issue – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its deciding unlawfully obtained evidence was admissible under the balancing exercise in s 30(2) of the Evidence Act 2006.[2010] NZCA 434 CA 333/2010 22 September 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Not publicly available
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
16 November 2010.
Case name
John Colman v The Police
Case number
SC 106/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Summary Offences Act 1981, s (4)(1)(a) – using insulting language within hearing of a public place, being reckless as to whether anyone was insulted by the words - discharged without conviction on appeal – leave refused to appeal to the Court of Appeal – whether the applicant’s rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 have been breached.CRI 2009 488 09 22 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
COLMAN v THE POLICE SC 106/2010 [8 December 2010] (PDF, 66 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
8 December 2010.
Case name
Azeeez Mahomed v The Queen
Case number
SC 117/2010
Summary
Criminal – Murder – Whether Court of Appeal erred in pre-trial ruling admitting certain propensity/narrative evidence against the applicant – Whether Court of Appeal in dismissing appeal erred in concluding trial Judge not required to give specific directions on propensity evidence at trial – Whether evidence of applicant’s low intellectual capacity and wife’s post-natal depression should have been admitted at trial – Whether trial Judge was entitled to comment on applicant’s decision not to give evidence – Whether new evidence of accident purportedly explaining daughter’s injuries should be admitted.[2010] NZCA 419 CA 779/2009 14 September 2010.
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted,
The approved grounds are:
(i) Whether the evidence concerning the child’s being left in the car on 19 December 2007 was admissible; and
(ii) If so, whether the Judge’s directions relating to that evidence were adequate.
8 February 2011
__________________________
Appeal dismissed.
19 May 2011
The approved grounds are:
(i) Whether the evidence concerning the child’s being left in the car on 19 December 2007 was admissible; and
(ii) If so, whether the Judge’s directions relating to that evidence were adequate.
8 February 2011
__________________________
Appeal dismissed.
19 May 2011
Media Releases
- mahomed v the queen press release (PDF, 87 KB)
Substantive judgment
MAHOMED v R SC 97/2010, SC 117/2010 [19 May 2011] (PDF, 321 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 17 February 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Wing Hung Printing Company Limited and others v Saito Offshore Pty Ltd
Case number
SC 118/2010
Summary
Civil – Conflict of laws – Whether New Zealand is the appropriate forum for trial of the dispute – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its calculus of the issues relevant to the appropriate forum choice – Whether the Court of Appeal had an evidential foundation for finding the business relationship was ‘predominately Australasian’ – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in extending the extraterritorial effect of the Fair Trading Act 1986 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in the exercise of its discretion to dismiss a protest to jurisdiction on terms.[2010] NZCA 502 CA 437/2009 5 November 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to the respondent.
15 March 2011.
Case name
Graham Ashley Robert Palmer v The Queen
Case number
SC 119/2010
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction for dishonest use of a GST return – whether the conduct of the investigation and criminal prosecution of the applicant was in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 30 of the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Judges’ Rules – whether the trial Judge misdirected the jury as to the identity of a witness – whether the trial Judge erred in his summing up to the jury – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to take into account evidence produced by the applicant as to the value of goods – whether there has been error in the calculation of the period for which the applicant is subject to release conditions following his sentence of imprisonment[2010] NZCA 53 CA 349/2009 5 March 2010
Case name
OH v The Queen
Case number
SC 125/2010
Summary
Criminal – Summary Proceedings Act 1957 – validity and scope of search warrants – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the validity of search warrants issued under s 198 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957; whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that s 198 of the Summary Proceedings Act can be used to authorise surveillance on private land – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – unreasonable search and seizure – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the police in this case did not breach s 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Evidence Act 2006 – admissibility of evidence – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its undertaking of the s 30 balancing exercise and in concluding that the evidence in dispute was admissible at trial[2010] NZCA 528 CA 825/2009 19 November 2010
Result
The appeal allowed in part. The video surveillance evidence (other than footage of vehicles on Reid Road) is inadmissible against those appellants. All the other disputed evidence is admissible against them. 2 September 2011.
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
HAMED v R SC 125/2010 [2 September 2011] (PDF, 551 KB)
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved grounds are whether the challenged evidence was lawfully obtained under s 198 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 or was, alternatively, properly admissible pursuant to s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006.
25 March 2011
Hearing
3 and 4 May 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Page 40 of 55