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.

17 August 2026

Case information summary (as at 17 August 2026) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 17 August 2026)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 128 KB) 

All years

Case name
Philip John Smith v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 71/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal denied the appellant the right to a fair hearing on account of bias, hostility and predetermining the appellant’s recusal applications; whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that evidence tendered at the High Court was admissible; whether psychological reports of the appellant were obtained in breached s 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2010]  NZCA 258  23 June 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
PHILIP JOHN SMITH v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL SC 71/2010 [8 September 2010] (PDF, 63 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

8 September 2010
Case name
Rupinder Singh Chahil v The Queen
Case number
SC 79/2010
Summary
Criminal appeal – convictions for kidnapping after joint trial with three others – appeal against sentence and conviction – statement of co-accused used in evidence against the applicant – the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against sentence but declined to impose a sentence of home detention in place of imprisonment – Whether the applicant’s rights under section 25 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (minimum standards of criminal procedure) were breached by the Crown’s use of the co-accused’ s statement at trial – whether the Court of Appeal failed to identify the extent and impact of the inadmissible material – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider home detention as an option in terms of section 16 of the Sentencing Act 2002.[2010]  NZCA 331   27 July  2010
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dimissed.

28 September 2010
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
Transcripts
Media Releases
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
HI-GENE LIMITED v SWISHER HYGIENE FRANCHISE CORPORATION SC 87/2010 [3 November 2010] (PDF, 11 KB)
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
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v MAP & ASSOCIATES LIMITED SC 98/2010 [2 February 2011] (PDF, 16 KB)
Substantive judgment
WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v MAP & ASSOCIATES LIMITED SC 98/2010 [16 August 2011] (PDF, 131 KB)
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
BOSTIK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v STEPHEN GRAHAM LOCKWOOD AND WADHAM GOODMAN TRUSTEES LIMITED AS TRUSTEES OF THE ISLAND TRUST SC 102/2010 [8 December 2010] (PDF, 44 KB)
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
Media Releases
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
WING HUNG PRINTING COMPANY LIMITED v SAITO OFFSHORE PTY LIMITED SC SC 118/2010 [15 March 2011] (PDF, 11 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs of  $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to the respondent.

15 March  2011.
Page 40 of 55