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
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.
Case name
TWI and others v The Queen
Case number
SC 128/2010 ; 129/2010; 130/2010; 131/2010; 132/2010; 133/2010/ 135/2010; 138/2010; 139/2010
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 497 CA 809/2009 19 November 2010
Result
A The appeals of Mr Tame Iti, Mr Te Rangiwhiria Kemara, Mr Urs Signer and Ms Emily Bailey are dismissed. B The appeals of the other appellants are 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.
2 September 2011.
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
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.
Case name
Evgeny Orlov v Anza Distributing NZ Limited and USG Interiors Pacific Limited
Case number
SC 136/2010
Summary
Civil – costs – whether Court of Appeal with jurisdiction to strike out appeal against costs judgment in circumstances where no dispute between parties and main purpose of appeal to challenge legal basis of decision and factual findings that counsel had failed to reach minimum standard of competence that should be attained by officers of the Court – whether appropriate for appellant to pay for an amicus to act as contradictor – whether Court of Appeal decision contravened appellant’s rights under New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights; and United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers. [2010] NZCA 536 CA 683/2009 22 November 2010
Additional document
sc 136 2010 orlov v anza fees review (PDF, 21 KB)
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. No order for costs.
29 March 2011.
Case name
MJT v DGH
Case number
SC 2/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Hague Convention – Sections 105 and 106 Care of Children Act 2004 – Appeal against Court of Appeal’s refusal to stay Family Court order to return children to Australia – whether children at grave risk if returned to Australia – whether the children were habitually resident in New Zealand – whether the children’ s human rights have been breached.[2008] NZCA 586 CA 776/2007 24 December 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
4 February 2009
4 February 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MT v DH SC 2/2009 [4 February 2009] (PDF, 20 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Kimberley Birkenfeld v Anthony Bruce Kendall and Yachting New Zealand Inc
Case number
SC 7/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – damages claim in negligence following boating accident causing physical injury to the applicant – permanent stay ordered in Court of Appeal – whether Court of Appeal failed to consider issues before it – whether Court of Appeal should give reasons in relation to issues that did not need to be decided in order to dismiss the appeal – whether Court of Appeal sufficiently accommodated the applicant’s disabilities.[2008] NZCA 531 CA 570/2007 4 December 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs $2500 to the respondents jointly. 1 July 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BIRKENFELD v KENDALL SC 7/2009 [1 July 2009] (PDF, 17 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Arshad Mahmood Chatha v The Queen
Case number
SC 8/2009
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding sentence not manifestly excessive and/or wrong in principle – Sentencing Act 2002, s 30 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding requirements of s 30 satisfied – Appeal against two recusal judgments – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 25(a) – Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing application for Judge’ s recusal.[2008] NZCA 427 CA 685/2007 10 December 2008
Result
Application for leave to amend the grounds of appeal is dismissed. Application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 24 March 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CHATHA v R SC 8/2009 [24 March 2009] (PDF, 19 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Audrey Bredmeyer v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
Case number
SC 14/2009
Summary
Civil appeal - New Zealander living in Australia seeks payment of New Zealand superannuation – whether Article 9.3 of the Agreement on Social Security, Schedule 1 Social Welfare (Reciprocity with Australia) Order makes payment of New Zealand superannuation contingent on meeting the income test and asset test for Australian pensions – whether the social purpose behind the current Agreement on Social Security between New Zealand and Australia differs from previous agreements - whether the Court of Appeal accorded natural justice to the Appellant.[2008] NZCA 557 CA 666/2007 17 December 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to respondent.
30 March 2009
30 March 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Ian Laywood and Gary Rees v Holmes Construction Wellington Limited
Case number
SC 23/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Construction Contracts Act 2002 – Statutory Interpretation – Enforcement of adjudicator’s determination by entry as judgment – Extent to which Construction Contracts Act judgments are to be treated differently as matter of law to non-Construction Contract Act judgments vis-à-vis Insolvency legislation – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding ss 73 and 74 of the Construction Contracts Act created a special regime for the enforcement of adjudicators’ determinations that is not subject to s 29 of the District Courts Act 1947 and that entry of a judgment pursuant to ss 73 and 74 was a final judgment for the purposes of s 19(1) of the Insolvency Act 1967 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding principles of natural justice and s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 did not entitle the Appellants to an oral hearing (as opposed to judgment being delivered on the papers).[2009] NZCA 35 CA 83/2008 25 February 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to respondent. 15 May 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
TFAC Limited, Geoffrey Alan Grisdale and Amanda May Grisdale v Susan Elizabeth David and UAR Limited
Case number
SC 26/2009
Summary
Civil – Fair Trading Act 1986 – Australian home services franchising operation – Applicants entered into a master franchise agreement covering Auckland’s eastern suburbs with the respondents, who owned the New Zealand master franchise – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and law in its finding that the respondents did not engage in misleading and deceptive conduct in breach of s 9 of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overlooking the High Court’s finding that the respondents had breached s 22(1) and (2) of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in treating a particular pleaded misrepresentation as a misrepresentation as to a future matter – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a particular opinion was honestly held by the first respondent and had a reasonable basis – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its finding that even if the respondents had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct the causal link necessary to justify relief under s 43 of the Act was doubtful – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its finding that the respondents were protected from liability by various disclaimer and acknowledgement clauses.[2009] NZCA 44 CA 26/2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
26 May 2009
26 May 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 41 of 55