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
Jamie Ronaki Kissling V The Queen
Case number
SC 42/2008
Summary
Criminal – Appeal – Challenge to mandate and jurisdiction of New Zealand Courts in criminal matters – Whether lower Court correct to refuse application for transfer of case to tribal or customary courts of the Te One One tribes.CRI 2006-070-6764 10 April 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
KISSLING v R SC 42/2008 [21 August 2008] (PDF, 14 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
21 August 2008
21 August 2008
Case name
Pranfield Holdings Limited and United Fisheries Limited v Minister of Fisheries and others
Case number
SC 47/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – Commercial fishing – Licence and quota management system – Misfeasance in Public Office – Whether Court of Appeal correctly applied Garrett v Attorney-General [1997] 2 NZLR 332 – Breach of Statutory Duty – Fisheries Act 1983, s 63 – Whether Court of Appeal adopted correct approach toward exercise of discretion under Fisheries Act 1983 – Negligence – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding no duty of care breached – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 27 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding s 27 not engaged – Fisheries Act 1996, ss 308 and 329 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding Applicant’ s claims for damages and in tort barred by statute.[2008] NZCA 216 CA 48/07 CA 56/07 10 July 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Applications for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2500.00 and disbursements to the respondents
Costs $2500.00 and disbursements to the respondents
Case name
David McAlister v Air New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 49/2008
Summary
Civil – Employment Relations Act 2000 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the demotion of the appellant as flight instructor did not breach a prohibited ground of discrimination, namely his age, in terms of s 104(1) of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that flight instructors under the age of 60 and performing the same work as the appellant were not a relevant comparator group for the purposes of ss 104(1)(a) and (b) of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that being of a particular age was a genuine occupational qualification for the appellant’s employment as a flight instructor in terms of s 30(1) of the Human Rights Act 1993.[2008] NZCA 264 CA 216/07 30 July 2008
Transcripts
- Hearing 25 and 26 March 2009 SC 49/2008 (PDF, 530 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2009] NZSC 78 (PDF, 89 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Wiilie Ye, Candy Ye and Tim Ye v Minister of Immigration and Yueing Ding
Case number
SC 53/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – immigration – removal order made under s 54 of the Immigration Act 1987 in respect of an overstayer mother whose children are New Zealand citizens – humanitarian interview conducted by Immigration Officer who determined not to exercise the power of cancellation of the removal order under s 58 of the Immigration Act – whether the Court of Appeal erred in not holding that the children’s welfare and best interests as New Zealand citizen children of an overstayer parent ought to have been directly addressed and taken into account by the Immigration Officer as the paramount or alternatively as a primary consideration in his decision making – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold that the applicants were entitled to be heard either prior to the decision to make the removal order or prior to the decision to proceed with the removal and thus to be accorded natural justice in their own right – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to uphold the applicants’ claim that the first respondent failed to properly take into account the applicants’ rights and New Zealand’ s obligations under international law - whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the appropriate relief was to remit the matter of the Immigration Service to be reconsidered “if it sees fit”.[2008] NZCA 291 CA 184/2006
Media Releases
Transcript
Dates
Application for leave to appeal granted
4 November 2008
Case name
Tiny Intelligence Limited v Resport Limited
Case number
SC 55/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – Copyright Act 1994 – damages – the High Court found that Resport Ltd fragrantly breached the copyright of Tiny Intelligence Ltd in several toys and awarded Tiny Intelligence Ltd $50,000 by way of account of profits – whether additional damages are available under s 121(2) of the Copyright Act where the Court has awarded an account of profits – whether the House of Lords decision of Redrow Homes Ltd v Bett Brothers Plc [1999] 1 AC 197 should be applied to the New Zealand Copyright Act.[2008] NZCA 281 CA 270/2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
21 October 2008
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. Cost to the respondent $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
8 April 2009
21 October 2008
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. Cost to the respondent $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
8 April 2009
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Case name
Alan Qiuand Stanley Qiu v Minister of Immigration, He Qin Qiu and Ziao Yun Qiu
Case number
SC 56/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – immigration – removal order made under s 54 of the Immigration Act 1987 in respect of overstayer mother whose children are New Zealand citizens – humanitarian interview conducted by Immigration Officer who determined not to exercise the power of cancellation of the removal order under s 58 of the Immigration Act – whether the Court of Appeal erred in not holding that the children’s welfare and best interests as New Zealand citizen children of an overstayer parent ought to have been directly addressed and taken into account by the Immigration Officer as the paramount or alternatively as a primary consideration in his decision making – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold that the applicants were entitled to be heard either prior to the decision to make the removal order or prior to the decision to proceed with the removal and thus to be accorded natural justice in their own right – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to uphold the applicants’ claim that the first respondent failed to properly take into account the applicants’ rights and New Zealand’ s obligations under international law.[2008] NZCA 291 CA 192/2006
Media Releases
Transcription
Dates
Application for leave to appeal granted
4 November 2008
Case name
Shane Edward Williams v The Queen
Case number
SC 61/2008
Summary
Criminal appeal – appeal against conviction – conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine – section 25(b) New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – whether High Court Judge should have stayed the criminal proceedings after making finding of undue delay in bringing the applicant to trial – stay granted in relation to eight co-accused – whether applicant should have received same remedy.[2008] NZCA 296 CA 664/2007 12 August 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
3 November 2008
________________________
Appeal dismissed.
15 May 2009
3 November 2008
________________________
Appeal dismissed.
15 May 2009
Media Releases
- williams press release (PDF, 78 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
WILLIAMS v R SC 61/2008 [3 November 2008] (PDF, 12 KB)
Substantive judgment
SHANE EDWARD WILLIAMS v R SC 61/2008 [15 May 2009] (PDF, 48 KB)
Transcript
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Ferrier Hodgson and Michael Peter Stiassny
Case number
SC 62/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – Civil Procedure – Defamation Act 1992 – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 14 and 27 – Miscarriage of Justice – Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing appeal against order of High Court striking out parts of the Applicant’s defamation claim – Whether conflict of interest created by Court of Appeal Judge’s decision not to recuse himself – Whether High Court Rule change allowing documents to be referred to by a “generic description” compromised discovery process.[2008] NZCA 255CA 226/2007 24 July 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
19 November 2008
Case name
Slawomir Ryszard Bujak v Solicitor-General
Case number
SC 64/2008
Summary
Civil – Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that an order for the seizure of property in Poland could be registered in New Zealand under s 55 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal matters Act 1992.[2008] NZCA 334 CA 679/2008 11 September 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
11 November 2008
_____________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
15 May 2009
11 November 2008
_____________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
15 May 2009
Media Releases
- MR [2009] NZSC 42 (PDF, 90 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Case name
Kevin Francis John Casey v The Queen
Case number
SC 66/2008
Summary
Criminal Appeal – pre-trial application – drink driving – admissibility of evidential breath test printout – whether there was a lawful roadside detention – whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted s 114 of the Land Transport Act 1998 – claim proper breath screening procedure was not adopted – whether s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006 should have been applied to this claim – whether the right to consult a lawyer under s 23(1)(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was complied with[2008] NZCA 335 CA 246/2008 1 September 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CASEY v R SC 66/2008 [5 December 2008] (PDF, 16 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
5 December 2008
Page 46 of 55