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
Jordan James Ataria v The Queen
Case number
SC 31/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sentencing – Whether the Judge was entitled to determine particular matters of fact at the sentencing stage, and whether there was sufficient evidence to support those findings of fact – Whether the appellant’s sentence should be reduced on account of an alleged disparity with the sentence imposed on certain other offenders in this case[2010] NZCA 559 CA 120/2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ATARIA v R SC 31/2011 [17 June 2011] (PDF, 29 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
17 June  2011.
Case name
David Ingram Rowley and Barrie James Skinner v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 51/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Name Suppression – Interim name suppression order granted in the District Court, but overturned in High Court, with a Court of Appeal majority upholding the High Court’s decision – Whether Court of Appeal majority correctly applied the test for name suppression appeals – Whether Court of Appeal majority was right to uphold the view of the High Court Judge that the possible impact on financing of a defence was an irrelevant consideration – Whether Court of Appeal majority was correct in supporting the High Court Judge’s finding that the District Court Judge had failed to take into account a relevant consideration, namely the interest in clients of the appellants in knowing of the charges faced – Whether Court of Appeal majority was justified in holding that the High Court could make its own evaluation of the factors for and against name suppression if the District Court took into account irrelevant considerations or failed to take into account a relevant consideration.[2011] NZCA 160  CA 112/2011
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ROWLEY and SKINNER v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 51/2011 [7 July 2011] (PDF, 58 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is declined.
7 July 2011.
Case name
John Anthony Edwards v Wellington Regional Council
Case number
SC 67/2011
Summary
Civil – Costs – Whether the Court of Appeal was right to uphold a decision of the Acting Registrar of that Court fixing security for costs on an appeal from the High Court – Section 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 – Appeal directly from the High Court – Whether a decision of the High Court to stay proceedings until a further statement of claim with adequate pleadings is submitted, and the leave of a Judge to file it is granted, is sufficiently exceptional to allow a direct appeal against the judgment to this Court. [2011] NZCA 260   CA 176/2011
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
EDWARDS v WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL SC 67/2011 [5 July 2011] (PDF, 41 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,5000 to the respondent.
Case name
NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Company v New Zealand Milk Brands Limited
Case number
SC 79/2011
Summary
Civil – Intellectual Property – Trademark registration – Trade Marks Act 2002 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in not allowing registration of appellant’s mark in relation to tea, cocoa, chocolate, artificial coffee, flavourings for beverages and non-dairy creamer – Whether Court of Appeal misdirected itself on “similar goods” in the context of s 25(1)(b) and (c) of the Trade Marks Act 2002 – Relevance of test in British Sugar Plc v James Robertson & Sons Ltd [1996] RPC 281 (Ch) under the Trade Marks Act 2002. [2011] NZCA 264   CA 25/2009
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $2,500. 

22 September 2011
Case name
James Joseph Kapa v The Queen
Case number
SC 114/2011
Summary
[2011] NZCA 504 CA 407/2010 CA 572/2010
Result
Leave to appeal is granted in respect of the sentence of reparation only.
The approved ground is whether the sentence of reparation complied with the requirements of s 32 of the Sentencing Act 2002.  
7 February 2012
____________________________
Appeal is allowed. The sentence of reparation is quashed.
20 December 2012
Media Releases
Transcript

Hearing date : 7 August 2012

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook J.
Case name
Josephine Takamore v Denise Clarke  and Nehuata Takamore & Donald Takamore
Case number
SC 131/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Customary Law – Approach to determining whether Tūhoe burial custom forms part of the common law – Whether the Court of Appeal majority erred in its analysis of the reasonableness of the Tū hoe custom – Whether the Court of Appeal majority was wrong to hold that the Tūhoe custom was insufficiently certain to form part of the common law – Whether the Court of Appeal majority was correct to hold that Tū hoe custom was a relevant cultural consideration for an executor or executrix where one or more of the whānau pani of the deceased is Tūhoe and the deceased is Tūhoe under Tūhoe custom – Whether the Court of Appeal minority judgment raised important issues about the approach to findings of fact in the High Court[2011] NZCA  587   CA 525/2009
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds of appeal are whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that New Zealand law entitled the executrix to determine disposal of the body of the deceased and whether it was correct to hold that the executrix is entitled to take possession of the body of the deceased notwithstanding its burial.  
28 March 2012
________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B  The first respondent is entitled to proceed under the exhumation licence to have Mr Takamore reburied in a place of her choosing.
C  The matter is remitted back to the High Court in case any consequential orders are necessary.
D  Costs are reserved. 
18 December 2012
Transcripts
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
TAKAMORE v CLARKE SC 131/2011 [18 December 2012] (PDF, 556 KB)
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
James Louis Mason v The Queen
Case number
SC 47/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in combining two allegations of criminal conduct to be included in a single count in the indictment.[2010] NZCA 170  CA 481/2009   5 May 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground of appeal is whether the combining in a single count in the indictment of the two allegations (punching the child and pulling his ear) resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
7 July 2010
___________________________
Appeal allowed and the conviction is quashed. No order for a new trial.
3 November 2010
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
MASON v R SC 47/2010 [7 July 2010] (PDF, 6 KB)
Substantive judgment
MASON v R SC 47/2010 [3 November 2010] (PDF, 66 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 19 October 2010

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Nathan Stanley Gedye v Colin Robert South, Diane Lee South and Richard James Bureel as Trustees of the South Family Trust
Case number
SC 56/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Building Act 1991 – Alleged breach of vendor warranty for compliance with the Act – interpretation of limitation defence in s 91(2) of the Act – the Court of Appeal held the “act or omission on which the proceedings are based” to be the giving of the contractual warranty rather than the building work itself – the 10 year limitation period in s 91(2) therefore did not bar the respondent’s claim – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding s 91(2) inapplicable[2010] NZCA 207   CA 567/2009   20 May 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GEDYE v SOUTH, SOUTH AND BURRELL (AS TRUSTEES OF THE SOUTH FAMILY TRUST) SC 56/2010 [5 August 2010] (PDF, 12 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

5 October 2010.
Case name
Robert Erwood v Janet Maxted and others
Case number
SC 66/2010
Result
The appeal is allowed.
The appeal to the Court of Appeal is reinstated. The proceeding is remitted to the Court of Appeal for hearing.
The costs order in the Court of Appeal is set aside.
18 March 2011
____________________________
The application by the first respondents for recall is dismissed.
15 July 2011
____________________________
Application by the appellant for recall is dismissed.
25 November 2015
Recall judgment
ROBERT ERWOOD v JANET MAXTED AND JANET MAXTED AND ALEXANDER JAMES JEREMY GLASGOW AS TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD ERWOOD [2015] NZSC 181 [25 November 2015] (PDF, 95 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
ERWOOD v MAXTED AND MAXTED GLASGOW AS TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD ERWOOD SC 66/2010 [30 November 2010] (PDF, 33 KB)
Substantive judgment
ROBERT ERWOOD v JANET MAXTED AND ALEXANDER JAMES JEREMY GLASGOW AS TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD ERWOOD SC 66/2010 [18 March 2011] (PDF, 61 KB)
Recall judgment
ERWOOD v MAXTED AND GLASGOW AS TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD ERWOOD SC 66/2010 [15 July 2011] (PDF, 40 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 18 March 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Page 18 of 22