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 July 2026

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

All years

Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassny and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 8/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Defamation – Injunctions – Whether High Court correct to strike out appellant’s application to vary/set aside injunction as abuse of process – Whether Court of Appeal properly addressed leave question of extension of time to file appeal –Whether Court of Appeal dealt with substantive issues not properly the subject of leave hearing.[2010] NZCA 607  CA 692/2010  14 December  2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIEMER v STIASSNY AND KORDA MENTHA SC 8/2011 [9 May 2011] (PDF, 9 KB)
Dates

The Application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondents.

9 May 2011.
Case name
Allan Brian Miller and Michael John Carroll v The New Zealand Parole Board and The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 15/2011
Summary
Civil – Judicial Bias – Whether the Court of Appeal bench was properly selected – Whether the Court of Appeal applied the correct test for judicial bias – Whether the Parole Board was independent – Whether the appellant Carroll was properly recalled from parole – Whether preventive detention is consistent with the rehabilitation purpose of art 10(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[2010] NZCA 600  CA 67/2009  8 December 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MILLER v THE NEW ZEALAND PAROLE BOARD SC 15/2011 [23 March 2011] (PDF, 12 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

23 March 2011.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassny and others
Case number
SC 20/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Strike out application – Whether a cause of action can be struck out before any statement of defence has been filed and the plaintiff’s evidence contested – Judicial bias – Whether a Judge shows bias by requesting the defendant to carry out some action against the plaintiff in relation to a separate proceeding.[2011] NZCA 1  CA 718/2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIEMER v STIASSNY SC 20/2011 [20 April 2011] (PDF, 10 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed, with costs $1500.00 plus disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar to the Attorney-General.

20 April 2011.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassny and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 49/2011
Summary
Civil – Costs – Defamation – Whether Court of Appeal, in considering quantum of damages awarded against applicant, erred by: not considering applicant’s substantive defence of truth; upholding finding of liability in the circumstances. [2011] NZCA 106  CA 826/2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIEMER v STIASSNY SC 49/2011 [3 June 2011] (PDF, 99 KB)
Recall judgment
SIEMER v STIASSNY SC 49/2011 [21 October 2011 (PDF, 46 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

3 June 2011.
Case name
Robert Michael Symons, Gregory John Symons and others v Wiltshire Investments Limited
Case number
SC 92/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Appeal against Court of Appeal upholding a summary decision of the High Court – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the refusal by the respondents to produce critical relevant documents that are in the respondent’s sole possession did not constitute a failure by the respondent to discharge the onus on a summary judgment application to establish that the appellants had no arguable defence – Whether the use of residual discretion to refuse an application for summary judgment under r 12.2 of the High Court Rules was justified – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the confidentiality can be a valid ground for refusal to disclose relevant documentation to the Court and the defendants in a summary judgment application. [2011] NZCA 397 CA 534/2010
Result
Leave to appeal is granted in relation to the indebtedness associated with Opus Fintek Ltd (in receivership). The approved question is whether the Associate Judge ought to have entered summary judgment despite the non disclosure of the 2009 settlement agreement between Opus Fintek Ltd and Hats Holdings Ltd.
17 November 2011
_________________________________
A Leave to appeal is extended to cover the indebtedness of Fibroin Initiatives Ltd.
B The appeal is allowed with the result that the entry of summary judgment is set aside but with leave reserved to the respondent to seek summary judgment once it has disclosed the settlement agreement to the appellants.
C The awards of costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside. 9 August 2012
___________________________________
17 October 2012: 
Judgment recalled and reissued.  A Leave to appeal is extended to cover the indebtedness of Fibroin Initiatives Ltd.
B The appeal is allowed with the result that the entry of summary judgment is set aside.
C Upon disclosure of the settlement agreement to the appellants, the application for summary judgment is, at the option of the respondent, to be reheard in the High Court with the appellants at liberty to resist the claim (and, if they think appropriate, produce additional evidence) on the basis of (i) defences associated with, or arising out of the disclosure of the settlement agreement and (ii), subject to the leave of the High Court being obtained, on any other basis. The appellants are also at liberty to make such interlocutory applications to the High Court as they see fit. D The awards of costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.
Leave judgment - leave granted
sc 92 2011 symons v wiltshire investments ltd (PDF, 10 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 17 April 2012

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassney and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 103/2011
Summary
[Civil Appeal – Injunctions – Strike-out – Applicant applied to set aside, rescind and/or vary injunction – Whether Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to strike out applicant’s appeal as vexatious and an abuse of process without first hearing from the parties. [2011] NZCA 466   CA 262/2011
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondents.

3 October 2011.
Case name
Michael Andrew Keith Hastie  v The Queen
Case number
SC 120/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the trial Judge should have given a Papadopoulos direction.[2011] NZCA 498   CA 153/2011
Result

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

The approved grounds of appeal are whether the directions given to the jury before it delivered its verdicts were appropriate and, if not, whether this gave rise to a substantial miscarriage of justice?

9 February 2012

_______________________

Appeal dismissed.

23 July 2012
Transcript

Hearing date : 7 June 2012

Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Chambers JJ
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Stiassny and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 8/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Defamation – Appellant ordered by High Court to pay $920,000 in damages to Respondents for defamation and breach of contract – Appellant previously found by High Court to be in contempt of Court for breach of interim injunction and failure to pay costs, and debarred from defending defamation suit – Appeal to Court of Appeal struck out except for appeal as to quantum of damages awarded – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in granting in part Respondents’ strike-out application on the grounds of Appellant’s continuing contempt of Court – Whether strike-out application by Respondents made out of time – Whether Court of Appeal judge acted under a conflict of interest. [2009] NZCA 566  CA 453/2009   22 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIEMER v STIASSNY AND ANOR SC 8/2010 [20 May 2010] (PDF, 20 KB)
Dates

Applications for leave to appeal dismissed.

20 May 2010.
Case name
Michael Shane McElroy and others as trustees of the Craigie Trust v Auckland International Airport Limited
Case number
SC 11/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Public Works Act 1981 – Respondent not subject to the obligation in s 40 of the Act to offer back to the applicant land no longer required for the public work for which it was held – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the word “required” in s 40 – whether the Court of Appeal misinterpreted the term “ aerodrome” or “airport” as defined by the Act and the Airport Authorities Act 1966 – whether the Court’s interpretation of “ aerodrome” or “airport” undermines the purposes of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the qualifications in s 40(2) of the Act would nonetheless apply to exclude the respondent from the requirement to offer back the land[2009] NZCA 621  CA 440/2008   23 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
McELROY AND ORS v AUCKLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD SC 11/2010 [9 June 2010] (PDF, 47 KB)
Dates

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

9 June 2010.
Case name
Brian Thomas Street v Michael John Brouwers
Case number
SC 111/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – tort of removal of support and negligence – causation – landslip encroaching on common boundary of adjoining property causing land to subside and reducing the value of the adjoining property – whether the Court of Appeal erred on the issue of causation – whether the Court of Appeal erred in their approach to the tort of removal of support and negligence.[2010] NZCA 463   CA 374 /2009  13 October 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
STREET v BROUWERS SC 111/2010 [9 March 2011] (PDF, 60 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

9 March 2011
Page 7 of 10