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.

31 July 2026

Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 131 KB) 

All years

Case name
Douglas Arthur Montrose Graham v The QueenMichael Howard Reeves v The QueenWilliam Patrick Jeffries v The QueenLawrence Roland Valpy Bryant v The Queen
Case number
SC 59/2013 ; SC 60/2013; SC 61/2013; SC 62/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Conviction and Sentence – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to uphold trial Judge’s conclusion that statements in amended prospectus were untrue – Materiality of omissions – Notional investor test – Securities Act 1978, ss 55 and 58(1) – Whether Court of Appeal correct uphold trial Judge’s conclusion that directors did not have reasonable grounds for their honest belief that the statements in the amended prospectus were true – Securities Act 1978, s 58(2)(4) – Whether directors were permitted to place reliance on external expert advice – Companies Act 1993, s 138 – Whether Court of Appeal correct to rule that sentences imposed by trial Judge were manifestly inadequate – Sentencing Act 2002.
Result
A The appeals are allowed.
B The sentences imposed by the Court of Appeal are set aside and the sentences imposed by Dobson J are restored.
7 May 2014
____________
Application for recall dismissed.
Costs are reserved.
22 July 2015
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
DOUGLAS ARTHUR MONTROSE GRAHAM, MICHAEL HOWARD REEVES, WILLIAM PATRICK JEFFRIES AND LAWRENCE ROLAND VALPY BRYANT v R [2014] NZSC 55 [7 May 2014] (PDF, 156 KB)
Recall judgment
DOUGLAS ARTHUR MONTROSE GRAHAM, MICHAEL HOWARD REEVES, WILLIAM PATRICK JEFFRIES AND LAWRENCE ROLAND VALPY BRYANT v R [2015] NZSC 109 [22 July 2015] (PDF, 369 KB)
Supreme court decision
Cost :DOUGLAS ARTHUR MONTROSE GRAHAM, MICHAEL HOWARD REEVES, WILLIAM PATRICK JEFFRIES AND LAWRENCE ROLAND VALPY BRYANT v R [2015] NZSC 138 [24 September 2015] (PDF, 119 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 11 February 2014

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, Blanchard JJ. Decision reserved.
Case name
Michael Victor Bourneville and Mark Graham Blewden v Christine Jill Marshall
Case number
SC 71/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in identifying the proceeding as an application to the High Court to remove a caveat – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not making reference to the rules of law concerning the ability of the Court to interfere with the exercise of discretion on appeal – Whether the initiation of proceedings to establish a constructive trust constituted an abuse of process – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Respondent had a reasonably based expectation of an interest in the property – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relying solely on a submission by counsel for the Respondent, rather than properly introduced evidence in the High Court or Court of Appeal, in finding that the first Applicant and the Respondent had accumulated substantial assets by their joint endeavours – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first Applicant “obviously would have had knowledge of the circumstances giving rise to the expectation”.[2013] NZCA 271  CA 676/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B  The applicants are to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements.   14 November 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MICHAEL VICTOR BOURNEVILLE AND MARK GRAHAM BLEWDEN v CHRISTINE JILL MARSHALL [2013] NZSC 107 [8 November 2013] (PDF, 46 KB)
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassny and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 90/2013
Summary
[2013] NZCA 206   CA 362/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents, plus all reasonable disbursements as fixed if necessary by the Registrar to the respondents.
14 November 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v MICHAEL PETER STIASSNY and KORDA MENTHA [2013] NZSC 114 [14 November 2013 (PDF, 52 KB)
Recall judgment
VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v MICHAEL PETER STIASSNY [2013] NZSC 137 [4 December 2013] (PDF, 10 KB)
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassny and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 92/2013
Summary
[2013] NZCA 390   CA 166/2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v MICHAEL PETER STIASSNY & ANOR [2013] NZSC 115 [14 November 2013] (PDF, 54 KB)
Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements (as fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar) to the respondents.

14 November 2013
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Richard  Heron and others
Case number
SC 138/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908 – Whether the decision of the Associate Judge was made in chambers or in open court – Whether the Associate Judge’s decision could be the subject of a direct appeal to the Court of Appeal – Whether any of the Judges in the Court of Appeal had a conflict of interest or apparent bias.[2013] NZCA 599  CA 442/2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v MICHAEL RICHARD HERON [2014] NZSC 35 [4 April 2014] (PDF, 59 KB)
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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

4 April 2014.

Application for recall dismissed.

8 April 2014.
Case name
Michael Santo Colosimo v The Queen
Case number
SC 19/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence and Procedure – Disclosure of documents at trial or before trial – Whether the trial Judge and Court of Appeal erred in their approach to alleged prejudice caused by prosecution use of a document not disclosed before trial – Whether the trial Judge should have ordered an adjournment or made other appropriate orders once the document in question was disclosed.SC 687/2011  [2012] NZCA 60
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
30 May 2012.
Case name
Shane Daniel Hannigan  v The Queen
Case number
SC 20/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Evidence Act 2006, ss 43 and 94 – Appeal against conviction for arson – Propensity evidence – Whether propensity evidence admitted without regard to the balancing exercise required by s 43 to determine whether the probative value of the evidence is outweighed the risk that it would be unfairly prejudicial – Whether evidence related to the specific issue in dispute – Whether any direction to the jury as to how to use the evidence should have been given – Whether evidence amounted to separate criminal allegations that should have been brought as separate charges – Cross-examination – Whether Crown breached s 94 by cross-examining its own witness – Whether Court of Appeal should have applied Rongonui v R [2010] NZSC 92, [2011] 1 NZLR 23.CA 639/2011  [2012] NZCA 133
Result

A Leave to appeal is granted. 
B  The approved ground is whether the way in which Kirsty Hannigan was re-examined led to a substantial miscarriage of justice. 

30 May 2012

______________________

Appeal dismissed.

26 April 2013
Transcript

Hearing date : 22 October 2012

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.
Case name
Michael Peter Stiassny, Grant Robert Graham, Forestry Corporation of New Zealand Limited (in receivership), Citic New Zealand Limited (in receivership), CNI Forest Nominees Limited and Bank of New Zealand v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 21/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Goods and services tax – Restitution – Recovery of a GST payment paid by the first appellants to the respondent in the mistaken belief that they were personally liable for the debt – Whether secured creditors own the proceedings of sale of assets that are subject to registered fixed charges at the time of sale, if they are sold for less than the secured debts to which the charges relate – Whether the first appellants were entitled to apply the proceeds of sale of the Central North Island Forestry Partnership (CNIFP) assets to the payment of GST amount, in priority to the claims of the secured creditors – Whether the GST payment was “ debtor-initiated” in terms of s 95 of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 (PPSA) – Whether s 95 of the PPSA barred the recovery of the GST payment if it was made under a mistake – Whether the second and third appellants have a cause of action in restitution for the recovery of their mistaken payment – Whether the first appellants have a cause of action in restitution for the recovery of their mistaken payment – Whether the security trustees have a cause of action in restitution for the recovery of the mistaken payment made by the first appellants to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue –  Whether “good faith” is a pre-requisite for a defence of the provision of good consideration to the payer to a claim for the recovery of a payment made under a mistake – Whether the first appellants are entitled to recover GST payment pursuant to their tax challenge cause of action pursuant to the Tax Administration Act 1994.SC 775/2010   [2012] NZCA 93
Result

A  Leave to appeal is granted.

B  The approved grounds are:

(i)  whether the GST payment was a “ debtor-initiated payment” in terms of s 95 of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 so as to confer priority to the Commissioner over any claim to those moneys by any respondent;

(ii)  whether any of the appellants can recover the amount of GST so paid from the Commissioner on the basis that it was paid by the receivers under a mistaken belief that they were personally liable to pay it or on any other basis.

8 May 2012

_____________________________

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellants are to pay the respondent’ s costs in this Court in the sum of $40,000 together with reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

28 November 2012
Transcript

Hearing dates : 27 and 28 September 2012

McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Gault, Blanchard JJ.
Case name
Gareth John Needham v The Queen
Case number
SC 24/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Expert evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold that the trial Judge should have ordered severance of count one into two alternative counts – Whether there was a breach of s 92 of the Evidence Act 2006 as trial counsel did not cross-examine four Crown witnesses on an issue of veracity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and law in relation to an issue that a Crown witness was allegedly improperly asked in evidence-in-chief – Whether evidence should have been led as to the lack of previous convictions of the appellant – Whether the Court of Appeal should have determined the admissibility of fresh good character evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the fresh evidence of an astronomer would not have been substantially helpful – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the fresh evidence of a consultant forensic pathologist would not have been substantially helpful.CA 443/2011  [2012] NZCA 95
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
14 June 2012.
Case name
Loktronic Industries Limited v Stephen John Diver and others
Case number
SC 32/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Tort – Evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its statement of the test for the element of knowledge in the tort of inducing breach of contract – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning findings of fact that were open to the trial judge and not plainly wrong – Whether the Court of Appeal imposed a more onerous duty on the appellant in its cross-examination of its witnesses at trial than is consistent with s 92(1) of the Evidence Act 2006. CA  258/2011  [2012] NZCA131
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $1,000 payable to each set of respondents making submissions.

24 July 2012.
Page 12 of 21