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
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Richard Heron and others
Case number
SC 39/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Procedure – Security for costs – Whether the High Court erred in ordering that the applicant, an undischarged bankrupt, pay security for costs. CIV 2010 404 6880 17 March 2011
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is refused.
The applicant is to pay the First and Second Respondents costs of $2500.00.
18 July 2012.
Case name
TK v The Queen
Case number
SC 42/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the hearsay statements of a 3-year old child were reliable and admissible – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the child was “available as a witness” under the Evidence Act – Whether there would be prejudice arising out of not being able to cross-examine the child – Whether expert evidence on the accuracy of children’ s memory should be admitted.2012]NZCA 167 CA 94/2012
Dates
Application for leave to admit new evidence and for leave to appeal are dismissed.
4 July 2012.
4 July 2012.
Case name
Gerald Thondhlana v The Queen
Case number
SC 50/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Counsel error – Appeal against conviction of assault with intent to injure – Whether counsel failed to call relevant medical evidence – Whether counsel adequately argued self-defence – Whether Crown witnesses were cross-examined on inconsistent statements – Whether a miscarriage of justice occurred[2012]NZCA 233 CA 536/2011
Dates
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.
14 November 2012.
14 November 2012.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Heron and others
Case number
SC 56/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for Costs – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to uphold decision of Acting-Registrar to decline application to dispense with security for costs.CA 103/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 to the respondent.
30 October 2012.
Case name
Kevin Tito v Aroha Tito and John Andrew
Case number
SC 92/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Trusts – Whether there was a breach of the Trust Order in relation to the election of trustees – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in accepting this breach of the Trust Order – Whether the Court of Appeal should have considered further the issue relating to a respondent’s receipt of trust monies – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the applicant was seeking the removal of the respondents as trustees – Whether the Trust has failed to act in the interests of the owners. [2012] NZCA 493 CA 856/2011
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
14 March 2013.
14 March 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TITO v TITO & ANOR SC 92/2012 [14 March 2013] (PDF, 59 KB)
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Heron and others
Case number
SC 6/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Procedure – Whether the Court of Appeal’ s holding that there is no automatic right of appeal against a High Court order fixing security for costs is consistent with natural justice – Whether the Court of Appeal addressed the appellant’s arguments – Whether the fact that r 20.13(2) of the High Court Rules was adopted by the Rules Committee has International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights implications.[2010] NZCA 610 CA 190/2010 14 December 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The ground approved is whether leave of the Court of Appeal was required under s 67 of the Judicature Act for the applicant’s appeal against security for costs fixed by order of the High Court or whether appeal was available as of right under s 66 of the Judicature Act.
30 March 2011
_______________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs reserved.
8 November 2011
________________________
Application for recall of judgment of 8 November 2011 is dismissed.
Both applications for costs are dismissed.
9 December 2011
________________________
2nd Application for recall - dismissed.
14 December 2011
________________________
Abuse of process. Dismissed. No further application in relation to [2011] NZSC 133 to be accepted by the Registry.
21 May 2021
30 March 2011
_______________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs reserved.
8 November 2011
________________________
Application for recall of judgment of 8 November 2011 is dismissed.
Both applications for costs are dismissed.
9 December 2011
________________________
2nd Application for recall - dismissed.
14 December 2011
________________________
Abuse of process. Dismissed. No further application in relation to [2011] NZSC 133 to be accepted by the Registry.
21 May 2021
Recall judgment
9 December 2011 Recall and costs (PDF, 48 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 15 August 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ
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
Dates
The Application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
9 May 2011.
Case name
Gary Owen Burgess v Susan Natalie Beaven
Case number
SC 9/2011
Summary
Civil – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Relationship Property – Whether Court of Appeal took correct approach to overturning lower court decisions and costs orders – Whether relationship property was correctly assessed under the Property (Relationships) Act, and a division of relationship property inconsistent with the Act has eventuated.[2010] NZCA 625 CA 371/2009 20 December 2010
Result
1 We grant leave to appeal and cross-appeal (and an extension of time in relation to the cross-appeal). 2 The approved grounds of appeal and cross-appeal proceed on the basis that the Court of Appeal’s assessment under s 14(2)(c) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 in favour of equal sharing was correct and are as follows: (a) was the Court of Appeal in error in adopting separation date values; (b) was there any logical or arithmetical error in the Court of Appeal’ s identification and valuation of the relationship property and its allowances for post-separation contributions; (c) should the Court of Appeal have made consequential orders in respect of the costs ordered in relation to earlier judgments and money paid by Mr Burgess to Ms Beaven; and (d) what, if any, additional or other orders are required.
22 September 2011
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed and the cross-appeal is dismissed.
B Orders B, C and D of the decision of the Court of Appeal [2010] NZCA 625 are set aside.
C The awards of costs made against Mr Burgess by John Hansen J in the Stream A litigation are set aside and in their place Mr Burgess is awarded $5,000 costs in respect of the first appeal to the High Court heard by John Hansen J.
D Ms Beaven’s gross liability to Mr Burgess is:
(a) Balance due on division of property 3,716.10
(b) Refund of money paid to Ms Beaven 36,804.31
(c) Costs and disbursements on first appeal 5,000
Total 45,520.41
E Ms Beaven is entitled to set off outstanding awards of costs in her favour totalling $15,474.16 against her gross liability producing a net figure which she must pay, and on which Mr Burgess may now execute judgment of $30,046.25. Interest will run on that sum from the date of this judgment in terms of r 11.27 of the High Court Rules.
F Ms Beaven is to pay Mr Burgess usual disbursements in relation to this appeal.
9 August 2012
22 September 2011
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed and the cross-appeal is dismissed.
B Orders B, C and D of the decision of the Court of Appeal [2010] NZCA 625 are set aside.
C The awards of costs made against Mr Burgess by John Hansen J in the Stream A litigation are set aside and in their place Mr Burgess is awarded $5,000 costs in respect of the first appeal to the High Court heard by John Hansen J.
D Ms Beaven’s gross liability to Mr Burgess is:
(a) Balance due on division of property 3,716.10
(b) Refund of money paid to Ms Beaven 36,804.31
(c) Costs and disbursements on first appeal 5,000
Total 45,520.41
E Ms Beaven is entitled to set off outstanding awards of costs in her favour totalling $15,474.16 against her gross liability producing a net figure which she must pay, and on which Mr Burgess may now execute judgment of $30,046.25. Interest will run on that sum from the date of this judgment in terms of r 11.27 of the High Court Rules.
F Ms Beaven is to pay Mr Burgess usual disbursements in relation to this appeal.
9 August 2012
Media Releases
- sc 9 2011 burgess v beaven media release (PDF, 84 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
BURGESS v BEAVEN SC 9/2011 [22 September 2011] (PDF, 106 KB)
Substantive judgment
BURGESS v BEAVEN SC 9/2011 [9 August 2012] (PDF, 193 KB)
Transcript
Blanchard, Tipping, William Young, Chambers, Anderson JJ.
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
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.
Page 13 of 21