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
AVM v The Queen
Case number
SC 34/2011
Summary
Criminal – Evidence Act 2006, ss 37 and 85 – Whether Crown ought to have disclosed material in its possession regarding expert witness to defence, in order to prevent ‘trial by ambush’ – Whether cross-examination of expert was in substance a challenge to witness’ veracity and s 37 was properly complied with (ie leave should have been sought) – Whether leave should have been sought based on s 85, ss 7 and 8 or common law – Whether in all the circumstances, the applicant had a fair trial. [2011] NZCA 84 CA 438/2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
M(SC34/2011) v R SC 34/2011 [20 June 2011] (PDF, 51 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 June 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
Clayton Robert Weatherston v The Queen
Case number
SC 81/2011
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction for murder – Impact of media statements on fair trial rights of applicant – whether the applicant’ s trial was rendered unfair as a consequence of media statements made during the trial – whether the directions of the trial Judge to the jury were sufficient to overcome the prejudice resulting from the media coverage – whether the Court of Appeal erred in requiring the applicant to demonstrate that a juror may have seen or read the coverage in issue – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the trial Judge’s post-trial conference address – Evidence Act 2006, s 92 – whether the Crown was obliged to put to the applicant on cross-examination the divergence of his evidence of events by comparison with that of other witnesses, if it intended to take issue with his version – Evidence Act 2006, ss 37 and 38 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding ss 37 and 38 did not apply to the Crown’s cross-examination of the applicant which aimed to establish his propensity to lie – Admission of photographs of victim’s wounds – whether the Court of Appeal erred in admitting photographs of stab wounds when the purpose for which that evidence was tendered could have been met by computer graphic reconstructions and diagrams[2011] NZCA 276 CA 648/2009
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
13 September 2011
13 September 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.
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
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
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
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
9 June 2010.
Case name
Jonathan Ian Blake v The Queen
Case number
SC 23/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing appeal against conviction – Whether erroneous legal advice given to Appellant by trial counsel on possible admissibility of previous convictions in cross-examination had a material influence on his decision not to give evidence at trial. [2010] NZCA 61 CA 278/2009 11 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BLAKE v R SC 23/2010 [16 June 2010] (PDF, 47 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
22 June 2010.
Case name
Bruce Benjamin Shepherd v The Queen
Case number
SC 84/2010
Summary
Criminal – appeal against conviction and sentence – applicant was convicted on 20 counts of sexual offending against eight complainants – during re-examination of one complainant the judge intervened to clarify the meaning of an earlier question from counsel for the defence in cross-examination and sought the complainant’s answer – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the questioning did not give rise to a miscarriage of justice – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that particular conduct of the applicant’s counsel at trial did not give rise to a miscarriage of justice .[2010] NZCA 351 CA 105/2009 5 August 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SHEPHERD v R SC 84/2010 [1 April 2011] (PDF, 10 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
1 April 2011Page 14 of 21