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
Lewtyn Michael Scott v Rosemary Ann Scott and others
Case number
SC 65/2009
Summary
Civil – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its exercise of discretion declining the application for grant of an extension under r 43 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 – Whether the Court of Appeal was entitled to make that decision in the absence of the applicant or his counsel.[2009] NZCA 255  CA 634/2008    19 June 2009.
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs of $7,500 and disbursements to the respondents. 29 October 2009
Case name
Maia Rongonui v The Queen
Case number
SC 66/2009
Summary
Criminal – Evidence Act 2006 – Mr Rongonui was convicted of one count of sexual violation by unlawful connection and one of assault with intent to commit rape – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the complainant’s evidence that she had told her friend what occurred after the incident did not fall within s 35 of the Evidence Act dealing with previous consistent statements because evidence was not given of anything actually said by the complainant – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the District Court Judge was correct to allow the prosecutor to use a witness statement to refresh the memory of a witness and to allow cross-examination of the witness on the grounds of hostility[2009] NZCA 279 CA 736/2008  2 July 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
21 September 2009
___________________________
Appeal allowed, convictions set aside. Order for new trial. Reasons to be given at a later date. 2
7 November 2009
_____________________________
Reasons given 23 July 2010
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v  Michael Peter Stiassney and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 69/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – natural justice – orders were made in the High Court against the applicant, the publisher of several websites, in respect of a defamation claim – whether the High Court judge was correct to allow an amended statement of claim to be filed and proceed to an ex parte hearing on 8 October 2008 – whether the High Court judge erred in awarding the respondent $940,000 in damages plus costs and issuing a permanent injunction against the applicant prohibiting several defamatory publications – whether the High Court judge misrepresented evidence in finding against the applicant.Civ 2005 404 001808  23 December 2009
Result
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed
Case name
Kevin Stanton Burdett v The Queen
Case number
SC 73/2009
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against sentence – Sexual offending against girl aged between 12 and 16 years – Whether Court of Appeal erred in fixing starting point of 3.5 years’ imprisonment for a first offender charged with a single act of sexual connection when no tariff decision established for relevant type of sexual offending – Whether Court of Appeal failed to take into account availability of home detention as a sentencing option?[2009]  NZCA  366   CA 115/2009  19 August  2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 4 November 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Lewtyn Michael Scott v Rosemary Ann Scott and Ors
Case number
SC 84/2009
Summary
Stay of proceedings.[2009] NZCA 417    CA 634/2008   18 September 2009
Result
Application dismissed. 29 October 2009
Case name
Michael Wauchop Porter v The Queen
Case number
SC 85/2009
Summary
Criminal – s 361D Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 361D of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal had sufficient regard to ss 24(e) or 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 when interpreting s 361D.[2009] NZCA 380  CA 255/09  28 August 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 20 October 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from

 

Case name
Phillip Michael McMaster v The Queen
Case number
SC 91/2009
Summary
Criminal appeal – appeal against convictions for aggravated robbery and unlawfully taking a motor vehicle – whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the evidence of two co-accused was insufficiently cogent to give rise to a miscarriage of justice when the Crown case identifying the applicant as a participant in the offending was reliant on a third co-accused who was motivated to give false evidence to minimise his role in the offending.[2009] NZCA 393  CA 608/2008   9 September   2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 10 February 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Transcript

 

Judgment appealed from

 

Case name
Tere Moana Purea V Alan Stanley Perkins and Adrienne Rosemary Perkins
Case number
SC 119/2009
Summary
Civil appeal - Land Transfer Act 1952 – cross-appeal - the respondents sued for specific performance after the appellant failed to settle a house purchase due to a dispute with his daughter (Mrs Tangi-Tuake) over ownership which resulted in her lodging a caveat against the title of the property – whether the Court of Appeal determination that the finding of Asher J on the facts that it was supported by evidence that there was an agreement that in return for Mr Purea’s daughter taking responsibility for the mortgage and any outgoings and maintenance of the property, ownership would be transferred to her on repayment of then mortgage, was erroneous – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider that Asher J treated his finding of a constructive trust as if it was an express trust and gave no recognition of the Tangi-Tuakes’ interest in the property – whether the Court of Appeal decision is supported by the Tangi-Tuakes’ pleadings and in particular the way in which their pleadings have changed.[2009] NZCA 541     CA  365/2008   18 November  2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the 2nd Respondent.
Case name
Mark Moncrieff Stevens and others v Premium Real Estate Limited
Case number
SC 23/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – Breach of fiduciary duty and Fair Trading Act 1986 – Damages – Advertising and sale of residential property where absence full disclosure by agent to principal of close, ongoing commercial relationship with purchaser – Whether Court of Appeal erred in quantification of damages assessment, including whether correct measure of loss includes profit made by third party (rather than fiduciary) as result of breach of fiduciary duty.[2008] NZCA 82 CA 31/07 11 April 2008
Result
Leave to appeal and cross appeal granted.
29 July 2008
________________________
The appellants’ appeal is allowed.The respondent’s appeal is dismissed.  The respondent is ordered to pay the appellants damages of $659,813 and to repay to them the commission of $67,050. The judgment sums will bear interest at 7% per annum from 16 July 2004 (the date of settlement).The appellants are awarded costs in this Court of $15,000 and costs in the Court of Appeal of $6,000, together in each case with their reasonable disbursements as fixed by the respective Registrars if not otherwise agreed between the parties.
6 March 2009
Case name
Kevin Anthony Lenaghan v The Queen
Case number
SC 24/2008
Summary
Criminal – appeal against conviction – possessing a substance with the intention of using it to produce or manufacture a controlled drug - whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that there was adequate evidence to support the jury’s conclusion of possession of a substance – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial Judge gave adequate jury directions.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
21 July 2008