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.
22 September 2026
Case information summary (as at 18 September 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 112 KB)
Case information summary (as at 18 September 2026) – Currently unavailable
All years
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
David Ingram Rowley and Barrie James Skinner v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 51/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Name Suppression – Interim name suppression order granted in the District Court, but overturned in High Court, with a Court of Appeal majority upholding the High Court’s decision – Whether Court of Appeal majority correctly applied the test for name suppression appeals – Whether Court of Appeal majority was right to uphold the view of the High Court Judge that the possible impact on financing of a defence was an irrelevant consideration – Whether Court of Appeal majority was correct in supporting the High Court Judge’s finding that the District Court Judge had failed to take into account a relevant consideration, namely the interest in clients of the appellants in knowing of the charges faced – Whether Court of Appeal majority was justified in holding that the High Court could make its own evaluation of the factors for and against name suppression if the District Court took into account irrelevant considerations or failed to take into account a relevant consideration.[2011] NZCA 160 CA 112/2011
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is declined.
7 July 2011.
7 July 2011.
Case name
NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Company v New Zealand Milk Brands Limited
Case number
SC 79/2011
Summary
Civil – Intellectual Property – Trademark registration – Trade Marks Act 2002 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in not allowing registration of appellant’s mark in relation to tea, cocoa, chocolate, artificial coffee, flavourings for beverages and non-dairy creamer – Whether Court of Appeal misdirected itself on “similar goods” in the context of s 25(1)(b) and (c) of the Trade Marks Act 2002 – Relevance of test in British Sugar Plc v James Robertson & Sons Ltd [1996] RPC 281 (Ch) under the Trade Marks Act 2002. [2011] NZCA 264 CA 25/2009
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $2,500.
22 September 2011
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
James Joseph Kapa v The Queen
Case number
SC 114/2011
Summary
[2011] NZCA 504 CA 407/2010 CA 572/2010
Result
Leave to appeal is granted in respect of the sentence of reparation only.
The approved ground is whether the sentence of reparation complied with the requirements of s 32 of the Sentencing Act 2002.
7 February 2012
____________________________
Appeal is allowed. The sentence of reparation is quashed.
20 December 2012
The approved ground is whether the sentence of reparation complied with the requirements of s 32 of the Sentencing Act 2002.
7 February 2012
____________________________
Appeal is allowed. The sentence of reparation is quashed.
20 December 2012
Media Releases
- MR [2012 ] NZSC 119 (PDF, 62 KB)
Transcript
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook J.
Case name
Philip James Whitley v The Queen
Case number
SC 12/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the decision of the District Court ordering a judge only trial under s 361D of the Crimes Act 1961; whether the denial of a jury trial was a justifiable limitation on the right to a jury under s 24(e) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2009] NZCA 623 CA 530/2008 22 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
WHITLEY v R SC 12/2010 [18 March 2010] (PDF, 15 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
18 March 2010.
Case name
James Louis Mason v The Queen
Case number
SC 47/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in combining two allegations of criminal conduct to be included in a single count in the indictment.[2010] NZCA 170 CA 481/2009 5 May 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground of appeal is whether the combining in a single count in the indictment of the two allegations (punching the child and pulling his ear) resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
7 July 2010
___________________________
Appeal allowed and the conviction is quashed. No order for a new trial.
3 November 2010
7 July 2010
___________________________
Appeal allowed and the conviction is quashed. No order for a new trial.
3 November 2010
Transcripts
- sc 47 2010 james louis mason v the queen (PDF, 100 KB)
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
MASON v R SC 47/2010 [7 July 2010] (PDF, 6 KB)
Substantive judgment
MASON v R SC 47/2010 [3 November 2010] (PDF, 66 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 19 October 2010
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Nathan Stanley Gedye v Colin Robert South, Diane Lee South and Richard James Bureel as Trustees of the South Family Trust
Case number
SC 56/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Building Act 1991 – Alleged breach of vendor warranty for compliance with the Act – interpretation of limitation defence in s 91(2) of the Act – the Court of Appeal held the “act or omission on which the proceedings are based” to be the giving of the contractual warranty rather than the building work itself – the 10 year limitation period in s 91(2) therefore did not bar the respondent’s claim – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding s 91(2) inapplicable[2010] NZCA 207 CA 567/2009 20 May 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
5 October 2010.
Case name
Robert Erwood v Janet Maxted and others
Case number
SC 66/2010
Result
The appeal is allowed.
The appeal to the Court of Appeal is reinstated. The proceeding is remitted to the Court of Appeal for hearing.
The costs order in the Court of Appeal is set aside.
18 March 2011
____________________________
The application by the first respondents for recall is dismissed.
15 July 2011
____________________________
Application by the appellant for recall is dismissed.
25 November 2015
The appeal to the Court of Appeal is reinstated. The proceeding is remitted to the Court of Appeal for hearing.
The costs order in the Court of Appeal is set aside.
18 March 2011
____________________________
The application by the first respondents for recall is dismissed.
15 July 2011
____________________________
Application by the appellant for recall is dismissed.
25 November 2015
Recall judgment
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Peter Hardie McNamara and Patrick Sturgeon McNamara as Trustees of the PH McNamara Family Trust v Auckland City Council
Case number
SC 85/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondent did not owe a duty of care to the appellant; whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the building certificate issued by a third party was invalid under the Building Act 1991.[2010] NZCA 345 CA 457/2009 3 August 2010.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds are: Whether a local authority: (i) owes a duty of care to purchasers of units in a residential development for which a code compliance certificate was issued by a private certifier which was acting outside of its authority to issue such certificates; and/or (ii) was immunised by s 50(3) of the Building Act 1991 against liability in relation to its actions in reliance on such a certificate.
30 November 2010
____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
The appellants are to pay the respondent costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements in connection with this appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
9 May 2012
B The approved grounds are: Whether a local authority: (i) owes a duty of care to purchasers of units in a residential development for which a code compliance certificate was issued by a private certifier which was acting outside of its authority to issue such certificates; and/or (ii) was immunised by s 50(3) of the Building Act 1991 against liability in relation to its actions in reliance on such a certificate.
30 November 2010
____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
The appellants are to pay the respondent costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements in connection with this appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
9 May 2012
Transcripts
- sc 85 2010 mcnamara family trust v auckland cc (PDF, 983 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2012] NZSC 34 (PDF, 95 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Page 18 of 22