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.

19 June 2026

Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 89 KB)
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 126 KB) 

All years

Case name
Winston James Shane Young v The Queen
Case number
SC 95/2010
Summary
Criminal appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the appellant’s conviction; whether the trial judge erred in his summing up to the jury; whether guilty verdict unreasonable.[2010] NZCA 309 CA 555/2009 19 July 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates

Application for leave to appeal refused.

8 December 2010
Case name
Stephen Thomas Hudson v The Queen
Case number
SC 100/2010
Summary
[2010] NZCA 417 CA 51/2010 13 September  2010.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The permitted grounds of appeal are whether:
(i)  the evidence in relation to previous acts of violence involving the appellant; and
(ii) the evidence of admissions by the appellant to witnesses that he was responsible for the deceased’s murder should have been admitted at the trial and if so whether adequate directions to the jury in respect of such evidence were given by the trial Judge.
15 December 2010
__________________________
Appeal dismissed.
19 May 2011
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Bostik New Zealand Limited v Stephen Graham Lockwood & Wadham Goodman Trustees Limited as trustees of the Island Trust.
Case number
SC 102/2010
Summary
Civil – Negligent misstatement – Respondent alleges misrepresentation in respect of waterproofing product suitability to waterproof large deck – Whether Court of Appeal erred in disturbing findings of fact in High Court as to falsity of representation and suitability of product and in remitting proceeding to High Court for reconsideration – Whether Court of Appeal gave undue weight to Bostik’s own technical literature regarding suitability of waterproofing product which post-dated the events in issue.[2010] NZCA 436 CA 381/2009 24 September 2010
Dates

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondents.

8 December 2010
Case name
Stephen Michael Shone v The Queen
Case number
SC 49/2009
Summary
Criminal appeal – sentencing – whether the decision of the Court of Appeal is consistent with decisions made in comparable cases – whether the Court of Appeal failed to take into account the alleged facilitation of offending by a victim’s mother – whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive[2009] NZCA  183  CA 720/2008    14 May 2008
Result
Application to leave to appeal dismissed. 29 July 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Mana PropertyTrustee Ltd v James Development Ltd
Case number
SC 105/2009
Summary
Civil – Interpreting terms of a sale and purchase agreement  – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by equating non-performance at the time of settlement with an automatic right to cancel – Whether the Court of Appeal were wrong to find that clause 18.3 of the agreement for sale and purchase was essential.[2009] NZCA 483    CA  241/2000  19 October  2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
1 March 2010
______________________
Appeal allowed. It is declared that the respondent’ s purported cancellation on 3 November 2008 of its contract with the appellant was of no effect.  The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for outstanding issues to be determined in light of this judgment.  The costs order made in the Court of Appeal is set aside. Costs are reserved.  Counsel should file memoranda. 
23 July 2010
Case name
Stephen Leslie Jellyman v The Queen
Case number
SC 112/2009
Summary
Criminal Appeal – whether the sentence of preventive detention was manifestly excessive; Whether the appellant’s right to silence and right against self-incrimination were breached by admitting the appellant’ s videotaped statement to police; Whether the complainant, who was intellectually disadvantaged, understood either the oath or the moral or legal consequences of not telling the truth and thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice; Whether the complainant’s unsworn evidence was admissible.[2009] NZCA 532    CA  6/2009   12  November  2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
12 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Neville James Gibson v Minter Ellison Rudd Watts
Case number
SC 8/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – proceedings against former legal counsel - whether the Court of Appeal made accurate findings of fact – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the respondent had complied with discovery obligations – whether the Court of Appeal had regard to all relevant evidence – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the applicant would not have been entitled to legal aid in earlier proceedings against a third party – whether the respondent had a conflict of interest in earlier proceedings - whether the Court should have considered the applicant’ s financial position when awarding costs against him[2007] NZCA 595 CA 202/065, CA 33/06 21 December 2007
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2.500 to respondent. 1 May 2008
Case name
Shaun Antony King v The Queen
Case number
SC 18/2008
Summary
Criminal – appeal by way of case stated – Juries Act 1981 – applicant challenges the legality and fairness of jury-vetting, under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, the Privacy Act 1993 and the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004 – whether controls should operate over prosecution use of information including, but not limited to, the criminal history of a potential jury member – whether disclosure by the prosecution to the defence should be required in relation to such information.[2008] NZCA 79 CA 207/2007 10 April 2008
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Deborah Gordon-Smith v The Queen
Case number
SC 32/2008
Summary
Criminal – Appeal by way of case stated – Juries Act 1981 – Challenge under New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Privacy Act 1993 and Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004 to legality and fairness of jury-vetting by Police so as to provide Prosecutor with information including, but not limited to, non-disqualifying criminal histories of persons on jury list – Jurisdiction – Leave on same grounds as King v R (SC 18/2008) sought – Jurisdiction issue relevant to King case sole reason for application for leave and to be included as a party to King case.[2008] NZCA 79 CA 207/2007 10 April 2008
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
Leave judgment - leave granted
Dates

25 July 2008 – Application for leave to appeal granted.

______________________

Appeal dismissed.

23 March 2009

Transcription

Hearing date : 10 July 2008

Hearing date : 3 December 2008 

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Wilson JJ.

Case name
Stephen William Garret v The Queen
Case number
SC 57/2008
Summary
Criminal - Appeal against sentence – Grievous bodily harm with intent to injure – Whether 3½ years imprisonment manifestly excessive for vigilante attack given early offer of guilty plea to lesser charge of which ultimately convicted and $20,000 reparation payment as requested by victim – Whether sentencing Judge erred in law in finding appellant had leadership role in operation.[2008] NZCA 294   CA 176/2008    12 August 2008
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 October 2008.