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.

3 July 2026

Case information summary (as at 3 July 2026) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 88 KB)
Case information summary (as at 3 July 2026)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 127 KB) 

All years

Case name
Barry John Hart and others v ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 35/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Powers of the Official Assignee – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to adjourn the appeal pending an appeal that was filed earlier in the High Court challenging the legal entitlement of the Official Assignee to liquidate the second, third and fourth applicants – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in accepting the Official Assignee’ s argument that it had the function and powers to determine whether the appeal would be prosecuted by the bankrupt applicant[2013] NZCA 94  CA 729/2012
Additional document
HART v ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LTD SC 35/2013 [1 May 2013] (PDF, 77 KB)
Dates

 
Case name
Ashley Dwayne Guy v The Queen
Case number
SC 67/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – evidence – Evidence Act 2006 – whether the transcript of an interview of the complainant (“the complainant transcript” ) was inadmissible as potentially prejudicial material – whether the complainant transcript was inadmissible as a prior inconsistent statement – whether the transcript of an interview with the accused (“the accused interview transcript”) was inadmissible – whether the trial Judge’s direction to the jury on evidence relating to the complainant was appropriate – whether the Court of Appeal erred in admitting the complainant and accused interview transcripts given the fact neither counsel nor the trial Judge had had the opportunity to address the jury on these materials.[2012]NZCA 416  CA  69/2012.
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred, notwithstanding the error in the jury being given and reading the two interview transcripts which had not been put into evidence.
20 December 2012.

10 April 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.Decision reserved.
Rehearing directed.
14 November 2013.

7 October 2014.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan  JJ.
Decision reserved.

Appeal allowed, conviction quashed,
New trial ordered.
19 November 2014
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
ASHLEY DWAYNE GUY v R [2014] NZSC 165 [19 November 2014] (PDF, 254 KB)
Case name
Barry Raymond Whitelaw v The Queen
Case number
SC 73/2012
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against sentence – Whether the appellant’ s sentence of two years, five months’ imprisonment was excessive – Whether the uplift of nine months applied to the appellant’s sentence to take account of his previous offending was in breach of the prohibition against double jeopardy contained in s 26 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. [2012] NZCA 438  CA 359/2012
Dates
Hearing
Case name
Y v The Queen
Case number
SC 79/2012
Summary
Criminal – indecent act with a child and young person – Crimes Act 1961 ss 132(3); 134(3); and s 2(1B) – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a person who watches and encourages another person to perform an indecent act performs that indecent act “with” that other person for the purposes of s 2(1B) – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider the discretionary nature of its power to order a new trial – whether the Court of Appeal erred in not exercising its discretion not to order a new trial in light of the delay, the distress and the relatively low gravity of the offending. [2012] NZCA 458  CA 321/2012
Dates

The application for leave is dismissed.

Costs of $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar are awarded to the respondent.

19 December 2012.
Case name
Cameron John Leef v The Queen
Case number
SC 81/2012
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Crimes Act 1961, s 134(1) – Having sexual connection with a young person – Evidence Act 2006, s 44 – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that evidence of complainant’s prior sexual experience was inadmissible – Whether Court of Appeal erred that there was no miscarriage of justice as a result of the admission of inadmissible evidence.[2012] NZCA 567   CA 248/2011
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
14 March 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
LEEF v R SC 81/2012 [14 March 2013] (PDF, 57 KB)
Case name
MW V The Family Court and MVH
Case number
SC 86/2012
Summary
Civil appeal – Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1989, ss 67, 68, 87, 88 – whether High Court erroneously upheld Family Court’ s refusal to issue interim restraining order.   Civ 2012 404 5261
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondent, plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. 
18 December 2012
Case name
P v Bridgecorp Limited (in receivership and in liquidation)
Case number
SC 87/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – evidence – contractual capacity – abuse of process – jurisdiction – discovery – conflict of interest – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to give adequate weight to the full or overall tenor of medical evidence, the context of the report writers’ briefs and the reasons for adducing these reports – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to determine the level of the applicant’s mental illness and its impact on the applicant’s contractual capacity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the application was an abuse of process – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application for particular discovery – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining leave to withdraw the admission of claim under r 15.16 of the High Court  Rules – Whether the Court of Appeal applied insufficient weight to evidence of email correspondence as indicating that the applicant was self-represented – Whether the Court of Appeal applied insufficient weight to the existence of a conflict of interest on the part of Mr Cunningham – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by focusing on economic pressure and on a test of illegitimacy in relation to any threat for unreasonable pressure.[2012] NZCA 530    CA 756/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted on the following ground: Was r 15.16 of the High Court Rules correctly applied?
15 March 2013.
__________________________________
25 July 2013.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Decision reserved.
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
P v BRIDGECORP LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) SC 87/2012 [15 March 2013] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
P (SC 87/2012) v BRIDGECORP LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) [2013] NZSC 152 [19 December 2013 (PDF, 285 KB)
Case name
Daniel Brian Thomas Barrie v The Queen
Case number
SC 88/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 23(1)(b) – Right to consult and instruct a lawyer without delay and to be informed of that right – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in excluding foreign lawyers from those who may be consulted by a detainee under s 23(1)(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 in the drink/drive context – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a failure by Police to explain that there is no right to consult a foreign lawyer will not constitute a failure to facilitate the right to counsel provided the opportunity to consult and instruct a New Zealand lawyer had been afforded.[2012] NZCA 485    CA 849/2011
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BARRIE v THE POLICE SC 88/2012 [15 March 2013] (PDF, 50 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
15 March 2013.
Case name
Lisa Marie Colleen Mandic and Stephen Neil Dohnt
Case number
SC 4/2011
Summary
Civil – Interpretation of a Glasgow lease – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its approach and conclusions as to the interpretation of the lease’s particular rental review formula. [2010] NZCA 576  CA 787/2009   3 December  2010
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal conclusion as to the valuation methodology provided by cl 13(b) of the lease is correct.
18 March 2011
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellants are to pay the respondent costs of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements in connection with this appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
11 November 2011
Date of hearing
23 March 2011
Judges
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
MANDIC v THE CORNWALL PARK TRUST BOARD (INC) SC 4/2011 [18 March 2011] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
MANDIC v THE CORNWALL PARK TRUST BOARD (INC) SC 4/2011 [11 November 2011] (PDF, 251 KB)
Case name
Kay Halton Skelton v The Queen
Case number
SC 29/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sentence – Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing sentence appeal – Whether rights of children of mothers in custody; effects of imprisonment on a pregnant woman/mother of a young child; and totality principle properly considered – New Zealand’ s obligations under United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child.[2011] NZCA 35  CA 663/2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SKELTON v R SC 29/2011 [27 June 2011] (PDF, 11 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

27 June 2011.
Page 7 of 9