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.

28 November 2025

Case information summary 2025 (as at 28 November 2025) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary 2025 (as at 28 November 2025)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 120 KB)

All years

Case name
Simon McGrath v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 25/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 21– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the blood sample was taken lawfully and in accordance with normal medical procedures – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the blood test was not an unreasonable search and seizure.[2013] NZCA 3  CA 375/2012  CA 463/2012
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
8 May 2013.
Case name
Grace Riana Boagey v The Queen
Case number
SC 29/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Assault with a weapon; intentional damage; aggravated assault and refusal to permit a blood sample to be taken –¬ Disqualification from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence – Land Transport Act 1998, s 65 – Guilty plea following erroneous sentencing indication – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to quash guilty pleas and remit charges to District Court for appellant to replead and possibly a retrial.  [2013] NZCA 30   CA202/2012
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
2 July 2013.
Case name
Kim Dotcom, Finn Batato, Mathias Ortmann and Bram van der Kolk v The United States of America and The District Court at North Shore
Case number
SC 30/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Extradition – Disclosure – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the NZ/US Treaty – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of ss 22, 24, 25 and 102(1)(e)(i) of the Extradition Act 1999 which allow for and contemplate disclosure – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the relevant Canadian and United States authorities – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the Criminal Disclosure Act 2007 did not apply in the extradition context – Whether the Court of Appeal erred, in relation to the cross-appeal, in determining that s 184B of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 procedure applies in the extradition context.[2013] NZCA 38    CA526/2012
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted. 
B  The approved ground is: was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that the disclosure orders made in the District Court and upheld by the High Court were wrongly made? 
16 May 2013
___________
Appeal dismissed.
Costs reserved

21 March 2014
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
DOTCOM, BATATO, ORTMANN and VAN DER KOLK v THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [2014] NZSC 24 [21 March 2014] (PDF, 755 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 30 July 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Blanchard JJ.
Case name
John Colman v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 34/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Breaches of fair trial rights – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 24–26 – Whether High Court correctly dismissed appeal against District Court decision striking out civil claims – Whether High Court correctly decided some claims constituted a collateral attack on criminal proceedings or were an abuse of process – Whether High Court correctly decided that some claims had no reasonable prospect of success. [2012 NZHC 1343   Civ 2011 488 723 , 724, 726,727
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
17 May 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
COLMAN v ATTORNEY-GENERAL SC 34/2013 [17 May 2013] (PDF, 95 KB)
Dates

Applications for recall are dismissed.
11 June 2013.

Further application for recall dismissed.
13 June 2013.
Case name
MGY v The Queen
Case number
SC 40/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the Court of Appeal, in its pre-trial decision, had incorrectly widened the scope of ss 132, 134 and 2(1B) of the Crimes Act to include the conduct alleged against the applicant.CRI 2011 044 3042
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is:  Were the admitted facts in the summary of facts capable in law of constituting offences against ss 132(3) and 134(3)
of the Crimes Act 1961?
2 July 2013
___________________________________
Appeal dismissed.
3 April 2014
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
Y (SC 40/2013) v R [2014] NZSC 34 [3 April 2014] (PDF, 124 KB)
Hearing
5 December 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Blanchard JJ.
Case name
Bradley Matenga Kahui  v The Queen
Case number
SC 41/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against sentence – Parole Act 2002 – Whether the sentencing Judge erred in convicting and discharging the applicant instead of imposing a short sentence of imprisonment which would have ordinarily entitled him to credit for time served on remand.[2013] NZCA 124 CA 190/2013
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is: was the sentence imposed in accordance with the Sentencing Act 2002?

14 May 2013.
Hearing
Notice of abandonment being filed, the p\appeal is deemed to be dismissed
16 May 2013.
Case name
The Attorney-General v  Criminal Bar Association of New Zealand Incorporated
Case number
SC 48/2013
Summary
Application for judicial review – Legal Services Act 2011.[2013] NZCA 176  CA 606/2012
Dates

Notice of abandonment being filed, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.

21 June 2013.
Case name
Noel Lee Bland v The Queen
Case number
SC 56/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against sentence – Whether applicant is entitled to a reduction in sentence where assistance is given to the authorities post-sentence and where this matter was not raised before the Court of Appeal.   [2012] NZCA 165  CA 582/2011
Result
Application for leave to appeal is refused.
7 October 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BLAND v R [2013] NZSC 93 [7 October 2013] (PDF, 56 KB)
Case name
Aaron Patrick John Ellis v The Queen
Case number
SC 57/2013
Summary
Criminal – Crimes Act 1961, s 306 – Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 338 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’ s appeal against conviction under s 338 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the High Court trial was in breach of the principles of natural justice. [2012] NZCA 185  CA 720/2011
Dates
A  The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B   Leave is reserved to renew the application.

 

8 October 2013
Case name
Douglas Arthur Montrose Graham v The QueenMichael Howard Reeves v The QueenWilliam Patrick Jeffries v The QueenLawrence Roland Valpy Bryant v The Queen
Case number
SC 59/2013 ; SC 60/2013; SC 61/2013; SC 62/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Conviction and Sentence – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to uphold trial Judge’s conclusion that statements in amended prospectus were untrue – Materiality of omissions – Notional investor test – Securities Act 1978, ss 55 and 58(1) – Whether Court of Appeal correct uphold trial Judge’s conclusion that directors did not have reasonable grounds for their honest belief that the statements in the amended prospectus were true – Securities Act 1978, s 58(2)(4) – Whether directors were permitted to place reliance on external expert advice – Companies Act 1993, s 138 – Whether Court of Appeal correct to rule that sentences imposed by trial Judge were manifestly inadequate – Sentencing Act 2002.
Result
A The appeals are allowed.
B The sentences imposed by the Court of Appeal are set aside and the sentences imposed by Dobson J are restored.
7 May 2014
____________
Application for recall dismissed.
Costs are reserved.
22 July 2015
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
DOUGLAS ARTHUR MONTROSE GRAHAM, MICHAEL HOWARD REEVES, WILLIAM PATRICK JEFFRIES AND LAWRENCE ROLAND VALPY BRYANT v R [2014] NZSC 55 [7 May 2014] (PDF, 156 KB)
Recall judgment
DOUGLAS ARTHUR MONTROSE GRAHAM, MICHAEL HOWARD REEVES, WILLIAM PATRICK JEFFRIES AND LAWRENCE ROLAND VALPY BRYANT v R [2015] NZSC 109 [22 July 2015] (PDF, 369 KB)
Supreme court decision
Cost :DOUGLAS ARTHUR MONTROSE GRAHAM, MICHAEL HOWARD REEVES, WILLIAM PATRICK JEFFRIES AND LAWRENCE ROLAND VALPY BRYANT v R [2015] NZSC 138 [24 September 2015] (PDF, 119 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 11 February 2014

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, Blanchard JJ. Decision reserved.
Page 65 of 109