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
Brett Stuart Wellm v The Queen
Case number
SC 63/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the sentence is manifestly excessive in length. [2009] NZCA 175 CA 581/2008
Dates
Notice of Abandonment having been lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
18 November 2013.
Case name
David Neil Balfour v The Queen
Case number
SC 110/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Animal welfare – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the District Court Judge’s pre-trial ruling was correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was no improper use of representative charges – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to rule the evidence of two expert witnesses as inadmissible. [2013] NZCA 429 CA 445/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
18 December 2013.
Case name
Anthony David Banbrook v The Queen
Case number
SC 123/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the decision of the High Court refusing to stay the prosecution on the grounds of breach of s 25 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to allow an application to set aside the guilty plea on the basis that the plea was induced by a ruling that embodied a wrong decision on a question of law.[2013] NZCA 525 CA 147/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
18 December 2013.
18 December 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BANBROOK v R [2013] NZSC 148 [18 December 2013] (PDF, 46 KB)
Case name
Rita Wilson v David Murray Blanchett and Grant Edward Burns
Case number
SC 7/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Company Law – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that there was no arguable defence to the Respondents’ application for summary judgment – Whether certain payments transferred to the Applicant were made with valuable consideration per s 298(2) of the Companies Act 1993[2011] NZCA 647 CA 521/2010.
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
24 February 2012.
Case name
Neil Stuart Johnston v Christopher Frederick Schurr and Deam & Shearer
Case number
SC 61/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 – Whether a manager appointed under the Act can be liable in damages for acting without reasonable care – Whether the incapacity of a client brings the retainer of a solicitor to an end, even if the solicitor continues to act in relation to the client’s affairs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to findings of fact made by the trial Judge. [2012]NZCA 363 CA 616/2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted in relation to both respondents. The approved ground is whether the claims against the first and second respondents were properly dismissed. 27 November 2012 _____________________ A The appeal is allowed in part. The judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the insurance issue are set aside. The question whether Mr Schurr is liable to the appellant in respect of the surrender of the insurance policies is to be determined in the High Court. B In all other respects the appeal is dismissed. C In respect of the appeal to this Court, the appellant is to pay costs to Mr Schurr and Deem & Shearer in the sums of $15,000 and $25,000 respectively together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar. D The orders for costs made in the High Court and Court of Appeal are affirmed. 12 June 2015
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 82 (PDF, 251 KB)
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Hearing date : 17 February 2015
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan JJ.
Case name
David Stanley Heenan v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 26/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908 – Vexatious litigant – Order made by the High Court under s 88B(1) of the Act that no civil proceeding be instituted or continued by Mr Heenan, either in his own name or in a representative or fiduciary capacity, in any court without the leave of the High Court – Order upheld by the Court of Appeal – Applicant’s submissions to this Court repeat allegations of forgery, fraud and perjury against judicial officers and other individuals – whether the High Court erred in exercising its discretion to make orders under s 88B(1)[2011] NZCA 9 CA 630/2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
20 April 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
David Mitchell v Bluestar Print Group (NZ) Limited
Case number
SC 74/2011
Summary
[2010] NZCA 385 CA 504/2009
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
22 September 2011.
22 September 2011.
Case name
Churchill Group Holdings Limited and others v Aral Property Holdings Limited and David Leung
Case number
SC 25/2010
Summary
Civil – Stay of execution of judgment for costs pending appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that the abrupt end to the proceedings was not the fault of the respondents – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the proposed method of payment for the original litigation and security for costs was unknown – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that that Mr Fava was unlikely to regain control of two of the appellant companies – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the appellants had no realistic prospect of success – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to address one of the grounds of appeal.[2010] NZCA 88 CA 80/2010 23 March 2010
Dates
Notice of Abandoment of Appeal being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.
25 May 2010.
Case name
David Owen Crequer v Chief Exectutive, Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 30/2010
Summary
Civil – Denial of order for habeas corpus – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to hear the appeal on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.[2010] NZCA 75 CA 125/2010 16 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs to Respondent $1,250.
6 May 2010Page 10 of 13