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.

17 July 2026

Case information summary (as at 17 July 2026) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 17 July 2026)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 128 KB) 

All years

Case name
John George Russell v Commissioner of Inland  Revenue
Case number
SC 33/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Tax avoidance – Whether the applicant received a fair and impartial hearing – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its analysis of the evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the overall arrangement established and operated by the applicant had the purpose or effect of tax avoidance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant was a person affected by the arrangement and that he obtained a tax advantage – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the assessment made by the Commissioner would not be void even if it included income deemed by virtue of s 99(4) of the Income Tax Act 1976 to be the income of someone else.CA  654/2010  [2012] NZCA128
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay costs of $5,000 to the respondent Commissioner plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
13 August 2012.
Case name
CAW v The Queen
Case number
SC 34/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Admissibility of evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that while the search of the property should have been brought to the attention of the issuing officer, the failure to do so was not material – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that it would be inappropriate for the Court to make a finding of bad faith or deliberate omission in the absence of such a finding made by the District Court Judge – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the evidence was admissible.CA  710/2011  [2012] NZCA120
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 5 June 2012.
Case name
KDM v The Queen
Case number
SC 38/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Admissibility of evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that while the search of the property should have been brought to the attention of the issuing officer, the failure to do so was not material – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that it would be inappropriate for the Court to make a finding of bad faith or deliberate omission in the absence of such a finding made by the District Court Judge – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the evidence was admissible.CA  709/2011  [2012] NZCA120
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 5 June 2012.
Case name
TK v The Queen
Case number
SC 42/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the hearsay statements of a 3-year old child were reliable and admissible – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the child was “available as a witness” under the Evidence Act – Whether there would be prejudice arising out of not being able to cross-examine the child – Whether expert evidence on the accuracy of children’ s memory should be admitted.2012]NZCA 167  CA 94/2012
Dates
Application for leave to admit new evidence and for leave to appeal are dismissed.
4 July 2012.
Case name
Wayne Goodwin Janse v The Queen
Case number
SC 45/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction and sentence on one count of injuring with intent to injury and another of male assaults female – Whether verdict can be supported on the evidence – Whether particular evidence should have been presented to the jury at an earlier stage of the trial – Whether institutional gender bias surrounding domestic violence caused a miscarriage of justice.   [2012]NZCA 214  CA   526/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
14 October 2012.
Case name
L  v  R
Case number
SC 49/2012
Summary
Criminal – Surveillance - Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 21 – Evidence Act 2996, s 30 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that video surveillance of the entrance to the applicant’s driveway did not constitute an unlawful search - Whether the Court erred in admitting the evidence under s 30 Evidence Act 2006.[2012]NZCA 264  CA   143/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal refused.
7 August 2012.
Case name
Gerald Thondhlana v The Queen
Case number
SC 50/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Counsel error – Appeal against conviction of assault with intent to injure – Whether counsel failed to call relevant medical evidence – Whether counsel adequately argued self-defence – Whether Crown witnesses were cross-examined on inconsistent statements – Whether a miscarriage of justice occurred[2012]NZCA 233  CA   536/2011
Dates
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.
14 November 2012.
Case name
Christopher Edward Huggins v The Queen
Case number
SC 51/2012
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction – Crimes Act 1961, s 132(3) – Doing an indecent act on a child under 12 years – Unreasonable verdict – Insufficient evidence to convict – Court of Appeal erred in holding that lies told by the accused contributed to cogent circumstantial evidence of guilt.  [2012]NZCA 261  CA   768/2011
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

25 September 2012.
Case name
Patricia Pickering  v The Queen
Case number
SC 52/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – evidence – jury directions – what duty does the Crown Solicitor have to inform the defence in a timely manner when the Crown proposes resiling from an earlier agreement not to offer propensity evidence – is it fair that defence consent to vital propensity evidence can be implied when the evidence and propensity issues were not raised by the Crown with either the defence or with the trial Judge – was the trial Judge’s direction to the jury in respect of inferences/circumstantial evidence adequate – whether there was a miscarriage of justice arising from the Crown Solicitor’s use of emotive and inappropriate language in his closing address – whether the High Court should have permitted the “Lammie” evidence to be received as fresh evidence.[2012]NZCA 311  CA   546/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
3 October 2012.
Case name
Arthur William Taylor v The Queen
Case number
SC 53/2012
Summary
Criminal Law – Appeal against Conviction and Sentence – Whether the Court of Appeal was in error in holding that there was a sufficient factual foundation for the charge to go to the jury – Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive (due to disproportionate uplift for previous offending or failure to take into account undue delay) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing interception evidence to be admitted – Whether the Applicant’s right of appeal was deprived (through failure to present to the Applicant a pre-trial ruling on admissibility and/or failure to offer an opportunity for the Applicant to make submissions after the hearing) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that there had been no breach of the Applicant’s right to trial without undue delay[2012]NZCA 332  CA  371/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 November 2012.
Page 24 of 46