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
H v The Queen
Case number
SC 54/2012
Summary
Criminal Law – Appeal Against Conviction – Further Evidence – Whether the Supreme Court should admit further evidence, including evidence from a witness called at trial and evidence from a police interview[2012]NZCA 339  CA  615/2011
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted. B The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal’ s treatment of the affidavit(s) of H’s son, M, was correct. 28 February 2013
Transcripts
Leave judgment - leave granted
H v R SC 54/2012 [28 February 2013] (PDF, 36 KB)
Supreme court decision
NZSC revokes leave to appeal: H v R [2015] NZSC 70 [7 May 2015] (PDF, 86 KB)
Case name
Francisc Catalin Deliu v The New Zealand Law Society
Case number
SC 59/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Evidence – Costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing a factual determination to be made without any admissible evidential foundation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining serious appellate litigation on the basis of hypothetical, conjectural or speculative actions to override the usual presumption of one trial – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ordering costs against the appellant without an application. [2012]NZCA 359  CA  796/2011
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 
Costs $2,500 to the respondent.

30 October 2012.
Case name
Aeneas Davidson v The Queen
Case number
SC 65/2012
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction – Whether trial counsel’ s conduct of the defence was deficient so as to render the applicant’s trial unfair – Evidence – Whether, in pursuing the defence, trial counsel elicited inadmissible recent complaint evidence that was prejudicial to the applicant making the verdicts unsafe.   [2012]NZCA 391  CA  174/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 February 2013
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
Graeme Andrew Waswo v The Queen
Case number
SC 76/2012
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against Conviction – Indecent assault – Sexual violation – Arson – Whether Court of Appeal was incorrect to dismiss appeal – Severance of charges – Inadequate representation by trial counsel – Whether a direction about propensity evidence was required.  [2012] NZCA 461  CA 845/2011
Dates

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

4 April 2013.
Case name
Albert Wayne Hunter v The Queen
Case number
SC 78/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Whether the trial judge erred in not making an inquiry of two jurors whom the applicant said he knew and who may have been prejudicial – Whether the applicant was inadequately represented by counsel – Whether the applicant was unfairly painted as the prime instigator in sentencing – Whether the applicant’s health issues were appropriately brought to the attention of the Court.  [2012] NZCA 147  CA 584/2011
Result
A The application for leave to adduce fresh evidence is dismissed.
B The application for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed.
C The application to appeal directly to this Court against his sentence is dismissed.
26  February 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
HUNTER v R SC 78/2012 [26 February 2013] (PDF, 52 KB)
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
Urs Signer v The Queen
Case number
SC 82/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Fair trial – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the charge of “participating in a criminal group” – Whether the Crown misstated its case in relation to the admissibility of evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the complaint relating to prejudicial pre-trial media coverage undermining the ability of the accused to obtain a fair trial.[2012] NZCA 492   CA 416/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 April 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIGNER & ORS V R SC 82/2012 [23 April 2013] (PDF, 75 KB)
Case name
Emily Felicity Bailey  v The Queen
Case number
SC 83/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Fair trial – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the charge of “participating in a criminal group” – Whether the Crown misstated its case in relation to the admissibility of evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the complaint relating to prejudicial pre-trial media coverage undermining the ability of the accused to obtain a fair trial.[2012] NZCA 492   CA 415/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 April 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIGNER & ORS V R SC 82/2012 [23 April 2013] (PDF, 75 KB)
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)
Page 25 of 46