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
Kevin Francis John Casey v The Queen
Case number
SC 66/2008
Summary
Criminal Appeal – pre-trial application – drink driving – admissibility of evidential breath test printout – whether there was a lawful roadside detention – whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted s 114 of the Land Transport Act 1998 – claim proper breath screening procedure was not adopted – whether s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006 should have been applied to this claim – whether the right to consult a lawyer under s 23(1)(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was complied with[2008] NZCA 335 CA 246/2008 1 September 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CASEY v R SC 66/2008 [5 December 2008] (PDF, 16 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
5 December 2008
Case name
Julian Paul Burke and Gillian Elizabeth Burke v Advances Securities Limited
Case number
SC 68/2008
Summary
Civil – Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, s 13 – Court of Appeal considered that certain evidence operated to rebut the presumption of a consumer credit contract under s 13 – whether Court of Appeal’ s conclusion was supported by the evidence. [2008] NZCA 93 CA 696/07 18 April 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed, with costs $2,000 to the respondent.
17 November 2008
Case name
APN New Zealand Limited v Simunovich Fisheries Limited and others
Case number
SC 69/2008
Summary
Civil – Defamation – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the obligation in s 38 of the Defamation Act 1992 applies to the pleading of a stand alone defence of truth – whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that the “repetition rule” and the “ conduct rule” apply to pleadings of truth - whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the change in approach to admissibility of hearsay evidence in the Evidence Act 2006 does not affect the applicability of the “repetition rule” to a pleading of truth – was the Court of Appeal wrong to hold that it is not open to a defendant to plead the opinions and statements of third parties in support of a truth defence, or in support of an honest opinion defence.[2008] NZCA 350 CA 447/07 CA 584/07 8 September 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted
1 December 2008
________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs $15,000 to the respondent jointly with one half of their disbursements.
26 August 2009
1 December 2008
________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs $15,000 to the respondent jointly with one half of their disbursements.
26 August 2009
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Case name
M v The Queen
Case number
SC 71/2008
Summary
Criminal Appeal – appeal against conviction – sexual conduct with a child under 12 years – miscarriage of justice – whether trial judge was correct to rule that the adducing of defence character evidence as to the applicant’s behaviour in relation to children would allow the Crown to adduce evidence regarding the applicant’s conviction for allowing his 14 year old daughter to drive a motor vehicle – whether trial defence counsel should have adduced the character evidence despite the judge’ s ruling – whether the judge would have then been required to give a further good character direction to the jury – [2008] NZCA 358 CA 259/07 10 September 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
M v R SC 71/2008 [10 December 2008] (PDF, 18 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
10 December 2008
Case name
Geoffrey Martin Smith v The Queen
Case number
SC 73/2008
Summary
Criminal – application for leave to appeal against conviction – applicant convicted of offences against the Tax Administration Act 1994 – nature of intent required by s 143B(1)(f) of the Act – whether s 109 of the Act applies to evidence in a criminal trial – whether the trial Judge misdirected the jury in relation to PAYE, GST, and the impact of certain assessments before them. [2008] NZCA 371 CA 275/2008 17 September 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SMITH v R SC 73/2008 [12 December 2008] (PDF, 23 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
12 December 2008.
Case name
Bernard Terence Whimp v The Queen
Case number
SC 83/2008
Summary
Criminal appeal – Companies Act 1993 – applicant convicted of burglary, removing records of a company in liquidation, and failing to supply records of a company in liquidation – whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding there was sufficient evidence to establish a tenancy of the premises which could be enforced by the liquidator – whether the Court of Appeal relied on inadmissible secondary and hearsay evidence in doing so – whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that there was sufficient evidence of a licence over the property, the circumstances of which determined the applicant’s rights in relation to the premises and rendered him a trespasser – whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining the scope of a liquidator’s powers under s 261(1) of the Act.[2008] NZCA 405 CA 523/2008 8 October 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
WHIMP v R SC 83/2008 [4 February 2009] (PDF, 17 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
4 February 2009
Case name
Frank Onyebu Aroh v The Queen
Case number
SC 86/2008
Summary
Criminal appeal – importing cocaine and heroin and exporting cocaine – appeal against conviction and sentence – miscarriage of justice – whether undue pressure placed on jury who deliberated until approx 1am – whether judge gave correct directions regarding similar fact evidence – whether judge’s directions regarding the defendant’s earlier trial were prejudicial[2008] NZCA 457 CA 106/07 5 November 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
FRANK AROH V R SC 86/2008 [30 March 2009] (PDF, 15 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
30 March 2009
Case name
Kenny Leslie McMillan v The Queen
Case number
SC 87/2008
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction – Methamphetamine – Admissibility of Evidence – Fair trial – Whether miscarriage of justice established – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding trial Judge correct to refuse to direct editing of video interview and in refusing to rule text message inadmissible – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding judicial directions able and sufficient to prevent illegitimate prejudice to applicant from admission of disputed evidence[2008] NZCA 431 CA 411/07 22 October 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
5 February 2009
5 February 2009
Case name
Caroline Rangiata AROH v The Queen
Case number
SC 88/2008
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Criminal appeal – importing cocaine and heroin and exporting cocaine – appeal against conviction and sentence – whether Court of Appeal bench was appropriately constituted – miscarriage of justice – whether evidence was fabricated – whether counts should have been severed from that of the appellant’s co-accused – whether judge erred in allowing inadmissable evidence to be used against the appellant.[2008] NZCA 457 CA 113/07 5 November 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CAROLINE AROH v R SC 88/2008 [30 March 2009] (PDF, 19 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
30 March 2009
Case name
Astrazeneca Limited v Commerce Commission and Pharmaceutical Management Agency
Case number
SC 91/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – Respondent gave notice under s 98 of the Commerce Act 1986 of an investigation into allegations that the applicant acted contrary to section 36 of the Act in negotiations with PHARMAC – whether exemption to Part 2 of the Commerce Act in s 53 of the Public Health and Disability Act 2000 applied so that the respondent should not have issued a notice – whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding it did not have sufficient factual information to determine whether s 53 applied – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that there might be some other purpose of s 53 which would become evident when it was considered in light of the full facts.[2008] NZCA 479 CA 241/2008 11 November 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted
25 February 2009
________________________
Appeal allowed. It is declared that the notice under s 98 of the Commerce Act 1986 given by the Commerce Commission on 31 October 2007 was ultra vires and invalid. It is ordered that the notice is quashed. The Commerce Commission is ordered to pay the appellant costs in this Court of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar. Costs in the Court of Appeal and the High Court should now be fixed respectively by those Courts in light of this Court’s judgment.
26 August 2009
25 February 2009
________________________
Appeal allowed. It is declared that the notice under s 98 of the Commerce Act 1986 given by the Commerce Commission on 31 October 2007 was ultra vires and invalid. It is ordered that the notice is quashed. The Commerce Commission is ordered to pay the appellant costs in this Court of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar. Costs in the Court of Appeal and the High Court should now be fixed respectively by those Courts in light of this Court’s judgment.
26 August 2009
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Page 37 of 46