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.
3 July 2026
Case information summary (as at 3 July 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 88 KB)
Case information summary (as at 3 July 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 127 KB)
All years
Case name
Jacobus van der Lubbe v The Queen
Case number
SC 112/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider relevant evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider a number of other issues raised.[2014] NZCA 495 CA 305/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
17 December 2014
17 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Medhi Jaffari and Tracy Jaffari v Livia Grabowski
Case number
SC 114/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Reciprocal Enforcements of Judgments Act 1934, s 6(d); Svirkis v Gibson [1977] 2 NZLR 4 (CA); and Syal v Howard [1948] 2 KB 443 (CA) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to afford the appellants natural justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to give the appellants leave to adduce additional evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to properly consider relevant matters – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to properly apply the law set out in Svirkis v Gibson and Syal v Howard – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by incorrectly stating and unfairly discounting the appellant’ s evidence.[2014] NZCA 399 CA 52/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicants are to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
11 February 2015
The applicants are to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
11 February 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
The Queen v Shivneel Shahil Kumar
Case number
SC 115/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Right to refrain from making a statement under s 23(4) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether admissions made to undercover police officers in holding cell after applicant arrested were actively elicited – Whether evidence obtained in consequence of a breach of ss 23(4) and 24(c) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – Whether evidence obtained unfairly – Whether exclusion of evidence was proportionate to the Police impropriety. [2014] NZCA 489 CA 86/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted ([2014] NZCA 489).
19 November 2014
______________________
The appeal is dismissed.
6 August 2015
19 November 2014
______________________
The appeal is dismissed.
6 August 2015
Case name
Patrick Dean Norris v Bruce Donald Gemmell and Rhys James Cain
Case number
SC 119/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993, ss 255 and 283 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by ignoring the requirements of s 255(2)(b) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by misdirecting themselves on the statutory purpose and the natural wording of s 283(2) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that liquidators appointed pursuant to s 283 are not required to advise the Registrar of their appointment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that a liquidator’s statutory ability to act as liquidator does not commence immediately on appointment as has been long held in law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that pursuant to s 283(2) if the person who wishes to resign is not currently the liquidator there can be no resignation and no new appointment – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that there was a vacancy when Messrs Gemmell and Cain were appointed by the Official Assignee – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the Official Assignee was able to arbitrarily remove and replace a statutorily appointed and properly acting liquidator – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that Mr Churchill was never validly appointed – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not allowing leave to adduce certain new evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in their approach to costs.[2014] NZCA 490 CA 857/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondents costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
19 December 2014
The applicant is to pay the respondents costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
19 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
MTR v The Queen
Case number
SC 123/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the evidence ought to be admitted at trial – Whether the evidence was obtained in breach of the Chief Justice’s Practice Note on Police Questioning – The proper manner in which s 30(5) and (6) of the Evidence Act 2006 where there has been a breach of the Practice Note.[2014] NZCA 520 CA404/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
11 December 2014
11 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
[2014] NZCA 520 not available online
Case name
Robert Clifford Hoani Cribb v Evia Rural Finance Limited and The Official Assignee
Case number
SC 126/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal decision had a sound factual basis – Whether the Court of Appeal decision failed to consider the appellant’s argument – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to admit the further evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the appellant to be insolvent – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in supporting the exercise of the discretion by the Associate Judge.[2014] NZCA 543 CA 179/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 18 February 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
John Douglas Tamati Te Hoko-Whitu-Atu Hauraki as trustee of the Ngawapurua and Rua Roa Trusts v Richard Tatere
Case number
SC 134/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Maori land – Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in treating the trustees’ children as if they were income beneficiaries when there was irrefutable evidence that eight of the nine children had ceased to be and were not income beneficiaries for the purposes of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by ignoring the only condition of the consents of both sets of beneficiaries, that due and proper consideration be given to the claims relating to “tipuna whenua” , “whakapapa” and “taonga tuku iho” – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by declining to consider whakapapa which it had provisionally allowed to be adduced.[2014] NZCA 532 CA 451/2013
Result
Notice of abandonment being filed, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed. 20 February 2015
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Ranjit Keshvara v David Murray Blanchett & Grant Edward Burns as liquidators of APG Holdings Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 1/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 19(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that it was not necessary for a Court to hear evidence as to the particular circumstances giving rise to the supply of information used for the composition of business records before a Court can rule on admissibility of hearsay statements contained in those business records. [2012] NZCA 553 CA 665/2011
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay to the respondents costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
21 March 2013.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassney and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 2/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the registrar’s refusal to dispense with security for costs on the basis that it relied on incorrect evidence, was based on the Judge’s predeterminations regarding the merits of the case, and unjustly restricts the applicant’ s access to the court.CA 362/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs to the respondent $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements,
7 March 2013
_________________________________________
Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
26 March 2013
_________________________________________
Second application for recall of judgment dismissed.
11 April 2013
Costs to the respondent $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements,
7 March 2013
_________________________________________
Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
26 March 2013
_________________________________________
Second application for recall of judgment dismissed.
11 April 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIEMER v STIASSNY SC 2/2013 [7 March 2013] (PDF, 52 KB)
Case name
B v The Queen
Case number
SC 12/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006 – Appeal against conviction for sexual violation by rape – evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial Judge had applied s 44 of the Evidence Act correctly in excluding certain evidence relating to the reputation of the complainant in sexual matters. [2012] NZCA 602 CA 862/2011
Media Releases
- MR [2013] NZSC 151 (PDF, 74 KB)
Substantive judgment
B (SC12/2013) v R [2013] NZSC 151 [19 December 2013] (PDF, 382 KB)
Dates
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved questions are whether:
(i) in light of ss 7 and 44 of the Evidence Act 2006, the Judge should have permitted the applicant to lead all (or some) of the proposed evidence; and
(ii) the apparent inconsistency of the jury’s verdicts warranted the allowing of the appeal.
18 April 2013
Page 19 of 46