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
DMT v The Queen
Case number
SC 16/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act, s 49 – Admissibility of convictions of a co-accused – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that where evidence of the convictions of a co-accused were admitted as circumstantial evidence the prejudicial effect of the evidence was likely to be less than the prejudice arising where that evidence conclusively proved an element of the offence. [2012] NZCA 605 CA 448/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
5 March 2013
Case name
Simon McGrath v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 25/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 21– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the blood sample was taken lawfully and in accordance with normal medical procedures – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the blood test was not an unreasonable search and seizure.[2013] NZCA 3 CA 375/2012 CA 463/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
8 May 2013.
Case name
Worthy Redeemed (aka Lee Errol James Silvester) v The Queen
Case number
SC 32/2013
Summary
Evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to admit new evidence from Professor John Raine as it is alleged that the admission of this evidence might reasonably have resulted in different verdicts – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the propensity evidence of Ryan Moore was admissible and that the trial Judge’s directions in relation to it were adequate. [2013] NZCA 61 CA 408/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
12 June 2013.
Case name
The New Zealand Pork Industry Board v The Director-General of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and another.
Case number
SC 36/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial Review – Biosecurity Act 1993, s 22A – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicant’ s challenge was rightly dismissed – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s 22A so that the decision of the Director-General under s 22A(3) did not involve determining issues in dispute between the party seeking the s 22A review and the Ministry – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s 22A so that none of the issues concerning the adequacy of the Ministry’s consideration of the scientific evidence subject to the Terms of Reference for the Independent Review Panel established under s 22A were an “issue in dispute” under s 22A(3) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Ministry had wrongly understood that a determination under s 22A(3) was in fact necessary, as an earlier decision by the previous Director-General to conduct further work following the Panel’s report was sufficient to meet the requirements of s 22A(3). [2013] NZCA 65 CA 282/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved grounds of appeal are:
(a) whether the Court of Appeal’ s interpretation of ss 22 and 22A of the Biosecurity Act 1993 was correct;
(b) whether the Director-General correctly applied the requirements of ss 22 and 22A following the report of the Independent Review Panel. 15 May 2013
____________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay costs of $25,000 to the first and second respondents collectively, plus reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
20 December 2013
The approved grounds of appeal are:
(a) whether the Court of Appeal’ s interpretation of ss 22 and 22A of the Biosecurity Act 1993 was correct;
(b) whether the Director-General correctly applied the requirements of ss 22 and 22A following the report of the Independent Review Panel. 15 May 2013
____________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay costs of $25,000 to the first and second respondents collectively, plus reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
20 December 2013
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 June 2013 (PDF, 518 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2013] NZSC 154 (PDF, 80 KB)
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Case name
Ifeanyi Jude Akulue v The Queen
Case number
SC 38/2013
Summary
Pretrial ruling.[2013] NZCA 84 CA 675/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted on the following ground:
Was the Court of Appeal correct in finding the proposed defence evidence to be inadmissible?
8 May 2013
____________________
Appeal dismissed.
19 September 2013
Transcript
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Gault JJ.
Case name
Samson Duffy v The Queen
Case number
SC 42/2013
Summary
Fair trial – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding a pre-trial decision of the District Court Judge to join the charges relating to the two complainants – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the jury verdicts in respect of the first complainant were reasonable on the basis of the evidence admitted.[2013] NZCA 117 CA 516/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
21 June 2013
21 June 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
DUFFY v R [2013] NZSC 61 [21 June 2013] (PDF, 44 KB)
Case name
Andrew John Caplen Beavis v Elizabeth Joy De Vere and Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 43/2013
Summary
Child Support Act 1991 – Whether the Court of Appeal judgment indicates bias against the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal judgment contain irrelevant statements or statements not supported by the evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal had proper regard to the decision of the Family Court judge – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in departing from analysis provided by accountants – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the applicant’s business arrangements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding there were special circumstance justifying a departure order – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that retrospective orders may be made under the Child Support Act 1991, and in making such an order – Whether the Court of Appeal otherwise erred in its interpretation of the Child Support Act 1991 – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to have regard to certain relevant considerations and had regard to irrelevant considerations – Whether the Court of Appeal accepted that s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980 was available, and erred in doing so – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its understanding of the jurisdiction of the Family Court.[2013] NZCA 124 CA 190/2013
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs of $2,500 together with reasonable disbursement payable to the first respondent.
19 August 2013.
Application for recall dismissed.
20 September 2013
Case name
Napier Tool & Die Limited v Oraka Technologies Limited and others
Case number
SC 46/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Intellectual Property – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in equating respondents’ effort in devising their product with level of protection available under copyright law for respondents’ copyright works – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying the test for breach of copyright by divorcing the substantiality enquiry from enquiries into objective similarity and causation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in remitting proceeding to High Court for enquiry into damages and should have directed determination of respondents’ loss based on quantum evidence led at trial.[2013] NZCA 171 CA 271/2011
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.The applicant must pay the respondents (collectively) costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements, to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.
12 September 2013
12 September 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Siuake Lisiate v The Queen
Case number
SC 49/2013
Summary
Appeal against conviction – Inadequate directions by trial judge on s 66(1)(d) of the Crimes Act 1961 – Expert witnesses – Breach of Code of Conduct for expert witnesses (Sch 4, High Court Rules) – Trial judge misdirected jury or gave inadequate directions as to the use of Crown expert evidence on the interpretation of text messages – Admissibility of propensity evidence – Unfair trial – Miscarriage of justice. [2013] NZCA 129 CA 31/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
21 August 2013.
21 August 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
LISIATE v R [2013] NZSC 80 [21 August 2013] (PDF, 50 KB)
Case name
Michael Victor Bourneville and Mark Graham Blewden v Christine Jill Marshall
Case number
SC 71/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in identifying the proceeding as an application to the High Court to remove a caveat – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not making reference to the rules of law concerning the ability of the Court to interfere with the exercise of discretion on appeal – Whether the initiation of proceedings to establish a constructive trust constituted an abuse of process – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Respondent had a reasonably based expectation of an interest in the property – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relying solely on a submission by counsel for the Respondent, rather than properly introduced evidence in the High Court or Court of Appeal, in finding that the first Applicant and the Respondent had accumulated substantial assets by their joint endeavours – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first Applicant “obviously would have had knowledge of the circumstances giving rise to the expectation”.[2013] NZCA 271 CA 676/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants are to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements. 14 November 2013
B The applicants are to pay the respondent costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements. 14 November 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 20 of 46