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
M v The Queen
Case number
SC 68/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sexual Offences – Evidence Act 2006 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding admission at trial of expert evidence relating to “counterintuitive” evidence given by child abuse victims– Whether expert evidence met “substantially helpful” test under s 25 Evidence Act – Whether linking by prosecutor in closing address of expert evidence with circumstances of particular complainant led to unfair trial where no direction given to jury on proper use of expert evidence.[2011] NZCA 191 CA 23/2009
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
8 November 2011.
8 November 2011.
Case name
Marcell Sydney Geros v The Queen
Case number
SC 77/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Conviction – Whether defence counsel advice to plead guilty caused a miscarriage of justice – Whether defence counsel prevented relevant evidence being adduced – Sentencing – Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive – Application for bail to prepare the case.[2011] NZCA 122 CA 321/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
16 September 2011.
16 September 2011.
Case name
Clayton Robert Weatherston v The Queen
Case number
SC 81/2011
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction for murder – Impact of media statements on fair trial rights of applicant – whether the applicant’ s trial was rendered unfair as a consequence of media statements made during the trial – whether the directions of the trial Judge to the jury were sufficient to overcome the prejudice resulting from the media coverage – whether the Court of Appeal erred in requiring the applicant to demonstrate that a juror may have seen or read the coverage in issue – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the trial Judge’s post-trial conference address – Evidence Act 2006, s 92 – whether the Crown was obliged to put to the applicant on cross-examination the divergence of his evidence of events by comparison with that of other witnesses, if it intended to take issue with his version – Evidence Act 2006, ss 37 and 38 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding ss 37 and 38 did not apply to the Crown’s cross-examination of the applicant which aimed to establish his propensity to lie – Admission of photographs of victim’s wounds – whether the Court of Appeal erred in admitting photographs of stab wounds when the purpose for which that evidence was tendered could have been met by computer graphic reconstructions and diagrams[2011] NZCA 276 CA 648/2009
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
13 September 2011
13 September 2011
Case name
Pawel Marian Misiuk v The Queen
Case number
SC 83/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Bail Act 2000 – Defendant convicted on various charges and sentenced to imprisonment of four years and one month – Bail denied by High Court and Court of Appeal pending appeal against conviction and sentence – Whether applicant should be granted bail – Whether Court of Appeal Judge should not have sat on bail hearing because of misconduct alleged by applicant in related hearing – Whether Court of Appeal Judge failed to consider relevant evidence.[2011] NZCA 323 CA 397/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
13 September 2011.
13 September 2011.
Case name
Specialized Bicycle Components Inc v Sheppard Industries Ltd and Avanti Bicycle Company Ltd
Case number
SC 91/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Evidence – Scope of privilege for settlement negotiations or mediation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of s 57 of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal gave proper effect to the mediation agreement and confidentiality agreement between the parties – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the respondents could adduce particular affidavit evidence and evidence of what occurred during the course of mediation.[2011] NZCA 346 CA 805/2010
Result
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
Dates
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is whether the respondents are precluded by the terms of the mediation agreement and/or the confidentiality agreement from adducing the disputed evidence.
12 October 2011.
Case name
Robert Michael Symons, Gregory John Symons and others v Wiltshire Investments Limited
Case number
SC 92/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Appeal against Court of Appeal upholding a summary decision of the High Court – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the refusal by the respondents to produce critical relevant documents that are in the respondent’s sole possession did not constitute a failure by the respondent to discharge the onus on a summary judgment application to establish that the appellants had no arguable defence – Whether the use of residual discretion to refuse an application for summary judgment under r 12.2 of the High Court Rules was justified – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the confidentiality can be a valid ground for refusal to disclose relevant documentation to the Court and the defendants in a summary judgment application. [2011] NZCA 397 CA 534/2010
Result
Leave to appeal is granted in relation to the indebtedness associated with Opus Fintek Ltd (in receivership). The approved question is whether the Associate Judge ought to have entered summary judgment despite the non disclosure of the 2009 settlement agreement between Opus Fintek Ltd and Hats Holdings Ltd.
17 November 2011
_________________________________
A Leave to appeal is extended to cover the indebtedness of Fibroin Initiatives Ltd.
B The appeal is allowed with the result that the entry of summary judgment is set aside but with leave reserved to the respondent to seek summary judgment once it has disclosed the settlement agreement to the appellants.
C The awards of costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside. 9 August 2012
___________________________________
17 October 2012:
Judgment recalled and reissued. A Leave to appeal is extended to cover the indebtedness of Fibroin Initiatives Ltd.
B The appeal is allowed with the result that the entry of summary judgment is set aside.
C Upon disclosure of the settlement agreement to the appellants, the application for summary judgment is, at the option of the respondent, to be reheard in the High Court with the appellants at liberty to resist the claim (and, if they think appropriate, produce additional evidence) on the basis of (i) defences associated with, or arising out of the disclosure of the settlement agreement and (ii), subject to the leave of the High Court being obtained, on any other basis. The appellants are also at liberty to make such interlocutory applications to the High Court as they see fit. D The awards of costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.
17 November 2011
_________________________________
A Leave to appeal is extended to cover the indebtedness of Fibroin Initiatives Ltd.
B The appeal is allowed with the result that the entry of summary judgment is set aside but with leave reserved to the respondent to seek summary judgment once it has disclosed the settlement agreement to the appellants.
C The awards of costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside. 9 August 2012
___________________________________
17 October 2012:
Judgment recalled and reissued. A Leave to appeal is extended to cover the indebtedness of Fibroin Initiatives Ltd.
B The appeal is allowed with the result that the entry of summary judgment is set aside.
C Upon disclosure of the settlement agreement to the appellants, the application for summary judgment is, at the option of the respondent, to be reheard in the High Court with the appellants at liberty to resist the claim (and, if they think appropriate, produce additional evidence) on the basis of (i) defences associated with, or arising out of the disclosure of the settlement agreement and (ii), subject to the leave of the High Court being obtained, on any other basis. The appellants are also at liberty to make such interlocutory applications to the High Court as they see fit. D The awards of costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.
Leave judgment - leave granted
sc 92 2011 symons v wiltshire investments ltd (PDF, 10 KB)
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ
Case name
Haiden Davis v The Queen
Case number
SC 93/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Murder – Evidence Act 2006 – Appeal against conviction – Whether trial Judge correct in the circumstances to give “lies direction” to jury under s 124 Evidence Act – Whether trial judge correct in the circumstances to give condensed version of model jury direction on unanimity (“Papadopoulos direction”).[2011] NZCA 380 CA 767/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
3 November 2011.
3 November 2011.
Case name
Rodney Mark Gibson and Habode IP Limited v Richard John Curtis and Curtis Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 94/2011
Summary
Civil – Existence of Joint Venture – Jurisdiction – Judicature Act 1908, s66 – Costs – Whether Court of Appeal exceeded its jurisdiction by hearing argument not put in issue in High Court as to existence of joint venture – Whether Court of Appeal made factual findings inconsistent with evidence presented, particularly as to the Australian company Habode Holdings Ltd – Whether Court of Appeal made factual findings for which there was no evidential basis – Whether Court of Appeal misapplied the test for determining imposition of joint venture obligations – Whether correct approach taken to costs. [2011] NZCA 373 CA 368/2010 CA 285/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal declined. Costs to respondent $2,500.
Case name
W v The Queen
Case number
SC 98/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sexual Offences – Evidence Act 2006 – Appeal against conviction – Whether Court of Appeal wrong to uphold admission at trial of expert evidence relating to “counterintuitive” evidence given by child abuse victims– Whether expert evidence met “ substantially helpful” test under s 25 Evidence Act – Whether evidence used in an inappropriately diagnostic way at trial – Whether linking by prosecutor in closing address of expert evidence with circumstances of particular complainant led to unfair trial.[2011] NZCA 191 CA 51/2009
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
8 November 2011.
8 November 2011.
Case name
SNC v The Queen
Case number
SC 101/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006 – Admissibility of evidence “improperly obtained” by police pursuant to a warrantless search – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the District Court Judge’ s decision to admit the evidence in exercise of the balancing test required by subs 30(2) of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal failed to give sufficient weight to and/or erred in its assessment of the listed factors in paras 30(3)(a), (b) and (d) of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal gave too much weight to the importance of the evidence to the case of the prosecution[2011] NZCA 402 CA 191/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
18 October 2011.
18 October 2011.
Page 28 of 46