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
W v The Queen
Case number
SC 117/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Counsel error – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that trial counsel’s advice to the applicant not to give or call evidence was reasonably open to him in the circumstances – Whether or not the Court of Appeal adequately addressed the applicant’ s claim that acceptance of trial counsel’s advice not to give evidence was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of that part of his advice which was intended to inform the applicant of the advantages of giving evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal omitted or misstated evidence supporting the applicant’s allegations on appeal that the trial counsel gave advice in a manner that usurped the applicant’s right to make elections about evidence, impacting on the credibility of the decisions made by the Court of Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal’s decision that the result of the applicant’s trial could not possibly have been affected if the applicant or any other of the applicant’s witnesses had given evidence was available to it on the evidence.[2011] NZCA 529 CA 702/2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
W v R SC 117/2011 [13 February 2012] (PDF, 42 KB)
Case name
Ricky Tamati v The Queen
Case number
SC 119/2011
Summary
Criminal – Evidence Act 2006 – jury direction – appeal against conviction on four representative charges of sexual violation and one of indecent assault – primary focus at trial had been the reliability of the evidence of the complainant who had suffered brain injury at a young age – whether the trial Judge erred in failing to warn the jury, as is permitted under s 122(1) of the Act if of the opinion that evidence admitted “may nevertheless be unreliable”, of the need for caution in deciding whether to accept the evidence of the complainant and the weight to be given to that evidence – if so, whether the failure to give a warning to the jury led to a miscarriage of justice[2010] NZCA 49 CA 440/2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
13 December 2011.
13 December 2011.
Case name
Christine Mary Herron and another v Westpac New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 121/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of a witness’s credibility – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its treatment of evidence that was allegedly of a hearsay character – Whether the respondent breached any of its obligations in relation to putting relevant evidence (allegedly in its possession) before the Court.[2011] NZCA 544 CA 505/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs $2,500 to the respondent.
17 February 2012.
17 February 2012.
Case name
Mark Terence Pearson v The Queen
Case number
SC 125/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Section 76 of the Evidence Act 2006 – Illegitimate reasoning by jury – That the Court of Appeal was wrong to decline to interview one of the jury members at the appellant’s trial – That the application should be heard out of time. [2011] NZCA 572 CA 411/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
27 April 2012.
27 April 2012.
Case name
Ross Nathan v The Queen
Case number
SC 126/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Attempt to adduce fresh evidence – Whether evidence of the complainant allegedly being in a sexual relationship at the time that the offence was committed was relevant to the complainant’ s reliability and credibility – Whether failure to adduce that evidence resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice.[2011] NZCA 578 CA 318/2011
Dates
Hearing
Case name
Ricardo Aryan v The Queen
Case number
SC 128/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the applicant’s appeal against conviction – Whether conviction should be appealed because of fresh evidence.[2010] NZCA 57 CA 614/2009
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
13 March 2012.
13 March 2012.
Case name
William Patrick Jeffries v The Privacy Commissioner
Case number
SC 5/2010
Summary
Civil – Litigation privilege – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that unsolicited communication does not attract litigation privilege under s56 of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the word ‘person’ in s91(4) of the Privacy Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to apply s74 of the Evidence Act 2006 to matters before the Privacy Commissioner – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to review the Privacy Commissioner’ s decisions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not addressing s27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2009] NZCA 567 CA 339/2008 3 December 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. The approved ground is whether unsolicited communications received by the applicant while acting as a barrister are capable of attracting litigation privilege.
31 March 2010
_______________________
The appeal is dismissed. Any claim of privilege must be referred for the determination of the Privacy Commissioner in accordance with this judgment. No order for costs is made.
12 August 2010
31 March 2010
_______________________
The appeal is dismissed. Any claim of privilege must be referred for the determination of the Privacy Commissioner in accordance with this judgment. No order for costs is made.
12 August 2010
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Jason Mark Ferguson v The Queen
Case number
SC 14/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Murder – Provocation – Whether defendant’ s confession to police admissible given his intellectual disability (defendant seeks to adduce new evidence) – Whether sentence of detention in secure care should be substituted pursuant to the Intellectual Disabilities (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 and Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 – Whether substitution of sentence is required under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2010] NZCA 2 CA 594/2008 3 February 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
FERGUSON v R SC 14/2010 [29 July 2010] (PDF, 47 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
29 July 2010.
Case name
Jamie Ronaki Kissling v The Queen
Case number
SC 19/2010
Summary
Criminal – Production and possession of methamphetamine – Lack of evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal, having quashed the charge of manufacturing methamphetamine for want of evidence, erred in refusing to quash the charges relating to possession of precursor equipment and methamphetamine[2009] NZCA 289 CA 5/2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
KISSLING v R SC 19/2010 [9 June 2010] (PDF, 34 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
9 June 2010.
Case name
Cyndi Marcia Fairburn v The Queen
Case number
SC 20/2010
Summary
Criminal – Murder – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by refusing to allow fresh evidence from expert witnesses[2010] NZCA 44 CA 169/2009
Result
Further evidence is admitted.
The appeal is allowed and the conviction is quashed.
A new trial is ordered.
17 December 2010.
Hearing
29 and 30 November 2010.
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is granted
The approved ground is whether, in the light of the further evidence tendered in this Court and in the Court of Appeal, there has been a miscarriage of justice
18 June 2010
Page 29 of 46