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
Jonathan Ian Blake v The Queen
Case number
SC 23/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing appeal against conviction – Whether erroneous legal advice given to Appellant by trial counsel on possible admissibility of previous convictions in cross-examination had a material influence on his decision not to give evidence at trial.  [2010] NZCA 61  CA 278/2009  11 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

22 June 2010.
Case name
Brett Stephen Taylor v The Queen
Case number
SC 26/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Unlawful sexual connection – whether the trial Judge erred in his failure to give directions in relation to the unreliability of the complainant’s evidence pursuant to s 122 of the Evidence Act 2006 – whether the inadequacy of the trial Judge’s directions regarding prejudice caused a substantial miscarriage of justice – whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to admit new expert evidence on appeal[2010] NZCA 69  CA 147/2009   16 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

20 July 2010.

Case name
Dick Halton Headley v The Queen
Case number
SC 31/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961 – Abduction – whether Judge Boshier erred in making public certain Family Court judgments – whether the Court of Appeal erred in giving insufficient weight to this publication, or other information released on a website  – whether a stay of proceedings, or a change in venue should have been granted – whether the Court of Appeal erred by giving insufficient weight to the applicant’s right to a fair trial – whether the lack of experienced counsel and the appointment of an “amicus” prevented the applicant from adequately presenting his case – whether the inability to call a witness to give evidence undermined the applicant’s defence – whether police conduct in light of alleged conflicts of interest was unfair – whether the applicant was denied legal assistance to present his defence[2010] NZCA 71  CA 18/2009   16 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

9 June 2010.

Case name
Abdirazak Yussuf Mussa v The Queen
Case number
SC 43/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Appellant convicted in District Court on two counts of rape – Whether Court of Appeal and District Court erred in failing to properly weigh unfairly prejudicial effect of certain evidence against its probative effect – Whether trial Judge failed to give adequate directions as to limited use to which that evidence could be put.[2010] NZCA 123  CA 281/2009    1 April  2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

5 July 2010.
Case name
PT v The Queen
Case number
SC 50/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the evidence of a general practitioner was relevant and substantially helpful under ss 7 and 25 of the Evidence Act 2006 respectively; whether the trial judge erred in his directions to the jury and if so, whether the errors amount to a miscarriage of justice. [2010] NZCA 151   CA 604/2009   27 April 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

20 July 2010
Case name
Jeremy William Mataira v The Queen
Case number
SC 53/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Assault – Appeal against convictions based on alleged misconduct at trial – Whether Appellant denied ability to mount a credible appeal to Court of Appeal because evidence of alleged misconduct at trial unavailable.[2010] NZCA 190   CA 162/2009   14 May 2010
Dates

Notice of Abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal  is deemed to be dismissed.

13 August 2010.
Case name
KLB v The Queen
Case number
SC 57/2010
Summary
Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling that a statement made by the Applicant to the police was admissible as evidence; whether the statement was extracted by oppression in breach of s 29 of the Evidence Act 2006.  [2010] NZCA 222   CA 144/2010   31 May 2010
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

13 July 2010.
Case name
Ian David Penny and Gary John Hooper v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 62/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Income Tax Act 1994 – Applicant orthopaedic surgeons employed by family companies owned by family trusts – Applicants found by Court of Appeal to have breached general anti-avoidance provision s BG 1 of Income Tax Act as level of remuneration paid by family companies to surgeons not a “commercially realistic salary” in view of family companies’ after-tax profit and therefore artificial/contrived – Whether arrangement had purpose or effect of tax avoidance to benefit from “rate advantage” between personal income tax and company tax rates – Whether “commercially realistic salary” an appropriate concept to apply under the Income Tax Act to a family company – Whether Applicants in fact exercised control over family companies and family trusts as governing director and co-trustee – Whether Court of Appeal correct to consider use of trust capital as advances as evidence of tax avoidance arrangement – Whether Court of Appeal correct to make cost orders different from cost arrangements agreed to by parties.[2010] NZCA 231   CA 201/2009   4 June 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the appellants had failed to establish that their use of their corporate and family trust structures did not constitute taxable arrangements for the purposes of s BG1 of the Income Tax Act 1994.
2 August 2010
______________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellants must pay the respondent’ s costs in the sum of $25,000 together with his reasonable disbursements in connection with the appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
24 August 2011
Judgment appealed from

 

Substantive judgment / Media release

 

Transcript

Hearing date : 27, 28,29 June 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Young JJ.

Case name
Justin Leigh Harney v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 64/2010
Summary
[2010] NZCA 264   CA 194/2010  1 July  2010
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. The approved grounds are: (i)      Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there was a “good reason” for not following a formal identification procedure pursuant to s 45(1) of the Evidence Act 2006? (ii)           If not, was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the circumstances in which the identification was made produced a reliable identification beyond reasonable doubt pursuant to s 45(2) of the Evidence Act? 13 August 2010 __________________ Appeal allowed. Convictions set aside. No order for a new trial.
16 September 2011
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment / Media release

 

Transcript

Hearing date : 17 August 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.

Judgment appealed from

 

Case name
Philip John Smith v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 71/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal denied the appellant the right to a fair hearing on account of bias, hostility and predetermining the appellant’s recusal applications; whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that evidence tendered at the High Court was admissible; whether psychological reports of the appellant were obtained in breached s 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2010]  NZCA 258  23 June 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

8 September 2010