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.
19 June 2026
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 89 KB)
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 126 KB)
All years
Case name
Kay Skelton v The Queen
Case number
SC 75/2008
Summary
Pretrial – change of venue appllicationCriminal appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in the test it applied under ss 379A and 322 of the Crimes Act 1961 in determining, on appeal, whether there ought to be a change of venue of the applicant’s trial – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusion on the risk of an unfair trial without a change of venue[2008] NZCA 382 CA 424/2008 22 September 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SKELTON v R SC 75/2008 [30 October 2008] (PDF, 12 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
30 October 2008
Case name
RL and WL v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development and others.
Case number
SC 77/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – Special Application to bypass Court of Appeal – Actual or apparent bias – Muir test – Whether High Court erred by failing to take into account international conventions – Whether Court acted unreasonably and failed to properly exercise its discretion.Civ 2007 404 7031 High Court Auckland 13 October 2008.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Application for stay of judgment dimissed.
24 November 2008
Case name
Diagnostic Medlab Limited v Auckland District Health Board and others
Case number
SC 80/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – judicial review – the Auckland region District Health Boards (ARDHBs) put out to tender the provision of its community laboratory services – the successful tenderer was Lab Tests Auckland Limited (Lab Tests) and the incumbent provider, Diagnostic Medlab Limited (DML), applied to the High Court for judicial review of the ARDHBs’ decision on the basis that the decision was procedurally flawed – the application was successful in the High Court and but an appeal to the Court of Appeal by Lab Tests was allowed – whether the Court of Appeal failed to interpret the provisions of the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000 (PHDA) as contemplating and requiring supplementing by principles of natural justice – whether the Court of Appeal applied a wrong and unduly restrictive approach to judicial review in the context of a contracting decision for an essential public health service – whether the Court of Appeal sanctioned a result which undermined the principles of natural justice, compromised the integrity of the relevant contracting process, and eroded public trust and confidence in decision-making by DHBs generally – whether the Court of Appeal failed to recognise that the PHDA contemplates a significant community voice in decisions affecting public health, including by way of meaningful consultation in accordance with expectations established by documents required by the PHDA – whether the Court of Appeal failed to apply any or an appropriate level of scrutiny to the DHBs’ decision on the grounds of unreasonableness – whether the Court of Appeal failed to pay any or proper respect to the High Court’s identification and evaluation of the relevant factual context, and that Court’s advantages as a primary fact-finder and adjudicator of mixed questions of law and fact. [2008] NZCA 385 CA 154/07 25 September 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,5000 to the first respondents (jointly) and $2,500 to the second respondent.
Case name
Bernard Terence Whimp v The Queen
Case number
SC 83/2008
Summary
Criminal appeal – Companies Act 1993 – applicant convicted of burglary, removing records of a company in liquidation, and failing to supply records of a company in liquidation – whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding there was sufficient evidence to establish a tenancy of the premises which could be enforced by the liquidator – whether the Court of Appeal relied on inadmissible secondary and hearsay evidence in doing so – whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that there was sufficient evidence of a licence over the property, the circumstances of which determined the applicant’s rights in relation to the premises and rendered him a trespasser – whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining the scope of a liquidator’s powers under s 261(1) of the Act.[2008] NZCA 405 CA 523/2008 8 October 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
WHIMP v R SC 83/2008 [4 February 2009] (PDF, 17 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
4 February 2009
Case name
Frank Onyebu Aroh v The Queen
Case number
SC 86/2008
Summary
Criminal appeal – importing cocaine and heroin and exporting cocaine – appeal against conviction and sentence – miscarriage of justice – whether undue pressure placed on jury who deliberated until approx 1am – whether judge gave correct directions regarding similar fact evidence – whether judge’s directions regarding the defendant’s earlier trial were prejudicial[2008] NZCA 457 CA 106/07 5 November 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
FRANK AROH V R SC 86/2008 [30 March 2009] (PDF, 15 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
30 March 2009
Case name
Kenny Leslie McMillan v The Queen
Case number
SC 87/2008
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction – Methamphetamine – Admissibility of Evidence – Fair trial – Whether miscarriage of justice established – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding trial Judge correct to refuse to direct editing of video interview and in refusing to rule text message inadmissible – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding judicial directions able and sufficient to prevent illegitimate prejudice to applicant from admission of disputed evidence[2008] NZCA 431 CA 411/07 22 October 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
5 February 2009
5 February 2009
Case name
Caroline Rangiata AROH v The Queen
Case number
SC 88/2008
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Criminal appeal – importing cocaine and heroin and exporting cocaine – appeal against conviction and sentence – whether Court of Appeal bench was appropriately constituted – miscarriage of justice – whether evidence was fabricated – whether counts should have been severed from that of the appellant’s co-accused – whether judge erred in allowing inadmissable evidence to be used against the appellant.[2008] NZCA 457 CA 113/07 5 November 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CAROLINE AROH v R SC 88/2008 [30 March 2009] (PDF, 19 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
30 March 2009
Case name
Tony Douglas Robertson v The Queen
Case number
SC 90/2008
Summary
Criminal appeal - appellant convicted on counts of robbery, attempted kidnapping, abduction of a child and performing indecent acts - Court of Appeal dismissed appeal on basis that there was no miscarriage of justice due to Keane J’s failure to give a lies direction and that the verdicts were not unreasonable - appeal to the Supreme Court on the same grounds of miscarriage of justice.[2008] NZCA 282 CA 155/07 6 August 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ROBERTSON v R SC 90/2008 [3 April 2009] (PDF, 14 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
3 April 2009
Case name
Astrazeneca Limited v Commerce Commission and Pharmaceutical Management Agency
Case number
SC 91/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – Respondent gave notice under s 98 of the Commerce Act 1986 of an investigation into allegations that the applicant acted contrary to section 36 of the Act in negotiations with PHARMAC – whether exemption to Part 2 of the Commerce Act in s 53 of the Public Health and Disability Act 2000 applied so that the respondent should not have issued a notice – whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding it did not have sufficient factual information to determine whether s 53 applied – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that there might be some other purpose of s 53 which would become evident when it was considered in light of the full facts.[2008] NZCA 479 CA 241/2008 11 November 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted
25 February 2009
________________________
Appeal allowed. It is declared that the notice under s 98 of the Commerce Act 1986 given by the Commerce Commission on 31 October 2007 was ultra vires and invalid. It is ordered that the notice is quashed. The Commerce Commission is ordered to pay the appellant costs in this Court of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar. Costs in the Court of Appeal and the High Court should now be fixed respectively by those Courts in light of this Court’s judgment.
26 August 2009
25 February 2009
________________________
Appeal allowed. It is declared that the notice under s 98 of the Commerce Act 1986 given by the Commerce Commission on 31 October 2007 was ultra vires and invalid. It is ordered that the notice is quashed. The Commerce Commission is ordered to pay the appellant costs in this Court of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar. Costs in the Court of Appeal and the High Court should now be fixed respectively by those Courts in light of this Court’s judgment.
26 August 2009
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Case name
Deryck Joseph Morgan v The Queen
Case number
SC 92/2008
Summary
Criminal Appeal – aggravated robbery – appeal against conviction – miscarriage of justice – previous inconsistent statement of hostile witness – actual statement not produced until re-examination because of oversight – whether Court of Appeal was correct to hold that this statement was admissible as evidence of the truth of its contents.[2008] NZCA 537 CA 481 /2008 5 December 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
25 March 2009
_________________________
Appeal dismissed.
16 March 2010
25 March 2009
_________________________
Appeal dismissed.
16 March 2010
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 July 2009 (PDF, 294 KB)
Media Releases
- press release morgan v the queen (PDF, 31 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
MORGAN v R SC 92/2008 [25 March 2009] (PDF, 12 KB)
Substantive judgment
MORGAN v R SC 92/2008 [16 March 2010] (PDF, 87 KB)
Page 113 of 137