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
Najeeb Dawood Dawood v the Queen
Case number
SC 97/2013
Summary
Criminal – Sentence – s 104 Crimes Act 1961 – whether a sentence of a minimum term of 17 years imprisonment was manifestly unjust in the circumstances. [2013] NZCA 381 CA 109/2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
13 November 2013
Case name
PPT v The Queen
Case number
SC 98/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by ruling that the propensity evidence is admissible.[2013] NZCA 365 CA 276/2012, CA 426/2013
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
15 October 2013
Case name
V v The Queen
Case number
SC 99/2013
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against Conviction – Appeal out of time – Historic offending – Representative counts of rape, sexual violation and indecent assault – Self-representation at Court of Appeal hearing resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice – Failure to make oral submissions at hearing – Difficulties with memory hindered ability to conduct appeal – Breach of s 25(h) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2012] NZCA 14 CA 107/2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
V (SC99/2013) v R [2013] NZSC 129 [26 November 2013] (PDF, 47 KB)
Recall judgment
V (SC 99/2013) v R [2014] NZSC 56 [13 May 2014] (PDF, 44 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Application for recall of judgement dismissed.
26 November 2013
Case name
LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Limited v Pacific Flight Catering Limited and PRI Flight Catering Limited
Case number
SC 103/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 69J of the Employment Relations Act 2000 had the effect of extinguishing the transferring employer’s accrued contractual obligations to a transferred employee – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 69J of the Employment Relations Act 2000 absolved the transferring employer from liability to the new employer for the accrued contractual entitlements of a transferred employee – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in using the Employment Relations Amendment Bill 2013 as an aid to interpretation of the Employment Relations Act 2000. [2013] NZCA 386 CA 758/2012
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The ground for appeal is whether, under Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act 2000, the respondents are liable to reimburse the applicant for the cost of accrued leave entitlements of the respondents’ former employees on their transfer to the applicant.
6 December 2013
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay the respondents costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
5 November 2014
B The ground for appeal is whether, under Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act 2000, the respondents are liable to reimburse the applicant for the cost of accrued leave entitlements of the respondents’ former employees on their transfer to the applicant.
6 December 2013
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay the respondents costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
5 November 2014
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 158 (PDF, 265 KB)
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Mikhail Rafael Pandey-Johnson v The Queen
Case number
SC 104/2013
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction and sentence – Murder – Whether Court of Appeal erred in concluding that Crown had proved causation – Whether trial counsel erred in failing to challenge causation at trial – Whether evidence of Crown witness was admissible – Whether minimum non-parole period imposed was too high – Whether factors in s 104 of the Sentencing Act 2002 applied. [2012] NZCA 595 CA 515/2011
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
2 December 2013
Case name
William Victor George Conway v The Queen
Case number
SC 106/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991, s 15(1)(b) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the evidence relied on by the Crown supported the conviction of the applicant on the counts alleging breach of enforcement orders – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling admissible the prior statement of the applicant where supplementary information was required to interpret correctly the content of the statement – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by effectively ruling that under s 15(1)(b) the Crown did not need to establish a real risk that the contaminant discharge onto the land might enter water – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in accepting the ruling of the trial Judge as to the verdicts which ought to have been accepted from the jury where the jury had returned verdicts of guilty on all the charges the applicant faced including the counts laid against him in the alternative[2013] NZCA 438 CA 806/2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
24 October 2013
24 October 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Joan Mary Gilfedder v The Queen
Case number
SC 107/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal– s 385(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no miscarriage of justice arose from the failure of the trial judge to give a propensity direction to the jury – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no miscarriage of justice arose from the use of a question trail during the trial – whether the Court of Appeal applied the proviso to s 385(1) of the Crimes Act and, if so, whether it was correct to do so.[2013] NZCA 426 CA 547/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
13 December 2013
Case name
Ngawati Heemi v The Queen
Case number
SC 109/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – s 385(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no miscarriage of justice arose from the failure of the trial judge to give a propensity direction to the jury – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no miscarriage of justice arose from the use of a question trail during the trial – whether the Court of Appeal applied the proviso to s 385(1) of the Crimes Act and, if so, whether it was correct to do so.[2013] NZCA 426 CA 594/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
13 December 2013.
Case name
David Neil Balfour v The Queen
Case number
SC 110/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Animal welfare – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the District Court Judge’s pre-trial ruling was correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was no improper use of representative charges – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to rule the evidence of two expert witnesses as inadmissible. [2013] NZCA 429 CA 445/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
18 December 2013.
Case name
Daryl Kirsty Reid Balfour v The Queen
Case number
SC 111/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Animal welfare – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the District Court Judge’s pre-trial ruling was correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was no improper use of representative charges – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to rule the evidence of two expert witnesses as inadmissible. [2013] NZCA 429 CA 444/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
18 December 2013.Page 52 of 117