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
Kovinantie Vahafolua Fukofuka v The Queen
Case number
SC 95/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 126(2)(a) – Judicial warnings about identification evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred through the trial Judge’s failure to sum up in terms of s 126(2)(a). [2012] NZCA 510     CA 216/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted. 
B The approved ground is: was the Court of Appeal correct to find no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred despite the error in the Judge’s direction under s 126 of the Evidence Act 2006? 
18 April 2013
________________
tc
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
KOVINANTIE VAHAFOLUA FUKOFUKA V R SC 95/2012 [18 April 2013] (PDF, 30 KB)
Substantive judgment
FUKOFUKA v R [2013] NZSC 77 [16 August 2013] (PDF, 150 KB)
Case name
Jamie Ahsin v The Queen
Case number
SC 96/2012
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Crimes Act 1961, s 66(1) – Party to murder –Providing assistance to principal offender – Concept of withdrawal – Whether Court of Appeal was correct that appellant’s actions could not amount to a withdrawal of assistance[2011] NZCA 75     CA 133/2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved question is whether the trial judge should have directed the jury as to withdrawal in relation to s 66(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961.
11 March 2013
____________________
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.
New trial ordered.
30 October 2014
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
AHSIN v R SC 96/2012 [11 March 2013] (PDF, 7 KB)
Supreme court decision
JAMIE NGAHUIA AHSIN v R AND RAELEEN MATEWAI NOYLE RAMEKA v R [2014] NZSC 153 [30 October 2014] (PDF, 761 KB)
Case name
Sst V The New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 99/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, s 38 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant was in custody at the time that the s 38 reports were ordered – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Judge sufficiently examined the evidence in determining that the applicant was fit to plead.  [2012] NZCA 544   CA394/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
26 February 2013.
Case name
Credit Suisse Private Equity Inc and another v Eric Meserve Houghton  and others
Case number
SC 100/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Limitation periods – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that representees’ individual claims had been brought when the first respondent filed his claim on a representative basis – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that representees did not have to opt in to the proceedings before limitation periods expired in order to bring timely individual claims[2012] NZCA 545  CA204/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted on the following ground: Are the claims of some or all of the shareholders represented by the First Respondent (Mr Houghton) time-barred by virtue of limitation provisions in the Limitation Act 1950 or the Fair Trading Act 1986? 8 April 2013 ____________________ The appeal is dismissed.

Costs of $25,000 are awarded to the first respondent plus usual disbursements (to be set by the Registrar if necessary).  The appellants and the second and fourth respondents are liable jointly and severally for the costs and disbursements.  We certify for second counsel.

9 April 2014
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
CREDIT SUISSE PRIVATE EQUITY LLC v ERIC MESERVE HOUGHTON [2014] NZSC 37 [9 April 2014] (PDF, 436 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 15 October 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, Glazebrook, Arnold, Gault, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Mohammad Hamidzadeh v The Queen
Case number
SC 101/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against sentence – Sentencing Act 2002, ss 102 and 104 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its approach to sentence – Whether imposition of life sentence was manifestly unjust – Whether imposition of minimum period of imprisonment of 15 years six months was manifestly unjust – Whether Court of Appeal correctly assessed the role of provocation in sentencing for murder convictions given abolition of partial defence of provocation.  [2012] NZCA 550  CA 627/2011
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
HAMIDZADEH v R SC 101/2012 [16 April 201 (PDF, 52 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
16 April 2013.
Case name
HP v The Queen
Case number
SC 1/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against Conviction – Evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that no warning needed to be given to the jury in this case regarding allegedly unreliable evidence under s 122 of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal’s approach in R v Taylor [2010] NZCA 69 to s 122 directions is correct –  Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining an application to adduce fresh evidence concerning the complainant.[2010] NZCA 617  CA 178/2010  16 December  2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
HP v R SC [18 March 2011] (PDF, 49 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

18 March 2011.
Case name
VM  v The Queen
Case number
SC 2/2011
Summary
Criminal – Summary Proceedings Act 1957 – validity and scope of search warrants – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the validity of search warrants issued under s 198 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957; whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that s 198 of the Summary Proceedings Act can be used to authorise surveillance on private land – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – unreasonable search and seizure – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the police in this case did not breach s 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Evidence Act 2006 – admissibility of evidence – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its undertaking of the s 30 balancing exercise and in concluding that the evidence in dispute was admissible at trial[2010] NZCA 528  CA 820/2010  19 November  2010
Result
The appeal is allowed in part.  The video surveillance evidence (other than footage of vehicles on Reid Road) is inadmissible against those appellants.  All the other disputed evidence is admissible against them.
2 September 2011.
Leave judgment - leave granted
HAMED and OTHERS v R SC 125/2010 and Others [24 March 2011] (PDF, 84 KB)
Substantive judgment
HAMED v R SC 125/2010 [2 September 2011] (PDF, 551 KB)
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

The approved grounds are whether the challenged evidence was lawfully obtained under s 198 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 or was, alternatively, properly admissible pursuant to s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006.

25 March 2011
Hearing

3 and 4 May 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Case name
Taito Phillip Hans Field
Case number
SC 3/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Corruption and Bribery – Whether the Court of Appeal adopted the wrong test for corruptly obtaining a  bribe under s 103 Crimes Act 1961 – Whether Court of Appeal applied the wrong test for attempting to obstruct or pervert the course of justice – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding appellant was not deprived of right to a fair trial and no miscarriage had resulted through admission of evidence from ministerial inquiry – Whether Court of Appeal was wrong to dismiss appeal against sentence.[2010] NZCA 556  CA 681/2009  26 November  2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal has in [2010] NZCA 556 correctly stated the test for corruptly accepting a bribe in terms of s 103 of the Crimes Act 1961.
17 March 2011
____________________
Appeal dismissed.
27 October 2011
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
FIELD v R SC 3/2011 [17 March 2011] (PDF, 10 KB)
Substantive judgment
FIELD v R SC 3/2011 [27 October 2011] (PDF, 243 KB)
Case name
Gary Morell v The Queen
Case number
SC 5/2011
Summary
Criminal appeal – Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the appellant had no interest in the property and thus had no standing to appeal against the proceeds of its sale vesting in Mascot Finance Ltd – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was no right of appeal under s 82 of the Proceeds of Crime Act.[2010] NZCA 570  CA 448/2010   30 November  2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MORELL v R SC 5/2011 [19 April 2011] (PDF, 36 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

19 April 2011.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Heron and others
Case number
SC 6/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Procedure – Whether the Court of Appeal’ s holding that there is no automatic right of appeal against a High Court order fixing security for costs is consistent with natural justice – Whether the Court of Appeal addressed the appellant’s arguments – Whether the fact that r 20.13(2) of the High Court Rules was adopted by the Rules Committee has International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights implications.[2010] NZCA 610  CA 190/2010  14 December  2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The ground approved is whether leave of the Court of Appeal was required under s 67 of the Judicature Act for the applicant’s appeal against security for costs fixed by order of the High Court or whether appeal was available as of right under s 66 of the Judicature Act.
30 March 2011
_______________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs reserved.
8 November 2011
________________________
Application for recall of judgment of 8 November 2011 is dismissed.
Both applications for costs are dismissed.
9 December 2011
________________________
2nd Application for recall - dismissed.
14 December 2011
________________________
Abuse of process. Dismissed. No further application in relation to [2011] NZSC 133 to be accepted by the Registry.
21 May 2021
Recall judgment
9 December 2011 Recall and costs (PDF, 48 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 15 August 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ
Page 63 of 117