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
Jane Chapman Siemer v Kate Fardell as executrix of the estate of John Robert Fortesque Fardell
Case number
SC 7/2011
Summary
Civil – Pre-trial security for costs – Appeal against a Court of Appeal decision refusing to dispense with security for costs in an appeal before that Court – Whether the procedure adopted by the Court lacked procedural fairness – Whether the Court properly exercised discretion – Whether the Court’s ruling wrong on the merits – Section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether right to justice at trial court level violated. [2010] NZCA 586 CA 450/2010 3 December 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIEMER v FARDELL SC 7/2011 [31 March 2011] (PDF, 48 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
31 March 2011.
Case name
Gary Owen Burgess v Susan Natalie Beaven
Case number
SC 9/2011
Summary
Civil – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Relationship Property – Whether Court of Appeal took correct approach to overturning lower court decisions and costs orders – Whether relationship property was correctly assessed under the Property (Relationships) Act, and a division of relationship property inconsistent with the Act has eventuated.[2010] NZCA 625 CA 371/2009 20 December 2010
Result
1 We grant leave to appeal and cross-appeal (and an extension of time in relation to the cross-appeal). 2 The approved grounds of appeal and cross-appeal proceed on the basis that the Court of Appeal’s assessment under s 14(2)(c) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 in favour of equal sharing was correct and are as follows: (a) was the Court of Appeal in error in adopting separation date values; (b) was there any logical or arithmetical error in the Court of Appeal’ s identification and valuation of the relationship property and its allowances for post-separation contributions; (c) should the Court of Appeal have made consequential orders in respect of the costs ordered in relation to earlier judgments and money paid by Mr Burgess to Ms Beaven; and (d) what, if any, additional or other orders are required.
22 September 2011
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed and the cross-appeal is dismissed.
B Orders B, C and D of the decision of the Court of Appeal [2010] NZCA 625 are set aside.
C The awards of costs made against Mr Burgess by John Hansen J in the Stream A litigation are set aside and in their place Mr Burgess is awarded $5,000 costs in respect of the first appeal to the High Court heard by John Hansen J.
D Ms Beaven’s gross liability to Mr Burgess is:
(a) Balance due on division of property 3,716.10
(b) Refund of money paid to Ms Beaven 36,804.31
(c) Costs and disbursements on first appeal 5,000
Total 45,520.41
E Ms Beaven is entitled to set off outstanding awards of costs in her favour totalling $15,474.16 against her gross liability producing a net figure which she must pay, and on which Mr Burgess may now execute judgment of $30,046.25. Interest will run on that sum from the date of this judgment in terms of r 11.27 of the High Court Rules.
F Ms Beaven is to pay Mr Burgess usual disbursements in relation to this appeal.
9 August 2012
22 September 2011
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed and the cross-appeal is dismissed.
B Orders B, C and D of the decision of the Court of Appeal [2010] NZCA 625 are set aside.
C The awards of costs made against Mr Burgess by John Hansen J in the Stream A litigation are set aside and in their place Mr Burgess is awarded $5,000 costs in respect of the first appeal to the High Court heard by John Hansen J.
D Ms Beaven’s gross liability to Mr Burgess is:
(a) Balance due on division of property 3,716.10
(b) Refund of money paid to Ms Beaven 36,804.31
(c) Costs and disbursements on first appeal 5,000
Total 45,520.41
E Ms Beaven is entitled to set off outstanding awards of costs in her favour totalling $15,474.16 against her gross liability producing a net figure which she must pay, and on which Mr Burgess may now execute judgment of $30,046.25. Interest will run on that sum from the date of this judgment in terms of r 11.27 of the High Court Rules.
F Ms Beaven is to pay Mr Burgess usual disbursements in relation to this appeal.
9 August 2012
Media Releases
- sc 9 2011 burgess v beaven media release (PDF, 84 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
BURGESS v BEAVEN SC 9/2011 [22 September 2011] (PDF, 106 KB)
Substantive judgment
BURGESS v BEAVEN SC 9/2011 [9 August 2012] (PDF, 193 KB)
Transcript
Blanchard, Tipping, William Young, Chambers, Anderson JJ.
Case name
The Attorney-General and Lindsay Gow v Erin Alice Leigh
Case number
SC 11/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Defamation Act 1992 – Absolute Privilege – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Briefing Paper and oral statements did not form part of the “proceedings in the House of Representatives” and therefore were not protected by absolute privilege[2010] NZCA 624 CA 483/2009 17 December 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the communications by Mr Gow to the Minister for the Environment were the subject of absolute privilege.
11 April 2011
___________________
Appeal dismissed.
16 September 2011
11 April 2011
___________________
Appeal dismissed.
16 September 2011
Media Releases
- sc 11 2011 the attorney general v gow leigh (PDF, 54 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Substantive judgmen / Media release
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Toa Haere Faulkner v Deputy Registrar, Trustees of Allotment 5 Parish of Tahawai and Western Bay of Plenty District Court
Case number
SC 13/2011
Summary
Civil appeal – Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 – Determination of the Maori Land Court of Maori freehold land status – Whether the Maori Land Court erred in law – Whether the Maori Land Court failed to consider evidence – Whether the Maori Land Court is biased towards the Crown.Maori Appellate Court A 20090002450 21 December 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Not publicly available
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the 2nd respondent.
12 April 2011.
Case name
Maritime New Zealand v Survey Nelson Limited
Case number
SC 14/2011
Summary
Judicial Review – Decision to approve Safe Ship Management Company – Maritime Transport Act 1995 – Maritime Rules – Error of Law – Whether Court of Appeal correct, after finding error of law, to reverse High Court position and grant relief to Survey Nelson Ltd – Whether Court of Appeal possessed jurisdiction to reinstate approval where this effectively required the issue of a new approval[2010] NZCA 629 CA 245/2010 21 December 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $2,500 plus disbursements and other necessary payments, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
2 June 2011.
Case name
Liam James Reid v The Queen
Case number
SC 16/2011
Summary
Criminal appeal – application for leave to appeal out of time – possible fresh evidence.[2009] NZCA 281 CA 794/2008 7 July 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
REID v R SC 16/2011 [28 February 2012] (PDF, 47 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 February 2012.
28 February 2012.
Case name
Alex Kwong Wong v The Queen
Case number
SC 17/2011
Summary
Criminal – Appeal out of time against conviction for importation and possession of methamphetamine – Whether the Court failed to provide a proper interpreter at, or interpretation of, the trial – Interlocutory application under ss 25(2) and 28 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 and/or rule 18 of the Supreme Court Rules 2004 – Request for an interlocutory order that the Auckland High Court Registry release a copy of all audio recordings of Mr Wong at trial to support this application.CRI 2005 004 15296 1 May 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
WONG v R SC 17/2011 [11 March 2011] (PDF, 46 KB)
Recall judgment
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
11 March 2011.
Case name
Kerry John Williams v The Queen
Case number
SC 18/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Right to a fair trial – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 24, 25; Sentencing Act 2002, s 30 – Applicant convicted by jury on charges of conspiracy to supply methamphetamine, supply and manufacture of methamphetamine – Applicant lost legal representation during the course of the trial – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant’s right to a fair trial was not impaired, as a result of the trial continuing shortly after counsel for the applicant withdrew CA 137/04 19 May 2005
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
WILLIAMS v R SC 18/2011 [9 June 2011] (PDF, 12 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
9 June 2011.
Case name
Shirleen Shia Ling Sim v Moncrieff Pastoral Limited
Case number
SC 19/2011
Summary
Civil – Deemed abandonment – Whether Court of Appeal correct to decline application for order granting extension of time to appeal as well as making associated orders – whether leave ought to be granted to adduce new evidence. [2011] NZCA 21 CA 706/2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $2,500.
9 May 2011.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassny and others
Case number
SC 20/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Strike out application – Whether a cause of action can be struck out before any statement of defence has been filed and the plaintiff’s evidence contested – Judicial bias – Whether a Judge shows bias by requesting the defendant to carry out some action against the plaintiff in relation to a separate proceeding.[2011] NZCA 1 CA 718/2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIEMER v STIASSNY SC 20/2011 [20 April 2011] (PDF, 10 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed, with costs $1500.00 plus disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar to the Attorney-General.
20 April 2011.
Page 64 of 117