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
M v The Queen
Case number
SC 68/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sexual Offences – Evidence Act 2006 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding admission at trial of expert evidence relating to “counterintuitive” evidence given by child abuse victims– Whether expert evidence met “substantially helpful” test under s 25 Evidence Act – Whether linking by prosecutor in closing address of expert evidence with circumstances of particular complainant led to unfair trial where no direction given to jury on proper use of expert evidence.[2011] NZCA 191   CA 23/2009
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
8 November 2011.
Case name
Sovereign Assurance Company Limited v Douglas Norman Scott
Case number
SC 69/2011
Summary
Civil – Insurance – Appeal against Court of Appeal decision holding High Court incorrect to strike out respondent’s proceeding – Whether proceeding out of time – Limitation Act 1950 – Whether Court of Appeal correct in finding it arguable that respondent’s cause of action accrued on or after 28 September 2000 – Distinction between occurrence of insured event and proof of insured event – Whether English authority on limitation and application of limitation statutes to insurance policies relevant in the context of contingency insurance policies for a fixed benefit payable under a critical illness policy in New Zealand – Relevance of respondent’s eventual cancellation of policy – Consistency of Court of Appeal’s decision with principles in Trustees Executors Ltd v Murray [2007] NZSC 27, [2007] 3 NZLR 721. [2011] NZCA 214   CA 452/2010
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $2,500.

22 September 2011
Case name
Right to Life New Zealand Inc v The Abortion Supervisory Committee
Case number
SC 73/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that none of statutory functions or powers of Abortion Supervisory Committee entitle or require Committee to scrutinise or review certifying consultants’ particular clinical decisions or diagnoses after the fact – Whether judicial review requires that applicant identify a decision challenged – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding counselling services provided under CSA Act were “adequate” – Whether Court of Appeal erred in implicitly finding no State and common law interest in preservation of life of unborn child which ought to influence interpretation of CSA Act.[2011] NZCA 246   CA 522/2009
Result

A. Leave to appeal is granted. 
B. The approved grounds are: 
(a) Whether the respondent Committee’s functions under ss 14(1)(a), (i) and (k) and 36 of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 empower it to review or scrutinise the decisions of certifying consultants and form its own view about the lawfulness of their decisions to the extent necessary to perform its functions.

(b) If so, whether there is any evidential foundation for the High
Court’ s finding that “the approval rates [for abortions] seems remarkably high, bearing in mind that under s 187(A) [of the Crimes Act 1961] the consultants must form a good faith opinion that continuance of the pregnancy would result in serious danger to the mother’s health”.

(c) Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to consider whether
certifying consultants are obeying the “abortion law” (as defined) and, if so, whether there is any evidential foundation for the High Court’s finding that “there is reason to doubt the lawfulness of many abortions authorised by certifying consultants”.

26 August 2011

_________________________________

The appeal is dismissed.

9 August 2012
Transcript

Hearing date : 13 March 2012

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Marcell Sydney Geros v The Queen
Case number
SC 77/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Conviction – Whether defence counsel advice to plead guilty caused a miscarriage of justice – Whether defence counsel prevented relevant evidence being adduced – Sentencing – Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive – Application for bail to prepare the case.[2011] NZCA 122  CA 321/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
16 September 2011.
Case name
NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Company v New Zealand Milk Brands Limited
Case number
SC 79/2011
Summary
Civil – Intellectual Property – Trademark registration – Trade Marks Act 2002 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in not allowing registration of appellant’s mark in relation to tea, cocoa, chocolate, artificial coffee, flavourings for beverages and non-dairy creamer – Whether Court of Appeal misdirected itself on “similar goods” in the context of s 25(1)(b) and (c) of the Trade Marks Act 2002 – Relevance of test in British Sugar Plc v James Robertson & Sons Ltd [1996] RPC 281 (Ch) under the Trade Marks Act 2002. [2011] NZCA 264   CA 25/2009
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $2,500. 

22 September 2011
Case name
Clayton Robert Weatherston v The Queen
Case number
SC 81/2011
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction for murder – Impact of media statements on fair trial rights of applicant – whether the applicant’ s trial was rendered unfair as a consequence of media statements made during the trial – whether the directions of the trial Judge to the jury were sufficient to overcome the prejudice resulting from the media coverage – whether the Court of Appeal erred in requiring the applicant to demonstrate that a juror may have seen or read the coverage in issue – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the trial Judge’s post-trial conference address – Evidence Act 2006, s 92 – whether the Crown was obliged to put to the applicant on cross-examination the divergence of his evidence of events by comparison with that of other witnesses, if it intended to take issue with his version – Evidence Act 2006, ss 37 and 38 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding ss 37 and 38 did not apply to the Crown’s cross-examination of the applicant which aimed to establish his propensity to lie – Admission of photographs of victim’s wounds – whether the Court of Appeal erred in admitting photographs of stab wounds when the purpose for which that evidence was tendered could have been met by computer graphic reconstructions and diagrams[2011] NZCA 276   CA 648/2009
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
13 September 2011
Case name
B v B
Case number
SC 82/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Properties Relationship Act 1976, ss 10(1)(a) and (c)  – The applicant obtained property by suing his father’s estate to perfect his entitlement under his father’s will, the trustees of two trusts of which he was a beneficiary, and his mother and two sisters under the Family Protection Act 1955 - Whether this property, acquired by litigation paid for by relationship property money, is his personal property under ss 10(1)(a) and (c) of the Act or relationship property.  [2011] NZCA 292    CA 161/2010
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.

29 September 2011.
Case name
Pawel Marian Misiuk v The Queen
Case number
SC 83/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Bail Act 2000 – Defendant convicted on various charges and sentenced to imprisonment of four years and one month – Bail denied by High Court and Court of Appeal pending appeal against conviction and sentence – Whether applicant should be granted bail – Whether Court of Appeal Judge should not have sat on bail hearing because of misconduct alleged by applicant in related hearing – Whether Court of Appeal Judge failed to consider relevant evidence.[2011] NZCA 323    CA 397/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
13 September  2011.
Case name
Otehei Bay Holdings Limited and Explore NZ (2004) Limited v Fuller Bay of Islands Limited, Intercity Group (NZ) Limited and Minister of Conservation
Case number
SC 85/2011
Summary
Civil – Reserves and Domains Act 1953 – Reserves Act 1977 – Conservation Act 1987, Part 3B – That the appellants’ lease was not brought within the jurisdiction of the Reserves and Domains Act 1953 when the Crown acquired Urupukapuka Island (where the appellant’s leasehold is situated) as a recreation reserve – That s 59A of the Reserves Act 1977 does not apply to the appellants’ lease, and no concession under Part 3B of the Conservation Act 1987 is required to render the appellant’ s lease lawful.[2011] NZCA 300    CA 57/2010, CA 684/2010
Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B  The approved grounds of appeal are:
(i) Was the lease at Otehei Bay brought within the jurisdiction of the Reserves and Domains Act 1953 upon the Crown’ s acquisition of Urupukapuka Island as a recreation reserve in 1970?
(ii)  Does s 59A of the Reserves Act 1977, as inserted by the Reserves Amendment Act 1996, apply to the lease at Otehei Bay?
C The approved grounds are intended to comprehend the sub issues referred to in the submissions of the third respondent dated 15 September, namely:
(i) Is the lease a perpetually renewable lease which has been extended since its creation, or is it one where a new lease has been entered into each time it has been extended or renewed?
(ii)  What is the effect of the 10 to 15 year period where the lease may not have been renewed by the parties?

29 September 2011.
Hearing

Notice of abandonment being filed, the appeal  is deemed to be dismissed.

26 July 2012.
Case name
Gary Francis Haddon v GE Custodians and  Barbara Gale Haddon.
Case number
SC 87/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 – Appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold a summary judgment of the High Court – Whether a credit contract is a “consumer credit contract” where the appellants were both debtors in their personal capacities and as trustees of a family trust – Whether it is sufficient for a lender to “largely” comply with the mandatory disclosure requirements of s 17 – Whether the lender could contract out of the Act by defining the contract as a “credit contract” – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the summary judgment where the appellants did not have available to them much of the factual information relating to the load transaction, where the loan purpose on the loan documents differs from that stated on the loan application, where the lender was put on inquiry as to whether the borrowers could service the loan and where parties were being advised by the same lawyer increasing the likelihood of conflict of interest and undue influence. [2011] NZCA 335    CA 475/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs to first respondent $2,500.00
Page 68 of 117