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
GB v The Queen
Case number
SC 108/2010
Summary
Criminal – Summary Proceedings Act 1957 – Appellants charged with cultivation, supply and possession of cannabis – Whether Court of Appeal erred in not explicitly ruling that a search warrant issued under s 198 SPA cannot authorise the installation of covert video surveillance cameras – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding exclusion of surveillance evidence would be disproportionate to impropriety in obtaining it.[2010] NZCA 457 CA 222/2010 7 October 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Not publicly available
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
2 December 2010
Case name
DJB v The Queen
Case number
SC 114/2010
Summary
Criminal – Evidence Act 2006 – Admissibility of prior consistent statements – whether the complainant’s prior consistent statements to third parties, led in evidence in chief within a video interview, were admissible in application of s 35(2) of the Act – Admissibility of statements made by the defendant – whether evidence given by the complainant’ s mother of a statement made by the defendant should have been excluded on the basis that the risk of an unfairly prejudicial effect on the proceeding outweighed its limited probative value pursuant to s 8 of the Act[2010] NZCA 493 CA 110/2010 29 October 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the evidence of complaints to two family members was admissible.
25 February 2011
____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
9 June 2011
25 February 2011
____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
9 June 2011
Media Releases
- sc114 2010 media release (PDF, 85 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
B v R SC 114/2010 [25 February 2011] (PDF, 137 KB)
Substantive judgment
B(SC 114/2010) v R SC 114/2010 [9 June 2011] (PDF, 66 KB)
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Azeeez Mahomed v The Queen
Case number
SC 117/2010
Summary
Criminal – Murder – Whether Court of Appeal erred in pre-trial ruling admitting certain propensity/narrative evidence against the applicant – Whether Court of Appeal in dismissing appeal erred in concluding trial Judge not required to give specific directions on propensity evidence at trial – Whether evidence of applicant’s low intellectual capacity and wife’s post-natal depression should have been admitted at trial – Whether trial Judge was entitled to comment on applicant’s decision not to give evidence – Whether new evidence of accident purportedly explaining daughter’s injuries should be admitted.[2010] NZCA 419 CA 779/2009 14 September 2010.
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted,
The approved grounds are:
(i) Whether the evidence concerning the child’s being left in the car on 19 December 2007 was admissible; and
(ii) If so, whether the Judge’s directions relating to that evidence were adequate.
8 February 2011
__________________________
Appeal dismissed.
19 May 2011
The approved grounds are:
(i) Whether the evidence concerning the child’s being left in the car on 19 December 2007 was admissible; and
(ii) If so, whether the Judge’s directions relating to that evidence were adequate.
8 February 2011
__________________________
Appeal dismissed.
19 May 2011
Media Releases
- mahomed v the queen press release (PDF, 87 KB)
Substantive judgment
MAHOMED v R SC 97/2010, SC 117/2010 [19 May 2011] (PDF, 321 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 17 February 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Wing Hung Printing Company Limited and others v Saito Offshore Pty Ltd
Case number
SC 118/2010
Summary
Civil – Conflict of laws – Whether New Zealand is the appropriate forum for trial of the dispute – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its calculus of the issues relevant to the appropriate forum choice – Whether the Court of Appeal had an evidential foundation for finding the business relationship was ‘predominately Australasian’ – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in extending the extraterritorial effect of the Fair Trading Act 1986 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in the exercise of its discretion to dismiss a protest to jurisdiction on terms.[2010] NZCA 502 CA 437/2009 5 November 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs of $2,500 and reasonable disbursements to the respondent.
15 March 2011.
Case name
Graham Ashley Robert Palmer v The Queen
Case number
SC 119/2010
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction for dishonest use of a GST return – whether the conduct of the investigation and criminal prosecution of the applicant was in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 30 of the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Judges’ Rules – whether the trial Judge misdirected the jury as to the identity of a witness – whether the trial Judge erred in his summing up to the jury – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to take into account evidence produced by the applicant as to the value of goods – whether there has been error in the calculation of the period for which the applicant is subject to release conditions following his sentence of imprisonment[2010] NZCA 53 CA 349/2009 5 March 2010
Case name
Keith Allenby v Terri Hannan and Middlemore Hospital of Counties Manukau District Health Board
Case number
SC 122/2010
Summary
Civil – Negligence – Accident Compensation Act 2001 – Application for pre-trial ruling– Whether unwanted pregnancy occasioned by failure of doctor to adequately perform sterilisation (tubal ligation) procedure covered by s 20(2)(b) of Accident Compensation Act as personal injury caused by medical misadventure – Whether application for pre-trial ruling can be the subject of “leapfrog” appeal to Supreme Court without prior judgments of High Court or Court of Appeal.[Civ 2010 404 3260 Priestley J 31 August 2010
Dates
Notice of Abandonment being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.
Case name
Henry David Levin and Barry Philip Jordan v Patrick Ikiua, Kenti Apa, Tess Apa, Mark Crosbie, Andrew David Smith.
Case number
SC 123/2010
Summary
Civil – Liquidators’ right under s 298 of the Companies Act 1993 to recover property which a liquidated company has disposed of to certain entities – Whether the company must have had a proprietary interest in the property – Whether s 298 applies only to transactions where the directors are duty bound to obtain fair value in return for the disposition of property – Whether the company had legitimately transferred its assets – Whether the directors of the company had breached their duties by disposing of all profits.[2010] NZCA 509 CA 508/2009 12 November 2010
Dates
Notice of Abandonment being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.
Case name
OH v The Queen
Case number
SC 125/2010
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 825/2009 19 November 2010
Result
The appeal 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
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
Karen McGrath v Accident Compensation Corporation
Case number
SC 127/2010
Summary
Civil – Accident Compensation Act 2001 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that the ACC had a reasonable basis under s 110(3) Accident Compensation Act to require the Applicant to undergo a vocational independence assessment.[2010] NZCA 535 CA 302/2009 19 November 2010
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal in [2010] NZCA 535 has correctly interpreted and applied s 110(3) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001.
8 March 2011
___________________
A The appeal is allowed and the notice given on 9 September 2008 by the Accident Compensation Corporation is quashed.
B Costs are reserved. Counsel may file memoranda if necessary.
7 July 2011
B The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal in [2010] NZCA 535 has correctly interpreted and applied s 110(3) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001.
8 March 2011
___________________
A The appeal is allowed and the notice given on 9 September 2008 by the Accident Compensation Corporation is quashed.
B Costs are reserved. Counsel may file memoranda if necessary.
7 July 2011
Media Releases
- sc 127 2010 karen mcgrath v acc press release (PDF, 84 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young J.
Case name
TWI and others v The Queen
Case number
SC 128/2010 ; 129/2010; 130/2010; 131/2010; 132/2010; 133/2010/ 135/2010; 138/2010; 139/2010
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 497 CA 809/2009 19 November 2010
Result
A The appeals of Mr Tame Iti, Mr Te Rangiwhiria Kemara, Mr Urs Signer and Ms Emily Bailey are dismissed. B The appeals of the other appellants are 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.
2 September 2011.
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
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.
Page 79 of 117