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
Tareq Abdel Rahim Zaiton v The Queen
Case number
SC 43/2008
Summary
Criminal appeal – whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred under s 385(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1961 – at a previous trial, the complainant had made identifications relating to one charge – the prosecution did not disclose the identifications to the defence until the second trial – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no miscarriage resulted from the Crown’s failure to disclose the information until that point.[2008] NZCA 189 CA 368/07 26 June 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ZAITON V R SC 43/2008 [20 October 2008] (PDF, 14 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 October 2008.
Case name
R v The Queen
Case number
SC 45/2008
Summary
Criminal appeal – alleged miscarriage of justice in terms of s 385(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1961 – appellant found guilty on six representative counts alleging sexual offending against the complainant – whether the fact that evidence from several potential witnesses was not put before the jury at the trial and the fact that the trial Judge refused to discharge the jury after the complainant made contact with members of the jury have resulted in a miscarriage of justice.[2008] NZCA 196 CA 32/07 30 June 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
R v R SC45/2008 [8 October 2008] (PDF, 16 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
8 October 2008
8 October 2008
Case name
Duane Charles Brendon Paul Burgess v The Queen
Case number
SC 46/2008
Summary
Criminal Appeal – appeal against conviction – sexual assault – miscarriage of justice – whether the Court of Appeal correctly analysed the evidence – whether there was sufficient time for the applicant to have committed the offence.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BURGESS v R SC 46/2008 [14 October 2008] (PDF, 16 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
14 October 2008.
14 October 2008.
Case name
Pranfield Holdings Limited and United Fisheries Limited v Minister of Fisheries and others
Case number
SC 47/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – Commercial fishing – Licence and quota management system – Misfeasance in Public Office – Whether Court of Appeal correctly applied Garrett v Attorney-General [1997] 2 NZLR 332 – Breach of Statutory Duty – Fisheries Act 1983, s 63 – Whether Court of Appeal adopted correct approach toward exercise of discretion under Fisheries Act 1983 – Negligence – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding no duty of care breached – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, s 27 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding s 27 not engaged – Fisheries Act 1996, ss 308 and 329 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding Applicant’ s claims for damages and in tort barred by statute.[2008] NZCA 216 CA 48/07 CA 56/07 10 July 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Applications for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2500.00 and disbursements to the respondents
Costs $2500.00 and disbursements to the respondents
Case name
David McAlister v Air New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 49/2008
Summary
Civil – Employment Relations Act 2000 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the demotion of the appellant as flight instructor did not breach a prohibited ground of discrimination, namely his age, in terms of s 104(1) of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that flight instructors under the age of 60 and performing the same work as the appellant were not a relevant comparator group for the purposes of ss 104(1)(a) and (b) of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that being of a particular age was a genuine occupational qualification for the appellant’s employment as a flight instructor in terms of s 30(1) of the Human Rights Act 1993.[2008] NZCA 264 CA 216/07 30 July 2008
Transcripts
- Hearing 25 and 26 March 2009 SC 49/2008 (PDF, 530 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2009] NZSC 78 (PDF, 89 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Shane Huia Matenga v The Queen
Case number
SC 50/2008
Summary
Criminal appeal – Crimes Act 1961 s 385(1) – applicant was convicted of rape and unlawful sexual connection – at trial, inadmissible expert opinion evidence was given as to the central issue of consent – on appeal, the Court of Appeal held that, while there was a risk of a miscarriage of justice under s 385(1)(c), the proviso should be applied as no substantial miscarriage of justice had actually occurred – whether the Court of Appeal applied the correct principles in deciding to apply the proviso – whether the finding that there was a risk of a miscarriage of justice is incompatible with the holding that no substantial miscarriage of justice had actually occurred.[2008] NZCA 260 CA 216/07 28 July 2008
Leave judgment - leave granted
MATENGA v R SC 50/2008 [20 October 2008] (PDF, 12 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal granted.
20 October 2008.
20 October 2008.
Result
Appeal allowed. New Trial ordered.
13 March 2009.
Case name
Woolworths Limited v The Commerce Commission and others
Case number
SC 51/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – section 66 Commerce Act 1986 – acquisitions that will have or are likely to have the effect of substantially lessening competition – whether Court of Appeal erred in its approach to giving clearance under s 66 – whether clearance can be declined on the grounds that it is uncertain whether the acquisition will cause a substantial lessening of competition – whether the approach to be adopted by the Court in s 66 cases is different to the balance of probabilities approach used in ordinary civil cases – whether the Court of Appeal was correct to take an approach to the term ‘likely’ which extended to scenarios that were merely possible or speculative – whether ‘substantial’ effects on competition include effects that are merely nominal or ephemeral – if Court of Appeal test was correct, whether Court of Appeal should have referred case back to High Court to apply correct test – whether Court of Appeal had proper regard to all the evidence when applying s 66.[2008] NZCA 276 CA 55/2008 1 August 2008
Dates
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
17 October 2008.
17 October 2008.
Case name
Wiilie Ye, Candy Ye and Tim Ye v Minister of Immigration and Yueing Ding
Case number
SC 53/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – immigration – removal order made under s 54 of the Immigration Act 1987 in respect of an overstayer mother whose children are New Zealand citizens – humanitarian interview conducted by Immigration Officer who determined not to exercise the power of cancellation of the removal order under s 58 of the Immigration Act – whether the Court of Appeal erred in not holding that the children’s welfare and best interests as New Zealand citizen children of an overstayer parent ought to have been directly addressed and taken into account by the Immigration Officer as the paramount or alternatively as a primary consideration in his decision making – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold that the applicants were entitled to be heard either prior to the decision to make the removal order or prior to the decision to proceed with the removal and thus to be accorded natural justice in their own right – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to uphold the applicants’ claim that the first respondent failed to properly take into account the applicants’ rights and New Zealand’ s obligations under international law - whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the appropriate relief was to remit the matter of the Immigration Service to be reconsidered “if it sees fit”.[2008] NZCA 291 CA 184/2006
Media Releases
Transcript
Dates
Application for leave to appeal granted
4 November 2008
Case name
Tiny Intelligence Limited v Resport Limited
Case number
SC 55/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – Copyright Act 1994 – damages – the High Court found that Resport Ltd fragrantly breached the copyright of Tiny Intelligence Ltd in several toys and awarded Tiny Intelligence Ltd $50,000 by way of account of profits – whether additional damages are available under s 121(2) of the Copyright Act where the Court has awarded an account of profits – whether the House of Lords decision of Redrow Homes Ltd v Bett Brothers Plc [1999] 1 AC 197 should be applied to the New Zealand Copyright Act.[2008] NZCA 281 CA 270/2006
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
21 October 2008
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. Cost to the respondent $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
8 April 2009
21 October 2008
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. Cost to the respondent $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
8 April 2009
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Case name
Alan Qiuand Stanley Qiu v Minister of Immigration, He Qin Qiu and Ziao Yun Qiu
Case number
SC 56/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – immigration – removal order made under s 54 of the Immigration Act 1987 in respect of overstayer mother whose children are New Zealand citizens – humanitarian interview conducted by Immigration Officer who determined not to exercise the power of cancellation of the removal order under s 58 of the Immigration Act – whether the Court of Appeal erred in not holding that the children’s welfare and best interests as New Zealand citizen children of an overstayer parent ought to have been directly addressed and taken into account by the Immigration Officer as the paramount or alternatively as a primary consideration in his decision making – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to hold that the applicants were entitled to be heard either prior to the decision to make the removal order or prior to the decision to proceed with the removal and thus to be accorded natural justice in their own right – whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to uphold the applicants’ claim that the first respondent failed to properly take into account the applicants’ rights and New Zealand’ s obligations under international law.[2008] NZCA 291 CA 192/2006
Media Releases
Transcription
Dates
Application for leave to appeal granted
4 November 2008Page 92 of 117