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.

3 July 2026

Case information summary (as at 3 July 2026) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 88 KB)
Case information summary (as at 3 July 2026)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 127 KB) 

All years

Case name
Emily Felicity Bailey  v The Queen
Case number
SC 83/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Fair trial – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the charge of “participating in a criminal group” – Whether the Crown misstated its case in relation to the admissibility of evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the complaint relating to prejudicial pre-trial media coverage undermining the ability of the accused to obtain a fair trial.[2012] NZCA 492   CA 415/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 April 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIGNER & ORS V R SC 82/2012 [23 April 2013] (PDF, 75 KB)
Case name
The New Zealand Māori Council and Waikato Rivers and Dams Claims Trust v Her Majesty’s Attorney-General, The Minister of Finance and The Minister of State Owned Enterprises
Case number
SC 98/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Application for direct appeal – Whether the High Court was right to dismiss the New Zealand  Māori Council’ s application for review. [2012] NZHC 3338 Civ 2012 485 2187
Result
Leave to appeal, and to appeal direct to this Court, is granted. The approved ground of appeal is whether the High Court was right to dismiss the application for review.
_____________________
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
27 February 2013
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
THE NEW ZEALAND MAORI COUNCIL v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL SC 98/2012 [27 February 2013] (PDF, 353 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 1 February 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.
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
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
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
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
Media Releases
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

Hearing date : 23 April 2012

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
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
ATTORNEY-GENERAL IN RESPECT OF THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND GOW V LEIGH SC 11/2011 11 April 2011
Substantive judgment
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL v LEIGH SC 11/2011 [16 September 2011] (PDF, 117 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 16 August 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.

 
Substantive judgmen / Media release
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Urs Peter Signer v The Queen
Case number
SC 36/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Trial by Judge alone - whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the order made in the High Court under s 361D of the Crimes Act 1961 that the trial of the applicant proceed before a Judge alone[2011] NZCA 114  CA 872/2010
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted. B The approved ground is whether the High Court and Court of Appeal correctly interpreted and applied s 361D of the Crimes Act 1961 in directing that the applicants be tried for the offences charged under indictment (Number CRI 2007-085-7842) before a Judge without a jury.
6 May 2011
__________________
Appeal allowed by consent. Orders for trial by judge alone set aside.
14 September 2011
Leave judgment - leave granted
SIGNER and Others v R SC 36/2011 [6 May 2011] (PDF, 9 KB)
Substantive judgment
SIGNER and OTHERS v R SC 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43/2011 [16 September 2011] (PDF, 67 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 14 September 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Emily Felicity Bailey v The Queen
Case number
SC 37/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Trial by Judge alone - whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the order made in the High Court under s 361D of the Crimes Act 1961 that the trial of the applicant proceed before a Judge alone[2011] NZCA 114   CA 873/2010
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is whether the High Court and Court of Appeal correctly interpreted and applied s 361D of the Crimes Act 1961 in directing that the applicants be tried for the offences charged under indictment (Number CRI 2007-085-7842) before a Judge without a jury. 6 May 2011
____________________
Appeal allowed by consent. Orders for trial by judge alone set aside.
14 September 2011
Leave judgment - leave granted
SIGNER and Others v R SC 36/2011 [6 May 2011] (PDF, 9 KB)
Substantive judgment
SIGNER and OTHERS v R SC 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43/2011 [16 September 2011] (PDF, 67 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 14 September 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited v The Grate Kiwi Cheese Company Limited & Kaimai Cheese Co Ltd
Case number
SC 38/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – the Commerce Commission made a final determination on 5 June 2009 that The Grate Kiwi Cheese Company Ltd and Kaimai Cheese Company Ltd were both entitled to raw milk from Fonterra under the Dairy Industry Restructuring (Raw Milk) Regulations 2001 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Commerce Commission determination – whether an entity can be entitled to raw milk even though the entity does not itself process the milk[2011] NZCA 67   CA 223/2010
Result
Appeal dismissed. Costs $15,000 plus disbursements to the respondent. 15 March 2012
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
FONTERRA CO-OPERATIVE GROUP LIMITED v THE GRATE KIWI CHEESE COMPANY LIMITED SC 38/2011 [20 June 2011] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
FONTERRA CO-OPERATIVE GROUP LIMITED v THE GRATE KIWI CHEESE COMPANY LIMITED SC 38/2011 [15 March 2012] (PDF, 79 KB)
Transcription

Hearing date : 14 February 2012

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Page 14 of 32