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
Phillip Purewa v The Queen
Case number
SC 40/2011
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 874/2010
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
Transcript
Hearing date : 14 September 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ
Case name
Trudi Paraha v The Queen
Case number
SC 41/2011
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 871/2010
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
Transcript
Hearing date : 14 September 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Tuhoe Lambert  v The Queen
Case number
SC 42/2011
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 879/2010
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 is deemed to be dismissed due to the death of the appellant.
Transcript
Hearing date : 14 September 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Rangi Kemara  v The Queen
Case number
SC 43/2011
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  
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
Transcript
Hearing date : 14 September 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Neil Tony Hickman and others v Turn and Wave Limited, Greenstone Barclay Trustees Ltd and Iicon Central Ltd
Case number
SC 46/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Securities Act 1978 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 33 of the Securities Act, its interpretation of the term “debt security” under the Securities Act, and its interpretation of the scope of the exemption in s 5(1)(b) of the Securities Act – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that if the Blue Chip investment products were invalid, they were not interdependent with the sale and purchase agreements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the sale and purchase agreements were not tainted by illegality if in breach of s 33 of the Securities Act[2011] NZCA 100  CA 796/2009, CA 797/2009, CA 798/2009
Result

Leave to appeal is granted on the following questions:

(1) Did the marketing by Blue Chip companies and sales agents of the Blue Chip investment products amount to offers to the public of equity and/or debt securities for the purposes of s 37 of the Securities Act 1978?

(2) If so, is the exemption in s 5(1)(b) applicable?

(3) If the answers to questions (1) and (2) are favourable to the investors, does this impeach the ability of the developers to enforce the agreements for sale and purchase on the basis that they (a) constituted part of the relevant allotments and were thus void and of no effect under s 37(4) or, (b) were tainted by their association with those allotments and thus illegal?

6 September 2011

________________________

A The appeals are allowed.

B The SPAs executed at the same time as, or after, the corresponding Blue Chip investment product agreements were entered into are declared to be unenforceable under s 37 of the Securities Act 1978.

C The High Court is to determine whether SPAs, entered into before the corresponding Blue Chip investment products were executed, were subscriptions for securities.

D The cases are otherwise generally remitted to the High Court to make such further orders as may be consistent with this judgment.

E The respondents are to pay the appellants costs $75,000 and usual disbursements.

F  Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are to be as determined by those courts.

9 August 2012

______________________

Recall judgment

Former order F now replaced by orders F, G and H.

F  The existing orders for costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.

G Other than those affected by timing issues (being Mr Hutchinson in the case of TWL, and in the case of Greenstone Barclay, Mr and Mrs Bogardus, Ms Janes, Mrs and Mrs Johnson, Mr Crawford-Greene, Mr and Mrs Dick and Mr and Mrs Lester) the appellants are to be awarded costs and disbursements in the High Court and Court of Appeal in sums to be determined by those Courts in light of the judgment of this Court.

H Costs and disbursements in relation to the appellants affected by timing issues are to be addressed in the High Court and Court of Appeal once those timing issues have been resolved.

11 December 1012
Transcript
Hearing date : 7 – 9 November 2011
Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Body Corporate 207624 and others v North Shore City Council
Case number
SC 58/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Negligence – Leaky building – Whether applicant hotel unit owners owed a duty of care by respondent council – Whether applicant penthouse apartment owners owed a duty of care by council – Whether intended use of building as residential or non-residential a controlling factor in determining whether local authority owes duty of care – How duty of care in respect of a mixed-use building should be determined – Whether council can owe duty of care for negligent misstatement based upon code compliance certificates in absence of specific reliance by applicants.[2011] NZCA 164  CA 760/2009
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is whether and to what extent the respondent local authority owed a duty of care to the body corporate and/or all or some of the appellant unit owners in exercising its regulatory functions under the Building Act 1991 in relation to the construction of the Spencer on Byron building which contains a mixture of  non-residential and residential apartments. 5 August 2011 _________________________________ A The appeal is allowed.
B The orders made in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.
C The appellants’ claim against the respondent is permitted to proceed in the High Court.
D The appellants are entitled to costs in the High Court and the Court of Appeal.  If the parties cannot agree quantum, costs are to be fixed in the respective Courts.
E The respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs in this Court in the sum of $40,000 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.  11 October 2012
Leave judgment - leave granted
sc 58 2011 body corporate no 207624 anor v north shore city 1 (PDF, 8 KB)
Transcript

Hearing dates : 20, 21 and 26 March 2012

Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Chambers JJ.
Case name
Warren Bruce Fenemor v The Queen
Case number
SC 60/2011
Summary
Criminal – Admissibility of propensity evidence –That some items of evidence admitted were inadmissible propensity evidence – That the trial Judge’s directions on the use of that evidence were inadequate – That the trial Judge erred in preventing the appellant from demonstrating his account of the incident.[2011] NZCA 206  CA 457/2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted in part. The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold, following R v Degnan that propensity evidence may be led by the Crown despite that evidence having previously been led at a trial which resulted in an acquittal.
We refuse leave to appeal on the other proposed grounds as they do not, in our view, meet the statutory criteria.
23 August 2011
_________________
Appeal dismissed.
21 October 2011
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
sc 60 2011 warren bruce fenemor v the queen (PDF, 130 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 4 October 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Keith Allenby v H, Middlemore Hospital of Counties Manukau District Health Board and Accident Compensation Corporation
Case number
SC 70/2011
Summary
The case is clearly one in respect of which leave should be granted and we therefore grant leave.The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in answering the question before it in the negative.30 June 2011.[2011] NZCA 251   CA 586/2010
Result
The case is clearly one in respect of which leave should be granted and we therefore grant leave. The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in answering the question before it in the negative.
30 June 2011
_______________________
A The appeal is allowed.  The question framed in the High Court is answered “yes”.
B Costs are reserved.
9 May 2012
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
ALLENBY v H SC 70/2011 [30 June 2011] (PDF, 10 KB)
Substantive judgment
ALLENBY v H SC [9 May 2012] (PDF, 310 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 16 February 2012

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
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
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.
Page 15 of 32