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.

4 September 2026

Case information summary (as at 4 September 2026) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 116 KB)
Case information summary (as at 4 September 2026)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 132 KB) 

All years

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.
Case name
Raewyn Marie Scott v Lindy Jane Ellison
Case number
SC 84/2011
Summary
Civil – Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Land – Contractual interpretation – Standard form vendor warranty – Warranty that where vendor has done/permitted works on property requiring permits/consents these have been obtained (cl 6.2(5)) – Whether Court of Appeal correct in dismissing appeal against refusal to grant summary judgment – Appellant and co-owner made alterations to property without obtaining requisite permits and certificates – Appellant, then sole owner, created trust, transferred property to trustees, then sold property describing vendor as appellant and trustees – Whether appellant’s status as legal owner changed – Whether warranty applies to works done/permitted by appellant prior to transfer to trustees  [2011] NZCA 302    CA 660/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 to the respondent.
31 August 2011.
Case name
Robert Michael Symons, Gregory John Symons and others v Wiltshire Investments Limited
Case number
SC 92/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Appeal against Court of Appeal upholding a summary decision of the High Court – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the refusal by the respondents to produce critical relevant documents that are in the respondent’s sole possession did not constitute a failure by the respondent to discharge the onus on a summary judgment application to establish that the appellants had no arguable defence – Whether the use of residual discretion to refuse an application for summary judgment under r 12.2 of the High Court Rules was justified – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the confidentiality can be a valid ground for refusal to disclose relevant documentation to the Court and the defendants in a summary judgment application. [2011] NZCA 397 CA 534/2010
Result
Leave to appeal is granted in relation to the indebtedness associated with Opus Fintek Ltd (in receivership). The approved question is whether the Associate Judge ought to have entered summary judgment despite the non disclosure of the 2009 settlement agreement between Opus Fintek Ltd and Hats Holdings Ltd.
17 November 2011
_________________________________
A Leave to appeal is extended to cover the indebtedness of Fibroin Initiatives Ltd.
B The appeal is allowed with the result that the entry of summary judgment is set aside but with leave reserved to the respondent to seek summary judgment once it has disclosed the settlement agreement to the appellants.
C The awards of costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside. 9 August 2012
___________________________________
17 October 2012: 
Judgment recalled and reissued.  A Leave to appeal is extended to cover the indebtedness of Fibroin Initiatives Ltd.
B The appeal is allowed with the result that the entry of summary judgment is set aside.
C Upon disclosure of the settlement agreement to the appellants, the application for summary judgment is, at the option of the respondent, to be reheard in the High Court with the appellants at liberty to resist the claim (and, if they think appropriate, produce additional evidence) on the basis of (i) defences associated with, or arising out of the disclosure of the settlement agreement and (ii), subject to the leave of the High Court being obtained, on any other basis. The appellants are also at liberty to make such interlocutory applications to the High Court as they see fit. D The awards of costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside.
Leave judgment - leave granted
sc 92 2011 symons v wiltshire investments ltd (PDF, 10 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 17 April 2012

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ
Case name
SNC v The Queen
Case number
SC 101/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006 – Admissibility of evidence “improperly obtained” by police pursuant to a warrantless search – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the District Court Judge’ s decision to admit the evidence in exercise of the balancing test required by subs 30(2) of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal failed to give sufficient weight to and/or erred in its assessment of the listed factors in paras 30(3)(a), (b) and (d) of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal gave too much weight to the importance of the evidence to the case of the prosecution[2011] NZCA 402   CA 191/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
18 October 2011.
Case name
James Joseph Kapa v The Queen
Case number
SC 114/2011
Summary
[2011] NZCA 504 CA 407/2010 CA 572/2010
Result
Leave to appeal is granted in respect of the sentence of reparation only.
The approved ground is whether the sentence of reparation complied with the requirements of s 32 of the Sentencing Act 2002.  
7 February 2012
____________________________
Appeal is allowed. The sentence of reparation is quashed.
20 December 2012
Media Releases
Transcript

Hearing date : 7 August 2012

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook J.
Case name
Michael Andrew Keith Hastie  v The Queen
Case number
SC 120/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the trial Judge should have given a Papadopoulos direction.[2011] NZCA 498   CA 153/2011
Result

The application for leave to appeal is granted.

The approved grounds of appeal are whether the directions given to the jury before it delivered its verdicts were appropriate and, if not, whether this gave rise to a substantial miscarriage of justice?

9 February 2012

_______________________

Appeal dismissed.

23 July 2012
Transcript

Hearing date : 7 June 2012

Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Chambers JJ
Case name
Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Inc and others v OCS Limited
Case number
SC 124/2011
Summary
Employment – Employment Relations Act 2000, ss 69N(3) and 69O – Relationship between the Act and the parties’ (collective) employment agreement – Express exclusion of monetary compensation for redundancy by terms of agreement, with alternative forms of entitlement also provided for – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that appellants are not entitled to seek (bargain for) appropriate redundancy entitlements under the Act  [2011] NZCA 597  CA 865/2010
Result

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved questions are whether, and if so to what extent, the multi-employer collective employment agreement precludes the second appellants from bargaining for redundancy entitlements under s 69N of the Employment Relations Act 2000.

28 February 2012

_________________________

The appeal is allowed.
The orders made by the Court of Appeal are set aside.
The orders made by the Employment Court are reinstated. 

9 August 2012
Transcript

Hearing date : 26 July 2012

Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Gault, Blanchard JJ.
Case name
Robert Erwood v Raylee Harley and the Official Assignee
Case number
SC 132/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Disbursements – Appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal which set aside the Registrar’s decision to award $1,000 in disbursements to the applicant – The Court of Appeal declined to recall the decision when presented with new information in relation to this matter – Whether an unrepresented litigant can be awarded costs or disbursements relating to legal advice obtained for the purposes of litigation when the order only covered “usual disbursements” as defined – Whether this matter should be remitted back to the Court of Appeal for full panel hearing.[2011] NZCA  370   CA 260/2009
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
24 April 2012.
Page 16 of 33