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
MA v The Attorney General
Case number
SC 106/2009
Summary
Civil – the applicant was granted recognition of status as a refugee in 1996 and New Zealand citizenship in 1997 – in 2001 the applicant was discharged on the offence of making a false statement in his refugee claim – certain documents obtained by the Police in a search of the applicant’ s home were passed to the Refugee Status Branch of the New Zealand Immigration Service – in 2006 notice was given to the applicant of intended determination of revocation of refugee status – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the search of the applicant’s home was lawful – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that privilege did not attach to certain communications between the applicant and his refugee advisor – whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that Police lawfully provided certain documents to the New Zealand Immigration Service.[2009] NZCA 490 CA 565/2007 20 October 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 31 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Attorney-General v Tamil X v Refugee Status Appeals Authority and Y
Case number
SC 107/2009
Summary
Immigration – whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting Article 1F of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees; whether the Court erred in not remitting an Article 1F inquiry to the Refugee Status Appeals Authority[2009] NZCA 488 CA 109/2008 20 October 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
10 March 2010
__________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The respondent’s application for recognition of refugee status is remitted to the Refugee Status Appeals Authority for consideration in accordance with the Court of Appeal’s order.
C Costs are reserved and counsel may submit memoranda if necessary.
27 August 2010
10 March 2010
__________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The respondent’s application for recognition of refugee status is remitted to the Refugee Status Appeals Authority for consideration in accordance with the Court of Appeal’s order.
C Costs are reserved and counsel may submit memoranda if necessary.
27 August 2010
Media Releases
- MR [2010] NZSC 107 (PDF, 84 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Judgment appealed from
Substantive judgment / Media release
Case name
Matthew John Birchler v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 116/2009
Summary
Criminal – appeal directly from the High Court under s 144A(1)(a) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 – intended appeal against the determination of the High Court by way of case stated under s 107 of the Summary Proceedings Act – whether direct appeal to the Supreme Court appropriate given that the Court of Appeal has previously refused leave to appeal on this point on the basis that there were no grounds for challenge to the well established interpretation of s 108 of the Summary Proceedings Act in Davis v Mingins (HC, Rot, AP 48/91, 30/10/91, Fisher J). CRI 2009 485 83 25 November 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
18 March 2010
_____________________________
Appeal allowed. Order made in the High Court remitting the matter for consideration in the District Court is quashed.
Reasons to be given later.
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment / Media release
Transcript
Case name
Douglas John Williamson and John Blackwood Williamson v Selwyn District Council
Case number
SC 118/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – security for costs – strike-out – summary judgment – Appeal against strike-out by Court of Appeal – appellants’ failure to pay security for costs – Appeal against application in High Court by Selwyn District Council (SDC) to recover possession of land – Appellants refused to vacate land on expiry of 3-year lease agreement as part of sale and purchase agreement of land to SDC – Whether sale and purchase agreement and lease void because SDC exerted duress/undue influence or obtained unconscionable bargain in abuse of dominant bargaining position, or acted in breach of Local Government Act 1974 – Whether the SDC breached Resource Management Act 1991 in obtaining non-notified resource consent – Whether lawyers acted in conflict of interest between appellants and SDC councillor and breached fiduciary duty – Whether appellants waived conflict of interest with informed consent.[2008] NZCA 147 CA 662/2007 5 June 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 23 February 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Supreme court decision
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Elders New Zealand Limited v PGG Wrightson Lmited
Case number
SC 7/2008
Summary
Civil – Contract Law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that an amalgamation approved under Part 15 of the Companies Act 1993 has the legal consequences provided for in s 219 of that Act – Whether an amalgamating company is entitled to “pick and choose” between Part 13 and Part 15 of the Companies Act 1993 – Whether the terms of the amalgamation order created the effect prescribed in Part 13 even though the order was made pursuant to Part 15 – Whether the applicant was bound by the Part 15 order although the order did not state that the applicant was bound.[2007] NZCA 596 CA 277/06 21 December 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
18 April 2008
_______________________
Appeal dismissed.Costs to respondent $15,000, together with reasonable disbursements.
5 December 2008
18 April 2008
_______________________
Appeal dismissed.Costs to respondent $15,000, together with reasonable disbursements.
5 December 2008
Media Releases
- sc 7 elders nz ltd v pggwrightson ltd press release (PDF, 89 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Case name
New Zealand Exchange Limited v Bank of New Zealand, Access Brokerage Limited (in liquidation) and Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Case number
SC 13/2008
Summary
Civil – appeal from strike-out application – second respondent in liquidation, first and third respondents brought actions against NZX in contract and tort - whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that NZX owes personal duties of care to individual clients or to individual brokers, to protect each of them from economic loss due to broker’s dishonesty or negligence in relation to client funds held on trust – whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the breach of such a duty (if owed) is sufficiently legally causative of loss – whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that the Securities Commission is the “primary regulator” of the New Zealand Stock Exchange, and not NZX.2008] NZCA 25 CA236/06 22 February 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Transcript
Case name
Jonathan Nuki Lummis Jarden v The Queen
Case number
SC 14/2008
Summary
Criminal Appeal – conspiracy to supply methamphetamine – appeal against sentence - whether a Court should use sentencing guidelines based on actual supply of specified weights of drugs when considering a sentence for conspiracy to supply an unspecified quantity of drugs - whether the Court of Appeal considered such a distinction when dismissing the appeal to that Court[2008] NZCA 48 CA292/07 5 March 2008
Media Releases
- sc 14 2008 jarden v r (PDF, 86 KB)
Substantive judgment
JARDEN v R SC 14/2008 [28 August 2008] (PDF, 38 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
JARDEN v R SC 14/2008 [9 May 2008] (PDF, 12 KB)
Transcription
Dates
Application for leave to appeal granted.
9 May 2008
_________________________
Appeal allowed. Sentence of three years imprisonment
quashed. Sentence of two years six months imprisonment substituted.
28 August 2008
Case name
Ngai Tahu Properties Limited v Central Plains Water Trust and Canterbury Regional Council
Case number
SC 15/2008
Summary
Civil – Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) – competing resource consent applications to take (and use) water from a finite natural resource – whether the Court of Appeal majority assessed the priority of claims correctly – whether the “ready for notification” test should apply in such cases – how a consent authority decision not to proceed with notification under s 91 RMA should affect priority of claims.[2008] NZCA 71 CA69/07 19 March 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. 24 June 2008
_________________
Interim decision released
26 March 2009
______________
Notice of Abandonment being lodged the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
2 June 2009
_________________
Interim decision released
26 March 2009
______________
Notice of Abandonment being lodged the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
2 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Transcript
Case name
Ahmad Zanzoul v The Queen
Case number
SC 17/2008
Summary
Criminal appeal – applicant convicted after pleading guilty pursuant to s 153A of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 on an information laid under s 31(1)(f)(ii) of the Passports Act 1992 – sentenced to 15 months imprisonment with leave to apply for home detention – whether the conviction and sentence is a nullity for want of legal certainty or vagueness of the provisions dealing with the indictable and summary jurisdiction for penalty purposes – alternatively, whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by constructing the legislation to the applicant’s detriment in failing to apply the lesser penalty where the legislation was “complex and confusing” – additionally, whether admissions were obtained without informing the applicant of his rights not to incriminate himself, to silence, and to obtain a lawyer in breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – whether, under art 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations read in conjunction with the Refugee Convention, the applicant should, as a refugee claimant, have been provided on detainment with advice by a consular or appropriate international official – whether a Hansen declaration should be made with regard to this issue – whether the applicant’s hearing before the Refugee Status Appeals Authority was unlawful for lack of independence and impartiality on the principles of Charanjit Singh v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] ScotCS 342 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and law in finding and taking into account that there is nothing linking the appellant’s possession of a false Australian passport with his claim for refugee status – whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in taking into account that the applicant was not in the situation of many refugee claimants – application for name suppression.CA 297/06 6 December 2006
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ZANZOUL v R SC 17/2008 [10 June 2008] (PDF, 25 KB)
Additional document
ZANZOUL v R SC 17/2008 [9 May 2008] (PDF, 14 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
10 June 2008
Case name
Shaun Antony King v The Queen
Case number
SC 18/2008
Summary
Criminal – appeal by way of case stated – Juries Act 1981 – applicant challenges the legality and fairness of jury-vetting, under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, the Privacy Act 1993 and the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act 2004 – whether controls should operate over prosecution use of information including, but not limited to, the criminal history of a potential jury member – whether disclosure by the prosecution to the defence should be required in relation to such information.[2008] NZCA 79 CA 207/2007 10 April 2008
Leave judgment - leave granted
GORDON-SMITH v R SC 32/2008 [25 July 2008] (PDF, 48 KB)
Transcript
Page 22 of 32