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.
22 September 2026
Case information summary (as at 18 September 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 112 KB)
Case information summary (as at 18 September 2026) – Currently unavailable
All years
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Solicitor-General
Case number
SC 48/2009
Summary
Civil/Criminal Appeal – Offences – Contempt of Court – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Appeal against decision committing appellant to prison for contempt – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding contempt proceedings civil in nature – Whether appellant wrongly denied opportunity to elect trial by jury.[2009] NZCA 62 CA 447/2008 9 March 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
7 August 2009
______________________
The appeal is allowed and the order made by the Court of Appeal is quashed. It is replaced by an order committing the appellant to prison for a term of a maximum of three months, subject to the proviso that the term of imprisonment will come to an immediate end if the appellant complies with the injunction issued on 5 May 2005 and made permanent on 23 December 2008 by the High Court at Auckland in the proceeding Korda Mentha v Siemer HC Auckland CIV-2005-404-1808, 23 December 2008 and if he also provides an undertaking to the High Court in a form approved by the High Court that he and Paragon Oil Services Ltd will continue to comply with that injunction for so long as it remains in force. Mr Siemer is ordered to surrender to his bail at the High Court in Auckland no later than 4pm on 20 May 2010 unless by then he has complied with the injunction and provided that undertaking to the High Court in a form approved by it.
17 May 2010
____________________________
Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
11 June 2010
_____________________________
Further application for recall of judgment dismissed.
15 June 2010
7 August 2009
______________________
The appeal is allowed and the order made by the Court of Appeal is quashed. It is replaced by an order committing the appellant to prison for a term of a maximum of three months, subject to the proviso that the term of imprisonment will come to an immediate end if the appellant complies with the injunction issued on 5 May 2005 and made permanent on 23 December 2008 by the High Court at Auckland in the proceeding Korda Mentha v Siemer HC Auckland CIV-2005-404-1808, 23 December 2008 and if he also provides an undertaking to the High Court in a form approved by the High Court that he and Paragon Oil Services Ltd will continue to comply with that injunction for so long as it remains in force. Mr Siemer is ordered to surrender to his bail at the High Court in Auckland no later than 4pm on 20 May 2010 unless by then he has complied with the injunction and provided that undertaking to the High Court in a form approved by it.
17 May 2010
____________________________
Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
11 June 2010
_____________________________
Further application for recall of judgment dismissed.
15 June 2010
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
SIEMER v SOLICITOR-GENERAL SC 48/2009 [17 May 2010] (PDF, 159 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : recusal 26 February 2017
Elias CJ, Blanchard, McGrath, Wilson, Anderson JJ
Case Number
SC 48/2009
Case name
Paul Joseph Cameron v The Queen
Case number
SC 54/2009
Summary
Criminal appeal – murder – whether statements made by the appellant were made in circumstances adversely affecting their reliability and ought to have been excluded – whether statements made by the appellant were influenced by oppression and ought to have been excluded – whether statements made by the appellant were improperly obtained and ought to have been excluded - whether the appellant’s conviction was a substantial miscarriage of justice[2009] NZCA 87 CA 568/2008 24 March 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 12 August 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Lewtyn Michael Scott v Rosemary Ann Scott and others
Case number
SC 65/2009
Summary
Civil – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its exercise of discretion declining the application for grant of an extension under r 43 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 – Whether the Court of Appeal was entitled to make that decision in the absence of the applicant or his counsel.[2009] NZCA 255 CA 634/2008 19 June 2009.
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs of $7,500 and disbursements to the respondents. 29 October 2009
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Transcript
Case name
Red Eagle Corporation Limited v Richard John Otley Ellis
Case number
SC 72/2009
Summary
Civil appeal – whether the respondent is liable under s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 for passing on information about a third party which induced the appellant to enter into a contact with that third party[2009] NZCA 320 CA 713/2008 24 July 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
7 October 2009
____________________
Appeal allowed and the judgment of the High Court is restored. Costs $15,000 plus reasonable disbursements in this Court. Order for costs in the Court of Appeal is reversed. HighCourt to fix costs that that has not already been done.
12 March 2010
7 October 2009
____________________
Appeal allowed and the judgment of the High Court is restored. Costs $15,000 plus reasonable disbursements in this Court. Order for costs in the Court of Appeal is reversed. HighCourt to fix costs that that has not already been done.
12 March 2010
Transcripts
- sc 72 2009 red eagle corporation limited v ellis (PDF, 377 KB)
Media Releases
- press release red eagle corp ltd (PDF, 40 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Hearing date : 10 February 2010
Elias CJ, Blanchard, McGrath, Wilson, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Totara Investment Limited v Crismac Limited and Ulster Limited
Case number
SC 75/2009
Summary
Civil – Interpretation of a mortgage - Whether the Court of Appeal erred as a matter of fact and law in finding that cl 9.1(d) of the mortgage did not authorise the lender to obtain security over additional property.[2009] NZCA 369 CA 599/2008 21 August 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
21 October 2009
______________________
tbc
21 October 2009
______________________
tbc
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, McGrath, Wilson, Anderson JJ.
Case name
The Commerce Commission v Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Limited and Telecom New Zealand
Case number
SC 76/2009
Summary
Civil – alleged breach of s 36 of the Commerce Act 1986 – the Privy Council in Telecom Corporation of New Zealand v Clear Communications [1995] 1 NZLR 385 formulated a counterfactual test (whether a hypothetical firm, not in a dominant position but otherwise in the same circumstances, would have acted as the dominant firm did) to determine whether a firm has used its dominant position in breach of s 36 – whether this test is the appropriate and necessary test for determining a breach of s 36 – if the test is reconsidered, and if the question is assessed on a factual enquiry rather than solely by apply a counterfactual analysis, whether Telecom used its dominant position in the national retail market in breach of s 36 – alternatively, whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that, on application of the counterfactual test, the Commission had not demonstrated that Telecom had used its dominant market position in breach of s 36 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in not considering whether the High Court erred in finding that Telecom did not have an anticompetitive purpose under s 36(1) of the Act.[2009] NZCA 338 CA 288/2008 4 August 2009
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
30 October 2009
__________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant must pay the respondents costs of $50,000 plus disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
1 September 2010
Transcript
Hearing date : 21 – 24 June 2010
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ
Case name
Blair & Co Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council
Case number
SC 82/2009
Summary
Civil – negligence – the Court of Appeal struck out a claim against the Queenstown Lakes District Council by the owner of a commercial building – the claim alleged negligence in the course of the approval and building process resulting in a defect in the building that caused loss to the owner – whether it is reasonably arguable that the Council owed a duty of care to the building owner to exercise reasonable skill and care in the performance of its statutory functions and responsibilities under the Building Act 1991.[2009] NZCA 374 CA 441/2008 25 August 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
24 November 2009
____________________
Leave to appeal is revoked. The appellant is ordered to pay the respondent costs of $7,500, together with reasonable disbursements incurred prior to the abandonment by Charterhall Trustees Ltd of its appeal (SC 81/2009).
22 April 2010
24 November 2009
____________________
Leave to appeal is revoked. The appellant is ordered to pay the respondent costs of $7,500, together with reasonable disbursements incurred prior to the abandonment by Charterhall Trustees Ltd of its appeal (SC 81/2009).
22 April 2010
Transcripts
- sc 82 2009 blair co v queenstown lakes (PDF, 461 KB)
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Case name
Phillip Michael McMaster v The Queen
Case number
SC 91/2009
Summary
Criminal appeal – appeal against convictions for aggravated robbery and unlawfully taking a motor vehicle – whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the evidence of two co-accused was insufficiently cogent to give rise to a miscarriage of justice when the Crown case identifying the applicant as a participant in the offending was reliant on a third co-accused who was motivated to give false evidence to minimise his role in the offending.[2009] NZCA 393 CA 608/2008 9 September 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 10 February 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MCMASTER V R SC 91/2009 11 February 2010 (PDF, 9 KB)
Transcript
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Ludgater Holdings Limited v Gerling Australia Insurance Company Pty Limited
Case number
SC 92/2009
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in applying s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936, namely whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the respondent had a sufficient presence in New Zealand and whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction – whether s 9 has an extraterritorial effect – whether, if the High Court does have jurisdiction, the Court in the exercise of its discretion should decline or allow jurisdiction[2009] NZCA 397 CA 546/2008 11 September 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
16 December 2009
___________________________
Appeal dismissed. Cost to respondent $15,000 plus reasonable disbursements.
11 May 2010
16 December 2009
___________________________
Appeal dismissed. Cost to respondent $15,000 plus reasonable disbursements.
11 May 2010
Media Releases
- press release ludgater (PDF, 38 KB)
Substantive judgment
Leave judgment - leave granted
sc 92 2009 ludgater holdings leave judgment (PDF, 36 KB)
Transcript
Judgment appealed from
Case name
The Queen v George Evans Gwaze
Case number
SC 93/2009
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against case stated decision – Whether Court of Appeal majority erred in concluding that the trial Judge’s decision to allow inadmissible hearsay “evidence” was an error of fact rather than an error of law and that therefore the case stated provisions of the Crimes Act 1961 were not engaged – Whether the Court of Appeal President erred in concluding that the Crown could succeed on an appeal under ss 380 and 380 of the Crimes Act 1961 in this case only if “To set aside the acquittal and direct a new trial would not be an unacceptable derogation from the spirit of the rule against double jeopardy”.[2009] NZCA 430 CA 90/2009 24 September 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
23 November 2009
______________________
A The appeal is allowed and the acquittals are quashed. B A new trial is directed under s 382(2)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961. C A certified direction for new trial will issue to the Registrar of the High Court at Christchurch with the consequences provided for by ss 380(4) and 382(4) of the Crimes Act.
17 May 2010
23 November 2009
______________________
A The appeal is allowed and the acquittals are quashed. B A new trial is directed under s 382(2)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961. C A certified direction for new trial will issue to the Registrar of the High Court at Christchurch with the consequences provided for by ss 380(4) and 382(4) of the Crimes Act.
17 May 2010
Transcripts
- sc 93 2009 the queen v george evans gwaze (PDF, 539 KB)
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
R v GWAZE SC 93/2009 [23 November 2009] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
R v GWAZE SC 93/2009 [17 May 2010] (PDF, 167 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 25 February 2010
Elias CJ, Blanchard, McGrath, Wilson J.
Judgment appealed from
Page 21 of 33