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.

28 November 2025

Case information summary 2025 (as at 28 November 2025) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary 2025 (as at 28 November 2025)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 120 KB)

All years

Case name
Kevin Tito v Aroha Tito and John Andrew
Case number
SC 92/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Trusts – Whether there was a breach of the Trust Order in relation to the election of trustees – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in accepting this breach of the Trust Order – Whether the Court of Appeal should have considered further the issue relating to a respondent’s receipt of trust monies – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the applicant was seeking the removal of the respondents as trustees – Whether the Trust has failed to act in the interests of the owners.   [2012] NZCA 493    CA 856/2011
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
14 March 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TITO v TITO & ANOR SC 92/2012 [14 March 2013] (PDF, 59 KB)
Case name
Te Rangikaiwhiria Kemara v The Queen
Case number
SC 93/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 66(2) – Parties to offences – Arms Act 1983, s 45 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in rejecting the appellants’ submission that the reverse onus in s 45(2) of the Arms Act did not apply to a party to an offence – Whether Police illegality in gathering evidence admitted at the trial should have been taken into account as a mitigating factor in sentencing.    [2012] NZCA 492    CA 363/2012
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
Ian Campbell Macpherson v The Queen
Case number
SC 94/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 340(3)  – Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 6(1)(b)  – Sentencing Act 2002, s 142N – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Court’s refusal to sever the applicant’s trial from that of his co-accused did not lead to a miscarriage of justice – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant’ s conduct (of rubbing his hands together after handling dried cannabis plant thus collecting cannabis resin) changed the cannabis plant that he had harvested into another controlled substance, thus falling within the meaning of  “ to produce” under s 6(1)(b) of the Misuse of Drugs Act – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding, in part, an order for forfeiture of a portion of the applicant’s property under s 142N of the Sentencing Act.[2012] NZCA 522     CA 643/2011
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
14 March 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MACPHERSON v R SC 94/2012 [14 March 2013] (PDF, 55 KB)
Case name
Kovinantie Vahafolua Fukofuka v The Queen
Case number
SC 95/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 126(2)(a) – Judicial warnings about identification evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred through the trial Judge’s failure to sum up in terms of s 126(2)(a). [2012] NZCA 510     CA 216/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted. 
B The approved ground is: was the Court of Appeal correct to find no substantial miscarriage of justice occurred despite the error in the Judge’s direction under s 126 of the Evidence Act 2006? 
18 April 2013
________________
tc
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
KOVINANTIE VAHAFOLUA FUKOFUKA V R SC 95/2012 [18 April 2013] (PDF, 30 KB)
Substantive judgment
FUKOFUKA v R [2013] NZSC 77 [16 August 2013] (PDF, 150 KB)
Case name
Jamie Ahsin v The Queen
Case number
SC 96/2012
Summary
Criminal appeal – Appeal against conviction – Crimes Act 1961, s 66(1) – Party to murder –Providing assistance to principal offender – Concept of withdrawal – Whether Court of Appeal was correct that appellant’s actions could not amount to a withdrawal of assistance[2011] NZCA 75     CA 133/2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved question is whether the trial judge should have directed the jury as to withdrawal in relation to s 66(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1961.
11 March 2013
____________________
Appeal allowed, conviction quashed.
New trial ordered.
30 October 2014
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
AHSIN v R SC 96/2012 [11 March 2013] (PDF, 7 KB)
Supreme court decision
JAMIE NGAHUIA AHSIN v R AND RAELEEN MATEWAI NOYLE RAMEKA v R [2014] NZSC 153 [30 October 2014] (PDF, 761 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
Sst V The New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 99/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003, s 38 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant was in custody at the time that the s 38 reports were ordered – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Judge sufficiently examined the evidence in determining that the applicant was fit to plead.  [2012] NZCA 544   CA394/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
26 February 2013.
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
Mohammad Hamidzadeh v The Queen
Case number
SC 101/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against sentence – Sentencing Act 2002, ss 102 and 104 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its approach to sentence – Whether imposition of life sentence was manifestly unjust – Whether imposition of minimum period of imprisonment of 15 years six months was manifestly unjust – Whether Court of Appeal correctly assessed the role of provocation in sentencing for murder convictions given abolition of partial defence of provocation.  [2012] NZCA 550  CA 627/2011
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
HAMIDZADEH v R SC 101/2012 [16 April 201 (PDF, 52 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
16 April 2013.
Case name
HP v The Queen
Case number
SC 1/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against Conviction – Evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that no warning needed to be given to the jury in this case regarding allegedly unreliable evidence under s 122 of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal’s approach in R v Taylor [2010] NZCA 69 to s 122 directions is correct –  Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining an application to adduce fresh evidence concerning the complainant.[2010] NZCA 617  CA 178/2010  16 December  2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
HP v R SC [18 March 2011] (PDF, 49 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

18 March 2011.
Page 192 of 269