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.
12 December 2025
Case information summary 2025 (as at 18 December 2025) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary 2025 (as at 18 December 2025) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 121 KB)
All years
Case name
Carol Margaret Down v The Queen
Case number
SC 48/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991 – Summary Proceedings Act 1957 – Applicant convicted of four counts of discharge of a contaminant under s 15 RMA – Whether s 15 discharge offences are infringement offences as defined in s 2(1) SPA and therefore required leave of District Court Judge or Registrar to lay informations under s 21 SPA and also s 78A SPA applicable – Whether Court of Appeal correct to find prosecution saved in any case by s 204 SPA and did not result in a nullity.[2011] NZCA 119 CA 819/2009
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved grounds are:
(i) whether the laying of the informations on the discharge counts required leave of a District Court Judge or Registrar under s 21 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957; and
(ii) if so, whether in the absence of such leave prior to the laying of the informations the proceedings were validated by s 204 of that Act.
5 August 2011
________________________________
Appeal dismissed.
3 April 2012
The approved grounds are:
(i) whether the laying of the informations on the discharge counts required leave of a District Court Judge or Registrar under s 21 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957; and
(ii) if so, whether in the absence of such leave prior to the laying of the informations the proceedings were validated by s 204 of that Act.
5 August 2011
________________________________
Appeal dismissed.
3 April 2012
Transcripts
- Hearing date 29 November 2011 SC 48/2011 (PDF, 579 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2012] NZSC 21 (PDF, 83 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
DOWN v R SC 48/2011 [5 August 2011] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
DOWN v R SC 48/2011 (PDF, 154 KB)
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassny and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 49/2011
Summary
Civil – Costs – Defamation – Whether Court of Appeal, in considering quantum of damages awarded against applicant, erred by: not considering applicant’s substantive defence of truth; upholding finding of liability in the circumstances. [2011] NZCA 106 CA 826/2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIEMER v STIASSNY SC 49/2011 [3 June 2011] (PDF, 99 KB)
Recall judgment
SIEMER v STIASSNY SC 49/2011 [21 October 2011 (PDF, 46 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
3 June 2011.
Case name
DF v The Queen
Case number
SC 50/2011
Summary
Criminal – Admissibility of Evidence – Defective warrant – Whether the Court of Appeal gave sufficient weight to defects in the warrant application when it determined that the evidence was admissible under s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006.[2011] NZCA 151 CA 612/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 May 2011
Case name
David Ingram Rowley and Barrie James Skinner v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 51/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Name Suppression – Interim name suppression order granted in the District Court, but overturned in High Court, with a Court of Appeal majority upholding the High Court’s decision – Whether Court of Appeal majority correctly applied the test for name suppression appeals – Whether Court of Appeal majority was right to uphold the view of the High Court Judge that the possible impact on financing of a defence was an irrelevant consideration – Whether Court of Appeal majority was correct in supporting the High Court Judge’s finding that the District Court Judge had failed to take into account a relevant consideration, namely the interest in clients of the appellants in knowing of the charges faced – Whether Court of Appeal majority was justified in holding that the High Court could make its own evaluation of the factors for and against name suppression if the District Court took into account irrelevant considerations or failed to take into account a relevant consideration.[2011] NZCA 160 CA 112/2011
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is declined.
7 July 2011.
7 July 2011.
Case name
Lewis Gaire Herdman Thompson v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 52/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Tax – The appellant deregistered for GST from 30 November 1999 – Commissioner of Inland Revenue later made tax assessments on the basis that the appellant was not able to deregister at this time because of subsequent land transactions – Whether there were reasonable grounds for the Court of Appeal to make a finding of fact that the appellant would have made taxable supplies greater than $30,000 through these transactions after deregistration – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to set the end of the appellant’s GST period at 31 January 2001 instead of February 2000. [2011] NZCA 132 CA 580/2009
Result
Appeal dismissed.
Costs of $15,000 plus disbursement to the respondent.
10 May 2012.
Costs of $15,000 plus disbursement to the respondent.
10 May 2012.
Media Releases
- media release sc 52 2011 thompson v cir (PDF, 95 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
sc 52 2011 thompson v cir (PDF, 209 KB)
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is granted on the following grounds:
A When did the appellant become entitled to be de-registered for GST purposes?
B In light of that determination, and the circumstances in which they took place, did the second and third sales of land attract GST?
A When did the appellant become entitled to be de-registered for GST purposes?
B In light of that determination, and the circumstances in which they took place, did the second and third sales of land attract GST?
22 August 2011.
Hearing
1 March 2012.
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Decision reserved.
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Decision reserved.
Case name
Shane Andrew Ellis v The Queen
Case number
SC 53/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Juries Act 1981 – Applicant convicted in High Court at Wellington by jury trial on three counts of importing methamphetamine – Jury selected in accordance with Juries Act – Whether trial was unfair as jury unrepresentative of population, in particular New Zealand’ s rural population, and did not constitute trial by applicant’s peers.[2011] NZCA 90 CA 739/2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ELLIS v R SC 53/2011 [2 June 2011] (PDF, 55 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
2 June 2011.
Case name
Anthony Phillip Musson v Ministry of Fisheries
Case number
SC 55/2011
Summary
Civil – Fisheries levies – That the District Court erred in granting judgment to the Ministry of Fisheries against the appellant.Civ 2011 425 043
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs to the respondent in the sum of $1500.00 plus disbursements.
27 June 2011.
Case name
John George Russell v The Taxation Review Authority & Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 56/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Bias – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that any apparent bias on the part of Judge Barber in the Taxation Review Authority was “cured” by the effective rehearing held by Justice Wylie in the High Court – Whether the Court of Appeal took into account irrelevant matters or gave insufficient weight to relevant matters or made erroneous factual findings.[2011] NZCA 158 CA 65/2009
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 to the second respondent.
26 August 2011.
Costs $2,500 to the second respondent.
26 August 2011.
Case name
Mahana Makarini Edmonds v The Queen
Case number
SC 57/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Party offences – Section 66(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 – Appellant was convicted of manslaughter after Mr Pahau, one of his associates, killed Mr Niwa through a single stab wound inflicted by a knife - Whether the jury must be directed that knowledge of the possession of the particular type of weapon used in the commission of the principal offence is required under s 66(2). [2011] NZCA 147 CA 588/2010
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the trial Judge should have directed the jury that they could not convict the appellant unless satisfied that he knew the principal offender was carrying a knife.
15 August 2011
________________________
Appeal dismissed.
20 December 2011
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the trial Judge should have directed the jury that they could not convict the appellant unless satisfied that he knew the principal offender was carrying a knife.
15 August 2011
________________________
Appeal dismissed.
20 December 2011
Transcripts
- Hearing date 6 October 2011 SC 57/2011 (PDF, 267 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2011] NZSC 159 (PDF, 86 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
EDMONDS v R SC 57/2011 [15 August 2011] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
EDMONDS v R SC 57/2011 [20 December 2011] (PDF, 201 KB)
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
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
Transcript
Hearing dates : 20, 21 and 26 March 2012
Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Chambers JJ.
Page 198 of 269