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
David Mitchell v Bluestar Print Group (NZ) Limited
Case number
SC 74/2011
Summary
[2010] NZCA 385   CA 504/2009
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
22 September 2011.
Case name
Robert Frank Terry v Rosalind Megan McLellan and The Public Trustee
Case number
SC 75/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Public Trustee powers – That the High Court failed to take into account the fact that directions in previous proceedings between the parties had not been followed – That the High Court made various errors of fact and law.Civ  2010 4189 123
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
30 August 2011.
Case name
Marcell Sydney Geros v The Queen
Case number
SC 77/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Conviction – Whether defence counsel advice to plead guilty caused a miscarriage of justice – Whether defence counsel prevented relevant evidence being adduced – Sentencing – Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive – Application for bail to prepare the case.[2011] NZCA 122  CA 321/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
16 September 2011.
Case name
Paul Robert Devcich and others v AMI Insurance Limited
Case number
SC 78/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Insurance – Arson – Applicant claims indemnification against respondent insurer for fire damage and stolen property in respect of deliberately started fire at his Auckland property – Whether Court of Appeal correct to find on civil standard of proof that applicant himself responsible for starting fire – Whether Court of Appeal wrong to find that High Court’s approach did not apply an appropriate standard of proof and imposed too high a standard for respondent to meet – Whether Court of Appeal did not defer appropriately to High Court’s factual findings.[2011] NZCA 266   CA 522/2010
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 to the respondent.
30 August 2011.
Case name
NV Sumatra Tobacco Trading Company v New Zealand Milk Brands Limited
Case number
SC 79/2011
Summary
Civil – Intellectual Property – Trademark registration – Trade Marks Act 2002 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in not allowing registration of appellant’s mark in relation to tea, cocoa, chocolate, artificial coffee, flavourings for beverages and non-dairy creamer – Whether Court of Appeal misdirected itself on “similar goods” in the context of s 25(1)(b) and (c) of the Trade Marks Act 2002 – Relevance of test in British Sugar Plc v James Robertson & Sons Ltd [1996] RPC 281 (Ch) under the Trade Marks Act 2002. [2011] NZCA 264   CA 25/2009
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $2,500. 

22 September 2011
Case name
Clayton Robert Weatherston v The Queen
Case number
SC 81/2011
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction for murder – Impact of media statements on fair trial rights of applicant – whether the applicant’ s trial was rendered unfair as a consequence of media statements made during the trial – whether the directions of the trial Judge to the jury were sufficient to overcome the prejudice resulting from the media coverage – whether the Court of Appeal erred in requiring the applicant to demonstrate that a juror may have seen or read the coverage in issue – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the trial Judge’s post-trial conference address – Evidence Act 2006, s 92 – whether the Crown was obliged to put to the applicant on cross-examination the divergence of his evidence of events by comparison with that of other witnesses, if it intended to take issue with his version – Evidence Act 2006, ss 37 and 38 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding ss 37 and 38 did not apply to the Crown’s cross-examination of the applicant which aimed to establish his propensity to lie – Admission of photographs of victim’s wounds – whether the Court of Appeal erred in admitting photographs of stab wounds when the purpose for which that evidence was tendered could have been met by computer graphic reconstructions and diagrams[2011] NZCA 276   CA 648/2009
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
13 September 2011
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
Pawel Marian Misiuk v The Queen
Case number
SC 83/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Bail Act 2000 – Defendant convicted on various charges and sentenced to imprisonment of four years and one month – Bail denied by High Court and Court of Appeal pending appeal against conviction and sentence – Whether applicant should be granted bail – Whether Court of Appeal Judge should not have sat on bail hearing because of misconduct alleged by applicant in related hearing – Whether Court of Appeal Judge failed to consider relevant evidence.[2011] NZCA 323    CA 397/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
13 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
Otehei Bay Holdings Limited and Explore NZ (2004) Limited v Fuller Bay of Islands Limited, Intercity Group (NZ) Limited and Minister of Conservation
Case number
SC 85/2011
Summary
Civil – Reserves and Domains Act 1953 – Reserves Act 1977 – Conservation Act 1987, Part 3B – That the appellants’ lease was not brought within the jurisdiction of the Reserves and Domains Act 1953 when the Crown acquired Urupukapuka Island (where the appellant’s leasehold is situated) as a recreation reserve – That s 59A of the Reserves Act 1977 does not apply to the appellants’ lease, and no concession under Part 3B of the Conservation Act 1987 is required to render the appellant’ s lease lawful.[2011] NZCA 300    CA 57/2010, CA 684/2010
Dates

A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B  The approved grounds of appeal are:
(i) Was the lease at Otehei Bay brought within the jurisdiction of the Reserves and Domains Act 1953 upon the Crown’ s acquisition of Urupukapuka Island as a recreation reserve in 1970?
(ii)  Does s 59A of the Reserves Act 1977, as inserted by the Reserves Amendment Act 1996, apply to the lease at Otehei Bay?
C The approved grounds are intended to comprehend the sub issues referred to in the submissions of the third respondent dated 15 September, namely:
(i) Is the lease a perpetually renewable lease which has been extended since its creation, or is it one where a new lease has been entered into each time it has been extended or renewed?
(ii)  What is the effect of the 10 to 15 year period where the lease may not have been renewed by the parties?

29 September 2011.
Hearing

Notice of abandonment being filed, the appeal  is deemed to be dismissed.

26 July 2012.
Page 200 of 269