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
William  Victor George Conway  v The Queen
Case number
SC 106/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991, s 15(1)(b) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the evidence relied on by the Crown supported the conviction of the applicant on the counts alleging breach of enforcement orders – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling admissible the prior statement of the applicant where supplementary information was required to interpret correctly the content of the statement – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by effectively ruling that under s 15(1)(b) the Crown did not need to establish a real risk that the contaminant discharge onto the land might enter water – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in accepting the ruling of the trial Judge as to the verdicts which ought to have been accepted from the jury where the jury had returned verdicts of guilty on all the charges the applicant faced including the counts laid against him in the alternative[2013] NZCA 438   CA 806/2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
24 October 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
WILLIAM VICTOR GEORGE CONWAY v R [2013] NZSC 103 [24 October 2013] (PDF, 51 KB)
Case name
Arthur William Taylor v The Queen
Case number
SC 53/2012
Summary
Criminal Law – Appeal against Conviction and Sentence – Whether the Court of Appeal was in error in holding that there was a sufficient factual foundation for the charge to go to the jury – Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive (due to disproportionate uplift for previous offending or failure to take into account undue delay) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing interception evidence to be admitted – Whether the Applicant’s right of appeal was deprived (through failure to present to the Applicant a pre-trial ruling on admissibility and/or failure to offer an opportunity for the Applicant to make submissions after the hearing) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that there had been no breach of the Applicant’s right to trial without undue delay[2012]NZCA 332  CA  371/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 November 2012.
Case name
Ashley Dwayne Guy v The Queen
Case number
SC 67/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – evidence – Evidence Act 2006 – whether the transcript of an interview of the complainant (“the complainant transcript” ) was inadmissible as potentially prejudicial material – whether the complainant transcript was inadmissible as a prior inconsistent statement – whether the transcript of an interview with the accused (“the accused interview transcript”) was inadmissible – whether the trial Judge’s direction to the jury on evidence relating to the complainant was appropriate – whether the Court of Appeal erred in admitting the complainant and accused interview transcripts given the fact neither counsel nor the trial Judge had had the opportunity to address the jury on these materials.[2012]NZCA 416  CA  69/2012.
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding no substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred, notwithstanding the error in the jury being given and reading the two interview transcripts which had not been put into evidence.
20 December 2012.

10 April 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.Decision reserved.
Rehearing directed.
14 November 2013.

7 October 2014.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan  JJ.
Decision reserved.

Appeal allowed, conviction quashed,
New trial ordered.
19 November 2014
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
ASHLEY DWAYNE GUY v R [2014] NZSC 165 [19 November 2014] (PDF, 254 KB)
Case name
P v Bridgecorp Limited (in receivership and in liquidation)
Case number
SC 87/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – evidence – contractual capacity – abuse of process – jurisdiction – discovery – conflict of interest – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to give adequate weight to the full or overall tenor of medical evidence, the context of the report writers’ briefs and the reasons for adducing these reports – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to determine the level of the applicant’s mental illness and its impact on the applicant’s contractual capacity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the application was an abuse of process – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application for particular discovery – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining leave to withdraw the admission of claim under r 15.16 of the High Court  Rules – Whether the Court of Appeal applied insufficient weight to evidence of email correspondence as indicating that the applicant was self-represented – Whether the Court of Appeal applied insufficient weight to the existence of a conflict of interest on the part of Mr Cunningham – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by focusing on economic pressure and on a test of illegitimacy in relation to any threat for unreasonable pressure.[2012] NZCA 530    CA 756/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted on the following ground: Was r 15.16 of the High Court Rules correctly applied?
15 March 2013.
__________________________________
25 July 2013.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Decision reserved.
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
P v BRIDGECORP LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) SC 87/2012 [15 March 2013] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
P (SC 87/2012) v BRIDGECORP LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) [2013] NZSC 152 [19 December 2013 (PDF, 285 KB)
Case name
Lisa Marie Colleen Mandic and Stephen Neil Dohnt
Case number
SC 4/2011
Summary
Civil – Interpretation of a Glasgow lease – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its approach and conclusions as to the interpretation of the lease’s particular rental review formula. [2010] NZCA 576  CA 787/2009   3 December  2010
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal conclusion as to the valuation methodology provided by cl 13(b) of the lease is correct.
18 March 2011
___________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellants are to pay the respondent costs of $15,000 and reasonable disbursements in connection with this appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
11 November 2011
Date of hearing
23 March 2011
Judges
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Transcripts
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
MANDIC v THE CORNWALL PARK TRUST BOARD (INC) SC 4/2011 [18 March 2011] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
MANDIC v THE CORNWALL PARK TRUST BOARD (INC) SC 4/2011 [11 November 2011] (PDF, 251 KB)
Case name
Kerry John Williams v The Queen
Case number
SC 18/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Right to a fair trial – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 24, 25; Sentencing Act 2002, s 30 – Applicant convicted by jury on charges of conspiracy to supply methamphetamine, supply and manufacture of methamphetamine – Applicant lost legal representation during the course of the trial – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant’s right to a fair trial was not impaired, as a result of the trial continuing shortly after counsel for the applicant withdrew CA 137/04  19 May 2005
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
WILLIAMS v R SC 18/2011 [9 June 2011] (PDF, 12 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

9 June 2011.
Case name
Sher Afzal Khan v Keith William Reid
Case number
SC 21/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Application to set aside bankruptcy notice – Court of Appeal declined application for an extension of time for filing the appeal ­–Mr Khan had already been adjudicated bankrupt and that adjudication was final and binding under s 61 of the Insolvency Act 2006 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and in law in considering that no satisfactory explanation had been given for initial delay and that, in any event, the present application would fail[2011] NZCA 22  CA 242/2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
KHAN v REID SC 21/2011 [1 June 2011] (PDF, 12 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with cocts of $2,500 to the respondent.

1 June 2011.
Case name
Idea Services Limited v Phillip William Dickson
Case number
SC 25/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Minimum Wage Act 1983 – Definition of ‘ work’ – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that ‘work’ includes time engaged in a ‘sleepover’ – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the appellant must pay at least the minimum wage rate for each hour of work.[2011] NZCA 14  CA 405/2010
Leave judgment - leave granted
IDEA SERVICES LIMITED v DICKSON SC 25/2011 [19 May 2011] (PDF, 35 KB)
Dates

A  The application for leave to appeal is granted.

B  The approved grounds are:

(a) Whether sleepovers constitute “work” under s 6 of the Minimum Wage Age 1983; and

(b) If so, whether the Act is complied with if an employee’ s average rate of pay over a pay period is not less than the prescribed minimum.

19 May 2011
Case name
William Patrick Jeffries v The Privacy Commissioner
Case number
SC 5/2010
Summary
Civil – Litigation privilege – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that unsolicited communication does not attract litigation privilege under s56 of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the word ‘person’ in s91(4) of the Privacy Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to apply s74 of the Evidence Act 2006 to matters before the Privacy Commissioner – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to review the Privacy Commissioner’ s decisions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not addressing s27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2009] NZCA 567  CA 339/2008  3 December 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. The approved ground is whether unsolicited communications received by the applicant while acting as a barrister are capable of attracting litigation privilege.
31 March 2010
_______________________
The appeal  is dismissed. Any claim of privilege must be referred for the determination of the Privacy Commissioner in accordance with this judgment. No order for costs is made.
12 August 2010
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
JEFFRIES v THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER SC 5/2010 [31 March 2010] (PDF, 47 KB)
Substantive judgment
JEFFRIES v THE PRIVACY COMMISSIONER SC 5/2010 [12 August 2010] (PDF, 104 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 21 July 2010

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
William Patrick Jeffries v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 22/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to give effect to the criteria for consent to overseas investment as set out in s 14A of the Overseas Investment Act 1973; Whether the “standard conditions” for granting consent imposes a continuing obligation on consent-holders to carry out the proposals they made to the Minister in order to secure such consent; Whether releasing information supplied by the appellant pursuant to s 6(c) of the Official Information Act 1982 would prejudice the maintenance of the law or would breach the appellant’s confidence.[2010] NZCA 38  CA 338/2008  26 February 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
RIDDIFORD And Anor v ATTORNEY-GENERAL SC 21/2010 [25 May 2010] (PDF, 10 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Costs $2.500 to the respondent.

26 May 2010.
Page 18 of 20