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.
23 December 2024
Case information summary 2024 (as at 23 December 2024) – Cases where leave granted (126 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 23 December 2024) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 116 KB)
All years
Case name
VM v The Queen
Case number
SC 2/2011
Summary
Criminal – Summary Proceedings Act 1957 – validity and scope of search warrants – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the validity of search warrants issued under s 198 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957; whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that s 198 of the Summary Proceedings Act can be used to authorise surveillance on private land – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – unreasonable search and seizure – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the police in this case did not breach s 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Evidence Act 2006 – admissibility of evidence – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its undertaking of the s 30 balancing exercise and in concluding that the evidence in dispute was admissible at trial[2010] NZCA 528 CA 820/2010 19 November 2010
Result
The appeal is allowed in part. The video surveillance evidence (other than footage of vehicles on Reid Road) is inadmissible against those appellants. All the other disputed evidence is admissible against them.
2 September 2011.
2 September 2011.
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
HAMED v R SC 125/2010 [2 September 2011] (PDF, 551 KB)
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved grounds are whether the challenged evidence was lawfully obtained under s 198 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 or was, alternatively, properly admissible pursuant to s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006.
25 March 2011
Hearing
3 and 4 May 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Case name
Taito Phillip Hans Field
Case number
SC 3/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Corruption and Bribery – Whether the Court of Appeal adopted the wrong test for corruptly obtaining a bribe under s 103 Crimes Act 1961 – Whether Court of Appeal applied the wrong test for attempting to obstruct or pervert the course of justice – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding appellant was not deprived of right to a fair trial and no miscarriage had resulted through admission of evidence from ministerial inquiry – Whether Court of Appeal was wrong to dismiss appeal against sentence.[2010] NZCA 556 CA 681/2009 26 November 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal has in [2010] NZCA 556 correctly stated the test for corruptly accepting a bribe in terms of s 103 of the Crimes Act 1961.
17 March 2011
____________________
Appeal dismissed.
27 October 2011
17 March 2011
____________________
Appeal dismissed.
27 October 2011
Transcripts
- Hearing date 21 June 2011 SC 3/2011 (PDF, 564 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2011] NZSC 129 (PDF, 92 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
FIELD v R SC 3/2011 [17 March 2011] (PDF, 10 KB)
Substantive judgment
FIELD v R SC 3/2011 [27 October 2011] (PDF, 243 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
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
- sc 4 2011 mandic lisa marie anor v cornwall park (PDF, 634 KB)
Media Releases
- media release mandic dohnt (PDF, 90 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Gary Morell v The Queen
Case number
SC 5/2011
Summary
Criminal appeal – Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the appellant had no interest in the property and thus had no standing to appeal against the proceeds of its sale vesting in Mascot Finance Ltd – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was no right of appeal under s 82 of the Proceeds of Crime Act.[2010] NZCA 570 CA 448/2010 30 November 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MORELL v R SC 5/2011 [19 April 2011] (PDF, 36 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
19 April 2011.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Heron and others
Case number
SC 6/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Procedure – Whether the Court of Appeal’ s holding that there is no automatic right of appeal against a High Court order fixing security for costs is consistent with natural justice – Whether the Court of Appeal addressed the appellant’s arguments – Whether the fact that r 20.13(2) of the High Court Rules was adopted by the Rules Committee has International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights implications.[2010] NZCA 610 CA 190/2010 14 December 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The ground approved is whether leave of the Court of Appeal was required under s 67 of the Judicature Act for the applicant’s appeal against security for costs fixed by order of the High Court or whether appeal was available as of right under s 66 of the Judicature Act.
30 March 2011
_______________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs reserved.
8 November 2011
________________________
Application for recall of judgment of 8 November 2011 is dismissed.
Both applications for costs are dismissed.
9 December 2011
________________________
2nd Application for recall - dismissed.
14 December 2011
________________________
Abuse of process. Dismissed. No further application in relation to [2011] NZSC 133 to be accepted by the Registry.
21 May 2021
30 March 2011
_______________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs reserved.
8 November 2011
________________________
Application for recall of judgment of 8 November 2011 is dismissed.
Both applications for costs are dismissed.
9 December 2011
________________________
2nd Application for recall - dismissed.
14 December 2011
________________________
Abuse of process. Dismissed. No further application in relation to [2011] NZSC 133 to be accepted by the Registry.
21 May 2021
Recall judgment
9 December 2011 Recall and costs (PDF, 48 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 15 August 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ
Case name
Jane Chapman Siemer v Kate Fardell as executrix of the estate of John Robert Fortesque Fardell
Case number
SC 7/2011
Summary
Civil – Pre-trial security for costs – Appeal against a Court of Appeal decision refusing to dispense with security for costs in an appeal before that Court – Whether the procedure adopted by the Court lacked procedural fairness – Whether the Court properly exercised discretion – Whether the Court’s ruling wrong on the merits – Section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether right to justice at trial court level violated. [2010] NZCA 586 CA 450/2010 3 December 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIEMER v FARDELL SC 7/2011 [31 March 2011] (PDF, 48 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
31 March 2011.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassny and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 8/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Defamation – Injunctions – Whether High Court correct to strike out appellant’s application to vary/set aside injunction as abuse of process – Whether Court of Appeal properly addressed leave question of extension of time to file appeal –Whether Court of Appeal dealt with substantive issues not properly the subject of leave hearing.[2010] NZCA 607 CA 692/2010 14 December 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
The Application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
9 May 2011.
Case name
Gary Owen Burgess v Susan Natalie Beaven
Case number
SC 9/2011
Summary
Civil – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Relationship Property – Whether Court of Appeal took correct approach to overturning lower court decisions and costs orders – Whether relationship property was correctly assessed under the Property (Relationships) Act, and a division of relationship property inconsistent with the Act has eventuated.[2010] NZCA 625 CA 371/2009 20 December 2010
Result
1 We grant leave to appeal and cross-appeal (and an extension of time in relation to the cross-appeal). 2 The approved grounds of appeal and cross-appeal proceed on the basis that the Court of Appeal’s assessment under s 14(2)(c) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 in favour of equal sharing was correct and are as follows: (a) was the Court of Appeal in error in adopting separation date values; (b) was there any logical or arithmetical error in the Court of Appeal’ s identification and valuation of the relationship property and its allowances for post-separation contributions; (c) should the Court of Appeal have made consequential orders in respect of the costs ordered in relation to earlier judgments and money paid by Mr Burgess to Ms Beaven; and (d) what, if any, additional or other orders are required.
22 September 2011
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed and the cross-appeal is dismissed.
B Orders B, C and D of the decision of the Court of Appeal [2010] NZCA 625 are set aside.
C The awards of costs made against Mr Burgess by John Hansen J in the Stream A litigation are set aside and in their place Mr Burgess is awarded $5,000 costs in respect of the first appeal to the High Court heard by John Hansen J.
D Ms Beaven’s gross liability to Mr Burgess is:
(a) Balance due on division of property 3,716.10
(b) Refund of money paid to Ms Beaven 36,804.31
(c) Costs and disbursements on first appeal 5,000
Total 45,520.41
E Ms Beaven is entitled to set off outstanding awards of costs in her favour totalling $15,474.16 against her gross liability producing a net figure which she must pay, and on which Mr Burgess may now execute judgment of $30,046.25. Interest will run on that sum from the date of this judgment in terms of r 11.27 of the High Court Rules.
F Ms Beaven is to pay Mr Burgess usual disbursements in relation to this appeal.
9 August 2012
22 September 2011
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed and the cross-appeal is dismissed.
B Orders B, C and D of the decision of the Court of Appeal [2010] NZCA 625 are set aside.
C The awards of costs made against Mr Burgess by John Hansen J in the Stream A litigation are set aside and in their place Mr Burgess is awarded $5,000 costs in respect of the first appeal to the High Court heard by John Hansen J.
D Ms Beaven’s gross liability to Mr Burgess is:
(a) Balance due on division of property 3,716.10
(b) Refund of money paid to Ms Beaven 36,804.31
(c) Costs and disbursements on first appeal 5,000
Total 45,520.41
E Ms Beaven is entitled to set off outstanding awards of costs in her favour totalling $15,474.16 against her gross liability producing a net figure which she must pay, and on which Mr Burgess may now execute judgment of $30,046.25. Interest will run on that sum from the date of this judgment in terms of r 11.27 of the High Court Rules.
F Ms Beaven is to pay Mr Burgess usual disbursements in relation to this appeal.
9 August 2012
Media Releases
- sc 9 2011 burgess v beaven media release (PDF, 84 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
BURGESS v BEAVEN SC 9/2011 [22 September 2011] (PDF, 106 KB)
Substantive judgment
BURGESS v BEAVEN SC 9/2011 [9 August 2012] (PDF, 193 KB)
Transcript
Blanchard, Tipping, William Young, Chambers, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Erin Alice Leigh v The Attorney-General and Lindsay Gow
Case number
SC 10/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Defamation – the applicant claims damages for defamation against the then Minister for the Environment and Deputy Secretary of the Ministry in relation to statements made about her in a Briefing Paper and orally – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 precluded the applicant from relying on republication of the statements in the House of Representatives to show the nature and extent of consequential damage from the original written and oral statements[2010] NZCA 624 CA 483/2009 17 December 2010
Dates
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
8 April 2011
Case name
The Attorney-General and Lindsay Gow v Erin Alice Leigh
Case number
SC 11/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Defamation Act 1992 – Absolute Privilege – whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Briefing Paper and oral statements did not form part of the “proceedings in the House of Representatives” and therefore were not protected by absolute privilege[2010] NZCA 624 CA 483/2009 17 December 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the communications by Mr Gow to the Minister for the Environment were the subject of absolute privilege.
11 April 2011
___________________
Appeal dismissed.
16 September 2011
11 April 2011
___________________
Appeal dismissed.
16 September 2011
Media Releases
- sc 11 2011 the attorney general v gow leigh (PDF, 54 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Substantive judgmen / Media release
Judgment appealed from
Page 176 of 252