Subscribe to the RSS feed Print this page

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.

24 June 2024

Case information summary 2024 (as at 21 June 2024) –  Cases where leave granted (121 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 21 June 2024)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 125 KB)

All years

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.
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.
Leave judgment - leave granted
HAMED and OTHERS v R SC 125/2010 and Others [24 March 2011] (PDF, 84 KB)
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
Media Releases
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)
Transcript

Hearing date : 21 June 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Dates

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
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
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
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
Media Releases
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

Hearing date : 23 April 2012

Blanchard, Tipping, William Young, Chambers, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Liam James Reid v The Queen
Case number
SC 16/2011
Summary
Criminal appeal – application for leave to appeal out of time – possible fresh evidence.[2009] NZCA 281  CA 794/2008  7 July 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
REID v R SC 16/2011 [28 February 2012] (PDF, 47 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
28 February 2012.
Case name
Alex Kwong Wong v The Queen
Case number
SC 17/2011
Summary
Criminal – Appeal out of time against conviction for importation and possession of methamphetamine – Whether the Court failed to provide a proper interpreter at, or interpretation of, the trial – Interlocutory application under ss 25(2) and 28 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 and/or rule 18 of the Supreme Court Rules 2004 – Request for an interlocutory order that the Auckland High Court Registry release a copy of all audio recordings of Mr Wong at trial to support this application.CRI 2005 004 15296  1 May 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
WONG v R SC 17/2011 [11 March 2011] (PDF, 46 KB)
Recall judgment
ALEX KWONG WONG v R [2014] NZSC 171 [25 November 201 (PDF, 52 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

11 March 2011.
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
Lynette Kaye Stewart v The Queen
Case number
SC 28/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sexual Offences – Party Liability – Applicant convicted as party to sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection – Court of Appeal allowed new medical evidence in principal offender’ s appeal and quashed principal offender’s conviction ordering re-trial – Whether quashing of principal offender’s conviction renders applicant’ s conviction unsafe.CA 515/2005
Result
Appeal allowed. Conviction quashed.  No order for new trial. 2 June 2011.
Leave judgment - leave granted
STEWART v R SC 28/2011 [12 May 2011] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
STEWART v R SC 28/2011 [2 June 2011 (PDF, 56 KB)
Hearing

2 June 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Dates

A  The application for leave to appeal is granted.

B  The approved ground is whether the conviction can stand in light of the quashing of the conviction of the person with whom the appellant was jointly charged and her discharge under s 347 of the Crimes Act 1961.

12 May 2011
Page 51 of 79