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
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
13 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.
13 September 2011.
Case name
Specialized Bicycle Components Inc v Sheppard Industries Ltd and Avanti Bicycle Company Ltd
Case number
SC 91/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Evidence – Scope of privilege for settlement negotiations or mediation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of s 57 of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal gave proper effect to the mediation agreement and confidentiality agreement between the parties – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the respondents could adduce particular affidavit evidence and evidence of what occurred during the course of mediation.[2011] NZCA 346 CA 805/2010
Result
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
Dates
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is whether the respondents are precluded by the terms of the mediation agreement and/or the confidentiality agreement from adducing the disputed evidence.
12 October 2011.
Case name
Haiden Davis v The Queen
Case number
SC 93/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Murder – Evidence Act 2006 – Appeal against conviction – Whether trial Judge correct in the circumstances to give “lies direction” to jury under s 124 Evidence Act – Whether trial judge correct in the circumstances to give condensed version of model jury direction on unanimity (“Papadopoulos direction”).[2011] NZCA 380 CA 767/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
3 November 2011.
3 November 2011.
Case name
Rodney Mark Gibson and Habode IP Limited v Richard John Curtis and Curtis Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 94/2011
Summary
Civil – Existence of Joint Venture – Jurisdiction – Judicature Act 1908, s66 – Costs – Whether Court of Appeal exceeded its jurisdiction by hearing argument not put in issue in High Court as to existence of joint venture – Whether Court of Appeal made factual findings inconsistent with evidence presented, particularly as to the Australian company Habode Holdings Ltd – Whether Court of Appeal made factual findings for which there was no evidential basis – Whether Court of Appeal misapplied the test for determining imposition of joint venture obligations – Whether correct approach taken to costs. [2011] NZCA 373 CA 368/2010 CA 285/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal declined. Costs to respondent $2,500.
Case name
W v The Queen
Case number
SC 98/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sexual Offences – Evidence Act 2006 – Appeal against conviction – Whether Court of Appeal wrong to uphold admission at trial of expert evidence relating to “counterintuitive” evidence given by child abuse victims– Whether expert evidence met “ substantially helpful” test under s 25 Evidence Act – Whether evidence used in an inappropriately diagnostic way at trial – Whether linking by prosecutor in closing address of expert evidence with circumstances of particular complainant led to unfair trial.[2011] NZCA 191 CA 51/2009
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
8 November 2011.
8 November 2011.
Case name
SNC v The Queen
Case number
SC 101/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006 – Admissibility of evidence “improperly obtained” by police pursuant to a warrantless search – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the District Court Judge’ s decision to admit the evidence in exercise of the balancing test required by subs 30(2) of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal failed to give sufficient weight to and/or erred in its assessment of the listed factors in paras 30(3)(a), (b) and (d) of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal gave too much weight to the importance of the evidence to the case of the prosecution[2011] NZCA 402 CA 191/2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
18 October 2011.
18 October 2011.
Case name
Ricky Tamati v The Queen
Case number
SC 119/2011
Summary
Criminal – Evidence Act 2006 – jury direction – appeal against conviction on four representative charges of sexual violation and one of indecent assault – primary focus at trial had been the reliability of the evidence of the complainant who had suffered brain injury at a young age – whether the trial Judge erred in failing to warn the jury, as is permitted under s 122(1) of the Act if of the opinion that evidence admitted “may nevertheless be unreliable”, of the need for caution in deciding whether to accept the evidence of the complainant and the weight to be given to that evidence – if so, whether the failure to give a warning to the jury led to a miscarriage of justice[2010] NZCA 49 CA 440/2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
13 December 2011.
13 December 2011.
Case name
Mark Terence Pearson v The Queen
Case number
SC 125/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Section 76 of the Evidence Act 2006 – Illegitimate reasoning by jury – That the Court of Appeal was wrong to decline to interview one of the jury members at the appellant’s trial – That the application should be heard out of time. [2011] NZCA 572 CA 411/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
27 April 2012.
27 April 2012.
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
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
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Page 15 of 23