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
Peter Hardie McNamara and Patrick Sturgeon McNamara as Trustees of the PH McNamara Family Trust v Auckland City Council
Case number
SC 85/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondent did not owe a duty of care to the appellant; whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the building certificate issued by a third party was invalid under the Building Act 1991.[2010] NZCA 345 CA 457/2009 3 August 2010.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds are: Whether a local authority: (i) owes a duty of care to purchasers of units in a residential development for which a code compliance certificate was issued by a private certifier which was acting outside of its authority to issue such certificates; and/or (ii) was immunised by s 50(3) of the Building Act 1991 against liability in relation to its actions in reliance on such a certificate.
30 November 2010
____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
The appellants are to pay the respondent costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements in connection with this appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
9 May 2012
B The approved grounds are: Whether a local authority: (i) owes a duty of care to purchasers of units in a residential development for which a code compliance certificate was issued by a private certifier which was acting outside of its authority to issue such certificates; and/or (ii) was immunised by s 50(3) of the Building Act 1991 against liability in relation to its actions in reliance on such a certificate.
30 November 2010
____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
The appellants are to pay the respondent costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements in connection with this appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
9 May 2012
Transcripts
- sc 85 2010 mcnamara family trust v auckland cc (PDF, 983 KB)
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
The Queen v GKB
Case number
SC 88/2010
Summary
Criminal – Admissibility of previous consistent statements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 35(2) of the Evidence Act 2006 is not engaged until a proposed witness gives evidence at trial – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 35(2) of the Evidence Act 2006 is not engaged by reference to an accused’s pre‑trial statement to the police.[2010] NZCA 326 CA 313/2010 27 August 2010.
Result
Appeal allowed. Decision of the District Court reinstated.
17 December 2010
Hearing
7 December 2010.
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Dates
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that s 35(2) of the Evidence Act 2006 is only triggered by a challenge to veracity made at trial.
23 September 2010.
Case name
Tabbasum Mahomed v The Queen
Case number
SC 97/2010
Summary
Criminal – Failing to Provide the Necessaries of Life – Whether Court of Appeal erred in pre-trial ruling admitting certain propensity/narrative evidence against the applicant – Whether Court of Appeal in dismissing appeal erred in concluding trial Judge not required to give specific directions on propensity evidence at trial – Whether Crown was required to exclude at trial the possibility that murder injury was unsurvivable – Whether Court of Appeal wrong to find sufficient evidence to exclude that possibility.[2010] NZCA 419 CA 790/2009 14 September 2010.
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
The approved grounds are: (i) Whether the evidence concerning the child’ s being left in the car on 19 December 2007 was admissible; and (ii) If so, whether the Judge’s directions relating to that evidence were adequate.
2 November 2010
_____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
19 May 2011
The approved grounds are: (i) Whether the evidence concerning the child’ s being left in the car on 19 December 2007 was admissible; and (ii) If so, whether the Judge’s directions relating to that evidence were adequate.
2 November 2010
_____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
19 May 2011
Media Releases
- mahomed v the queen press release (PDF, 87 KB)
Substantive judgment
MAHOMED v R SC 97/2010, SC 117/2010 [19 May 2011] (PDF, 321 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 17 February 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Westpac New Zealand Limited v Map & Associates Limited
Case number
SC 98/2010
Summary
Civil – Knowing assistance in breach of trust – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that Westpac did not have reason to refuse to follow the instructions of its account holder – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 87 of the Judicature Act 1908.[2010] NZCA 404 CA 193/2009 6 September 2010.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that Westpac had breached its mandate.
C The application for leave to cross-appeal is refused.
2 February 2011
_______________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $15,000.00 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.
16 August 2011
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that Westpac had breached its mandate.
C The application for leave to cross-appeal is refused.
2 February 2011
_______________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $15,000.00 plus disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.
16 August 2011
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Stephen Thomas Hudson v The Queen
Case number
SC 100/2010
Summary
[2010] NZCA 417 CA 51/2010 13 September 2010.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The permitted grounds of appeal are whether:
(i) the evidence in relation to previous acts of violence involving the appellant; and
(ii) the evidence of admissions by the appellant to witnesses that he was responsible for the deceased’s murder should have been admitted at the trial and if so whether adequate directions to the jury in respect of such evidence were given by the trial Judge.
15 December 2010
__________________________
Appeal dismissed. 19 May 2011
B The permitted grounds of appeal are whether:
(i) the evidence in relation to previous acts of violence involving the appellant; and
(ii) the evidence of admissions by the appellant to witnesses that he was responsible for the deceased’s murder should have been admitted at the trial and if so whether adequate directions to the jury in respect of such evidence were given by the trial Judge.
15 December 2010
__________________________
Appeal dismissed. 19 May 2011
Media Releases
- hudson press summary1 (PDF, 88 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
HUDSON v R SC 100/2010 [15 December 2010] (PDF, 36 KB)
Substantive judgment
HUDSON v R SC 100/2010 [19 May 2011] (PDF, 223 KB)
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
DJB v The Queen
Case number
SC 114/2010
Summary
Criminal – Evidence Act 2006 – Admissibility of prior consistent statements – whether the complainant’s prior consistent statements to third parties, led in evidence in chief within a video interview, were admissible in application of s 35(2) of the Act – Admissibility of statements made by the defendant – whether evidence given by the complainant’ s mother of a statement made by the defendant should have been excluded on the basis that the risk of an unfairly prejudicial effect on the proceeding outweighed its limited probative value pursuant to s 8 of the Act[2010] NZCA 493 CA 110/2010 29 October 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the evidence of complaints to two family members was admissible.
25 February 2011
____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
9 June 2011
25 February 2011
____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
9 June 2011
Media Releases
- sc114 2010 media release (PDF, 85 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
B v R SC 114/2010 [25 February 2011] (PDF, 137 KB)
Substantive judgment
B(SC 114/2010) v R SC 114/2010 [9 June 2011] (PDF, 66 KB)
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Azeeez Mahomed v The Queen
Case number
SC 117/2010
Summary
Criminal – Murder – Whether Court of Appeal erred in pre-trial ruling admitting certain propensity/narrative evidence against the applicant – Whether Court of Appeal in dismissing appeal erred in concluding trial Judge not required to give specific directions on propensity evidence at trial – Whether evidence of applicant’s low intellectual capacity and wife’s post-natal depression should have been admitted at trial – Whether trial Judge was entitled to comment on applicant’s decision not to give evidence – Whether new evidence of accident purportedly explaining daughter’s injuries should be admitted.[2010] NZCA 419 CA 779/2009 14 September 2010.
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted,
The approved grounds are:
(i) Whether the evidence concerning the child’s being left in the car on 19 December 2007 was admissible; and
(ii) If so, whether the Judge’s directions relating to that evidence were adequate.
8 February 2011
__________________________
Appeal dismissed.
19 May 2011
The approved grounds are:
(i) Whether the evidence concerning the child’s being left in the car on 19 December 2007 was admissible; and
(ii) If so, whether the Judge’s directions relating to that evidence were adequate.
8 February 2011
__________________________
Appeal dismissed.
19 May 2011
Media Releases
- mahomed v the queen press release (PDF, 87 KB)
Substantive judgment
MAHOMED v R SC 97/2010, SC 117/2010 [19 May 2011] (PDF, 321 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 17 February 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
OH v The Queen
Case number
SC 125/2010
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 825/2009 19 November 2010
Result
The appeal 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
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
Karen McGrath v Accident Compensation Corporation
Case number
SC 127/2010
Summary
Civil – Accident Compensation Act 2001 – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that the ACC had a reasonable basis under s 110(3) Accident Compensation Act to require the Applicant to undergo a vocational independence assessment.[2010] NZCA 535 CA 302/2009 19 November 2010
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal in [2010] NZCA 535 has correctly interpreted and applied s 110(3) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001.
8 March 2011
___________________
A The appeal is allowed and the notice given on 9 September 2008 by the Accident Compensation Corporation is quashed.
B Costs are reserved. Counsel may file memoranda if necessary.
7 July 2011
B The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal in [2010] NZCA 535 has correctly interpreted and applied s 110(3) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001.
8 March 2011
___________________
A The appeal is allowed and the notice given on 9 September 2008 by the Accident Compensation Corporation is quashed.
B Costs are reserved. Counsel may file memoranda if necessary.
7 July 2011
Media Releases
- sc 127 2010 karen mcgrath v acc press release (PDF, 84 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young J.
Case name
TWI and others v The Queen
Case number
SC 128/2010 ; 129/2010; 130/2010; 131/2010; 132/2010; 133/2010/ 135/2010; 138/2010; 139/2010
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 497 CA 809/2009 19 November 2010
Result
A The appeals of Mr Tame Iti, Mr Te Rangiwhiria Kemara, Mr Urs Signer and Ms Emily Bailey are dismissed. B The appeals of the other appellants are 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
Supreme court decision
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.
Page 50 of 68