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
Stephen William Garret v The Queen
Case number
SC 57/2008
Summary
Criminal - Appeal against sentence – Grievous bodily harm with intent to injure – Whether 3½ years imprisonment manifestly excessive for vigilante attack given early offer of guilty plea to lesser charge of which ultimately convicted and $20,000 reparation payment as requested by victim – Whether sentencing Judge erred in law in finding appellant had leadership role in operation.[2008] NZCA 294   CA 176/2008    12 August 2008
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 October 2008.
Case name
Christopher James Fullbeck Mosley v The Queen
Case number
SC 58/2008
Summary
Criminal appeal – trial took place with ten jurors – whether the Court of Appeal erred in confirming that there were “exceptional circumstances relating to the trial” which justified continuing with ten jurors under s 374 Crimes Act 1961 – whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to conclude that s 374(8) excluded a right to review the trial Judge’ s decision to discharge the 12th and 11th jurors.[2008] NZCA 319  CA 612/2007     25 August 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

17 November 2008.

Case name
Kelly Te Peeti Ringi v The Queen
Case number
SC 59/2008
Summary
Criminal – Sexual violation - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the evidence supported the conviction – whether the Appellant had inadequate representation at trial and in the Court of Appeal. [2008] NZCA 293 CA33/2008 12 August 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates

Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

11 February 2009

Case name
Alfred Taenga Mata v The Queen
Case number
SC 60/2008
Summary
Criminal appeal – Supreme Court Act s 14 – leap-frog appeal against District Court judgment – whether exceptional circumstances exist so as to justify taking the appeal directly to the Supreme Court.Evidence Act 2006 s 43 – District Court judgment ruled that certain “propensity” evidence is admissible at the applicant’s up-coming trial for robbery – the incident of propensity that the Crown sought to adduce occurred one year later than the incident that is the subject of the current proceedings, and resulted in charges being brought against the applicant – whether a non-proven criminal allegation is capable of being used as propensity evidence – whether, in deciding whether propensity evidence should be admitted under s 43, courts are required to follow common law principles – whether the specific robbery allegation sought to be adduced as propensity evidence meets the threshold of similar fact evidence that can be considered as an “other matter” when assessing the prejudicial effect of the evidence under s 43(4).CRI 2007-092-006967 14th August 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed. 

15 September 2008

Case name
Shane Edward Williams v The Queen
Case number
SC 61/2008
Summary
Criminal appeal – appeal against conviction – conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine – section 25(b) New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – whether High Court Judge should have stayed the criminal proceedings after making finding of undue delay in bringing the applicant to trial – stay granted in relation to eight co-accused – whether applicant should have received same remedy.[2008] NZCA 296 CA 664/2007 12 August 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
3 November 2008
________________________
Appeal dismissed.
15 May 2009
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Ferrier Hodgson and Michael Peter Stiassny
Case number
SC 62/2008
Summary
Civil Appeal – Civil Procedure – Defamation Act 1992 – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 14 and 27 – Miscarriage of Justice – Whether Court of Appeal erred in dismissing appeal against order of High Court striking out parts of the Applicant’s defamation claim – Whether conflict of interest created by Court of Appeal Judge’s decision not to recuse himself – Whether High Court Rule change allowing documents to be referred to by a “generic description” compromised discovery process.[2008] NZCA 255CA 226/2007 24 July 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

19 November 2008
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Solicitor General
Case number
SC 63/2008
Summary
Civil – applicant found in contempt of court and committed to prison – appeal against Court of Appeal decision dismissing application for stay of execution of imprisonment – whether Court of Appeal erred in its consideration of the legal criteria for such an application.[2008] NZCA 369 CA 447/2008 16 September 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
17 October 2008.
Case name
Slawomir Ryszard Bujak v Solicitor-General
Case number
SC 64/2008
Summary
Civil – Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that an order for the seizure of property in Poland could be registered in New Zealand under s 55 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal matters Act 1992.[2008] NZCA 334  CA 679/2008  11 September 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
11 November 2008
_____________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
15 May 2009
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Vector Gas Limited v Bay of Plenty Electricity Limited
Case number
SC 65/2008
Summary
Civil appeal – contract interpretation – interpretation of an Interim agreement to preserve gas supply until decision made as to the validity of a termination of gas distribution agreement between the Vector Gas Limited (“NGC”) and Bay of Plenty Energy Limited (“BoPE” )– whether the Court of Appeal erroneously interpreted the terms of the interim agreement as meaning that the repeated phrase “6.50 per GJ” referred to a bundled price for not only the quantities of gas supplied but also transmission and network costs associated with delivery of such gas, rather than to a gas only price – whether the parties had given their own meaning to the phrase “6.50 per GJ” in prior correspondence – whether the Court of Appeal artificially excluded from consideration the bulk of relevant prior correspondence – whether the Court of Appeal disregarded the context of the agreement negotiations that the only other options for BoPE were cessation of gas supply or the giving of an undertaking as to market related damages – whether the Court of Appeal gave weight to unsupported and inherently implausible “reputational” speculation that NGC might not have pressed for a market comparable price in the interim agreement – whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to reach a decision whereby NGC was worse off than if BoPE had given an undertaking as to damages – whether the Court of Appeal’s decision  is contrary business common sense and fundamental principles of contractual interpretation. [2008] NZCA 338  CA 679/2008  1 September 2008
Result
The appeal is allowed. The respondent is to pay to the appellant costs of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.  Costs in the lower Courts are to be fixed by those Courts in the light of this Court’ s judgment.
10 February 2010
Media Releases
Dates
Application for leave to appeal granted. Respondents application for leave to cross appeal refused. 11 December 2008.
Case name
Kevin Francis John Casey v The Queen
Case number
SC 66/2008
Summary
Criminal Appeal – pre-trial application – drink driving – admissibility of evidential breath test printout – whether there was a lawful roadside detention – whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted s 114 of the Land Transport Act 1998 – claim proper breath screening procedure was not adopted – whether s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006 should have been applied to this claim – whether the right to consult a lawyer under s 23(1)(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was complied with[2008] NZCA 335  CA 246/2008  1 September 2008
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.            

5 December 2008