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.
8 November 2024
Case information summary 2024 (as at 8 November 2024) – Cases where leave granted (126 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 8 November 2024) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 116 KB)
All years
Case name
Winston James Shane Young v The Queen
Case number
SC 95/2010
Summary
Criminal appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the appellant’s conviction; whether the trial judge erred in his summing up to the jury; whether guilty verdict unreasonable.[2010] NZCA 309 CA 555/2009 19 July 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
YOUNG v R SC 95/2010 [8 December 2010] (PDF, 44 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal refused.
8 December 2010
Case name
Chesterfields Preschools Limited, D J Hampton, Chesterfields Partnership, Chesterfields Preschools Partnership & Anolbe Enterprises Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 96/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial review appeal – Taxation liabilities – Appellants were partly successful in the first judicial review proceedings against the Commissioner of Inland Revenue (Commissioner) and the Commissioner was ordered to reconsider a number of matters - Second judicial review proceedings held the Court would not enforce the debt owed to the Commissioner by the appellants until the Court was satisfied that the first judicial review had been complied with – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing to an extent the appeal by the Commissioner against the second judicial review judgment.[2010] NZCA 400 CA 607/2008, CA 800/2008, SC 271/2009, CA 156/2010 31 August 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
The application for leave to appeal and the associated application for directions are dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
16 December 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
Transcripts
- Hearing date 31 May 2011 SC 98/2010 (PDF, 725 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2011] NZSC 89 (PDF, 85 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Arrow International Limited v QBE Insurance (International) Limited
Case number
SC 99/2010
Summary
Civil – Construction of insurance policy – Head contractor of leaky apartment complex made insurance claim in respect of compensation paid to the body corporate and unit owners for building defects – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant’s liability to pay compensation was not “consequent upon” damage happening during the relevant insurance period and therefore the applicant was not entitled to be indemnified for the compensation paid[2010] NZCA 408 CA 426/2009 8 September 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
15 December 2010
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
Transcripts
- Hearing date 7 April 2011 SC 100/2010 (PDF, 371 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2011] NZSC 51 (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)
Case name
Thin Thi Vu v Ministry of Fisheries
Case number
SC 101/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in reinstating the appellant’s conviction and sentence for aiding and encouraging the illegal purchase of paua from an undercover fisheries officer - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the transfer of paua by an undercover fisheries officer to the appellant was not a transaction with the Crown for the purposes of s 192(10)(c) of the Fisheries Act 1996. [2010] NZCA 469 CA 375/2010 15 October 2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
17 December 2010
Case name
Bostik New Zealand Limited v Stephen Graham Lockwood & Wadham Goodman Trustees Limited as trustees of the Island Trust.
Case number
SC 102/2010
Summary
Civil – Negligent misstatement – Respondent alleges misrepresentation in respect of waterproofing product suitability to waterproof large deck – Whether Court of Appeal erred in disturbing findings of fact in High Court as to falsity of representation and suitability of product and in remitting proceeding to High Court for reconsideration – Whether Court of Appeal gave undue weight to Bostik’s own technical literature regarding suitability of waterproofing product which post-dated the events in issue.[2010] NZCA 436 CA 381/2009 24 September 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
8 December 2010
Case name
R S v The Queen
Case number
SC 103/2010
Summary
Criminal – Exclusion of evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that what specific drug, if any, a police constable is searching for under s 18(2) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 is a factual rather than legal issue - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that whether s 23(1)(b) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act had been breached is a factual rather than legal issue – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its deciding unlawfully obtained evidence was admissible under the balancing exercise in s 30(2) of the Evidence Act 2006.[2010] NZCA 434 CA 333/2010 22 September 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Not publicly available
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
16 November 2010.
Case name
Peter Muller v The Queen
Case number
SC 104/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s application to adduce fresh alibi evidence – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the admission of identification evidence at trial, while in error, did not amount to a miscarriage of justice requiring the setting aside of the verdict – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that no miscarriage of justice arose from the failure to grant a stay due to delay[2010] NZCA 380 CA 439/2009 18 August 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MULLER v R SC 104/2010 [16 D ecember 2010 (PDF, 53 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
16 December 2010.Page 194 of 250