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.
28 November 2025
Case information summary 2025 (as at 28 November 2025) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary 2025 (as at 28 November 2025) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 120 KB)
All years
Case name
Chief of Defence Force, Chief People Officer and Attorney-General v Four Members of the Armed Forces
Case number
SC 20/2024
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Four Members of the Armed Forces v Chief of Defence Force [2024] NZCA 17).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
8 July 2024
________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The Court of Appeal’s order that the Temporary Defence Force Order 06/2022 (TDFO) be reconsidered is set aside, as is the Court of Appeal’s interim order that no action may be taken by the Chief of Defence Force pursuant to the TDFO and related instruments pending the reconsideration of the TDFO.
C The respondents must pay the appellants one set of costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
11 April 2025
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
8 July 2024
________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The Court of Appeal’s order that the Temporary Defence Force Order 06/2022 (TDFO) be reconsidered is set aside, as is the Court of Appeal’s interim order that no action may be taken by the Chief of Defence Force pursuant to the TDFO and related instruments pending the reconsideration of the TDFO.
C The respondents must pay the appellants one set of costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
11 April 2025
Date of hearing
08 October 2024
Judges
Glazebrook, Ellen France, Williams, Kos and Miller JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 8 October 2024 Appellant Submissions (PDF, 764 KB)
- Hearing date 8 October 2024 Respondent Submissions (PDF, 1.9 MB)
- Hearing date 8 October 2024 Intervener Submissions (PDF, 1004 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 October 2024 Transcript (PDF, 591 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 8 9 October 2024 Case Synopsis (PDF, 364 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2025] NZSC 34 (PDF, 292 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Videos
- SC 20/2024 Chief of Defence Force and Ors v Four Members of the Armed Forces (Recorded, 8 October 2024)
Case name
Sirpa Elise Alalääkkölä v Paul Anthony Palmer
Case number
SC 22/2024
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Alalääkkölä v Palmer [2024] NZCA 24).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in the answers the Court gave to the questions of law before the Court.
9 May 2024__________________________________________________________________A We answer the questions of law as follows: copyrights are property for purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 and they may be relationship property.
B The appeal is dismissed. We direct that the proceeding be remitted to the Family Court to decide the value and distribution or sale of the artworks and copyrights in them.
C The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $15,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
6 March 2025
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in the answers the Court gave to the questions of law before the Court.
9 May 2024__________________________________________________________________A We answer the questions of law as follows: copyrights are property for purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 and they may be relationship property.
B The appeal is dismissed. We direct that the proceeding be remitted to the Family Court to decide the value and distribution or sale of the artworks and copyrights in them.
C The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $15,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
6 March 2025
Date of hearing
24 October 2024
Judges
Ellen France, Williams, Kós, Miller and O'Regan JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 24 October 2024 Appellant Submissions (PDF, 435 KB)
- Hearing date 24 October 2024 Respondent Submissions (PDF, 378 KB)
- Hearing date 24 October 2024 Appellant oral outline (PDF, 249 KB)
- Hearing date 24 October 2024 Respondent oral outline (PDF, 143 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing date 24 October 2024 (PDF, 546 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 24 October 2024 Case Synopsis (PDF, 318 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2025] NZSC 9 (PDF, 438 KB)
Substantive judgment
ALALÄÄKKÖLÄ v PALMER [2025] NZSC 9 [6 March 2025] (PDF, 245 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Videos
- SC 22/2024 Sirpa Elise Alalääkkölä v Paul Anthony Palmer (Recorded, 24 October 2024)
Case name
Koro Putua v Attorney-General
Case number
SC 31/2024
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Attorney-General v Putua [2024] NZCA 67).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
1 August 2024
Date of hearing
27 February 2025
- 07 March 2025
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, Ellen France, Williams and Miller JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 27 28 February 2025 Appellants oral outline (PDF, 637 KB)
- Hearing date 27 28 February 2025 Respondents oral outline (PDF, 842 KB)
- Hearing date 27 28 February 2025 Appellant submissions (PDF, 386 KB)
- Hearing date 27 28 February 2025 Respondent submissions (PDF, 1.3 MB)
- Hearing date 27 28 February 2025 Intervener submissions (PDF, 931 KB)
Transcripts
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 27 28 February 2025 Case Synopsis (PDF, 481 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Videos
- SC 31/2024 Koro Putua v Attorney-General (Recorded, 7 March 2025)
- SC 31/2024 Koro Putua v Attorney-General (Recorded, 28 February 2025)
- SC 31/2024 Koro Putua v Attorney-General (Recorded, 27 February 2025)
Case name
Christine Fleming v Attorney-General and Justin James Coote
Case number
SC 42/2024
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal by Ms Fleming is granted in part to the extent described below (Attorney-General v Fleming [2024] NZCA 92).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct:
(i) to determine that Ms Fleming was not “engaged, employed or contracted” by the Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora as a “homeworker” under s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000; and
(ii) as to the test for “work” when work is conducted by homeworkers who work overnight in their home.
C The application for leave to appeal by Mr Humphreys is granted (Attorney-General v Fleming [2024] NZCA 92).
D The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to determine that Mr Humphreys was not “engaged, employed or contracted” by the Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora as a “homeworker” under s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 for the period from August 2020 onwards when in receipt of funding under the Individualised Funding scheme.
E Counsel in both appeals are asked to address the matters set out at [1]–[2] below.
4 October 2024
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct:
(i) to determine that Ms Fleming was not “engaged, employed or contracted” by the Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora as a “homeworker” under s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000; and
(ii) as to the test for “work” when work is conducted by homeworkers who work overnight in their home.
C The application for leave to appeal by Mr Humphreys is granted (Attorney-General v Fleming [2024] NZCA 92).
D The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to determine that Mr Humphreys was not “engaged, employed or contracted” by the Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora as a “homeworker” under s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 for the period from August 2020 onwards when in receipt of funding under the Individualised Funding scheme.
E Counsel in both appeals are asked to address the matters set out at [1]–[2] below.
4 October 2024
Date of hearing
29 April 2025
- 30 April 2025
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Ellen France, Williams, Kós and Miller JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 29 30 April 2025 Appellant submissions (PDF, 2.6 MB)
- Hearing date 29 30 April 2025 First respondent submissions (PDF, 561 KB)
- Hearing date 29 30 April 2025 Second respondent submissions (PDF, 965 KB)
- Hearing date 29 30 April 2025 Intervener submissions (HRC) (PDF, 301 KB)
- Hearing date 29 30 April 2025 Intervener submissions (ADL) (PDF, 450 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing date 29 30 April 2025 Transcript (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 29 30 April 2025 Case Synopsis (PDF, 487 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Videos
Case name
Peter Humphreys v Attorney-General
Case number
SC 44/2024
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal by Ms Fleming is granted in part to the extent described below (Attorney-General v Fleming [2024] NZCA 92).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct:
(i) to determine that Ms Fleming was not “engaged, employed or contracted” by the Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora as a “homeworker” under s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000; and
(ii) as to the test for “work” when work is conducted by homeworkers who work overnight in their home.
C The application for leave to appeal by Mr Humphreys is granted (Attorney-General v Fleming [2024] NZCA 92).
D The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to determine that Mr Humphreys was not “engaged, employed or contracted” by the Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora as a “homeworker” under s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 for the period from August 2020 onwards when in receipt of funding under the Individualised Funding scheme.
E Counsel in both appeals are asked to address the matters set out at [1]–[2] below.
4 October 2024
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct:
(i) to determine that Ms Fleming was not “engaged, employed or contracted” by the Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora as a “homeworker” under s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000; and
(ii) as to the test for “work” when work is conducted by homeworkers who work overnight in their home.
C The application for leave to appeal by Mr Humphreys is granted (Attorney-General v Fleming [2024] NZCA 92).
D The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to determine that Mr Humphreys was not “engaged, employed or contracted” by the Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora as a “homeworker” under s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 for the period from August 2020 onwards when in receipt of funding under the Individualised Funding scheme.
E Counsel in both appeals are asked to address the matters set out at [1]–[2] below.
4 October 2024
Date of hearing
29 April 2025
- 30 April 2025
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Ellen France, Williams, Kós and Miller JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 29 30 April 2025 Appellant submissions (PDF, 5.7 MB)
- Hearing date 29 30 April 2025 First respondent submissions (PDF, 1010 KB)
- Hearing date 29 30 April 2025 Second respondent submissions (PDF, 965 KB)
- Hearing date 29 30 April 2025 Intervener submissions (HRC) (PDF, 301 KB)
- Hearing date 29 30 April 2025 Intervener submissions (ADL) (PDF, 450 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing date 29 30 April 2025 Transcript (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 29 30 April 2025 Case Synopsis (PDF, 487 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Videos
Case name
Tristan Lee Tamati v The King
Case number
SC 48/2024
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Tamati v R [2024] NZCA 113).
B The approved questions are as follows:
(a) whether errors by trial counsel may have occasioned a miscarriage of justice; and
(b) whether in the circumstances a reliability warning was required.
2 August 2024
________________________________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
03 July 2025
Date of hearing
25 February 2025
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, Williams, Kós and Miller JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 25 February 2025 Appellant submissions (PDF, 2.6 MB)
- Hearing date 25 February 2025 Respondent submissions (PDF, 571 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing date 25 February 2025 Transcript (PDF, 402 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 25 February 2025 Case Synopsis (PDF, 474 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2025] NZSC 70 (PDF, 286 KB)
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
TAMATI v R [2024] NZSC 91 [2 August 2024] (PDF, 135 KB)
Substantive judgment
TAMATI v R [2025] NZSC 70 [3 July 2025] (PDF, 287 KB)
Videos
- SC 48/2024 Tristan Lee Tamati v The King (Recorded, 25 February 2025)
Case name
Louise Buchanan, Keith Marshall and Alistair Donald as trustees of the Buchanan Marshall Family Trust v Tasman District Council
Case number
SC 49/2024
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Tasman District Council v Louise Buchanan, Keith Marshall and Alistair Donald as Trustees of the Buchanan Marshall Family Trust [2024] NZCA 133).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that there was no duty of care owed by the respondent to the appellants while carrying out and making statements in relation to pool inspections under the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.
20 August 2024
____________________________
A notice of abandonment having been filed, the appeal is abandoned.
06 March 2025
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that there was no duty of care owed by the respondent to the appellants while carrying out and making statements in relation to pool inspections under the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.
20 August 2024
____________________________
A notice of abandonment having been filed, the appeal is abandoned.
06 March 2025
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 11_12 March 2025 (PDF, 369 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Students for Climate Solutions Incorporated v Minister of Energy and Resources
Case number
SC 55/2024
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Students for Climate Solutions Inc v Minister of Energy and Resources [2024] NZCA 152, [2024] 2 NZLR 822).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
24 February 2025
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
24 February 2025
Date of hearing
06 May 2025
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Ellen France, Williams, Kós and Miller JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 6 May 2025 Appellant's submissions (PDF, 691 KB)
- Hearing date 6 May 2025 Respondent's submissions (PDF, 595 KB)
- Hearing date 6 May 2025 Intervener Submissions (PDF, 215 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing date 19 November 2024 Transcript (PDF, 305 KB)
- Hearing date 6 May 2025 Transcript (PDF, 658 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 6 May 2025 Case Synopsis (PDF, 487 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Videos
- SC 55/2024 Students for Climate Solutions Incorporated v Minister of Energy and Resources (Recorded, 6 May 2025)
Case name
Whangarei District Council v Malcolm James Daisley
Case number
SC 59/2024
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal are granted (Whangarei District Council v Daisley [2024] NZCA 161).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to (1) dismiss the appeal against the High Court’s finding that the applicant was liable in negligence; and (2) allow the appeal against the High Court’s finding that the applicant was liable for misfeasance in public office, for which it should pay exemplary damages.
25 September 2024
Date of hearing
18 March 2024
- 19 March 2024
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, Ellen France, Kós and O'Regan JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 18 March 2025 Appellant submissions (PDF, 2.3 MB)
- Hearing date 18 March 2025 Respondent Submissions (PDF, 295 KB)
- Hearing date 18 March 2025 Cross Appellants submissions (PDF, 232 KB)
- Hearing date 18 March 2025 Cross Respondent submissions (PDF, 1.6 MB)
- Hearing date 18 March 2025 Appellant submissions on Continuing Breach (PDF, 1.5 MB)
- Hearing date 18 March 2025 Appellant oral outline (PDF, 2.4 MB)
- Hearing date 18 March 2025 Respondent oral outline on appellant's appeal (PDF, 5.6 MB)
- Hearing date 18 March 2025 Respondent oral outline on Cross Appeal (PDF, 6.3 MB)
Transcripts
- Hearing date 18 19 March 2025 Transcript (PDF, 990 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 18 19 March 2025 Case Synopsis (PDF, 461 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Videos
- SC 59/2024 Whangarei District Council v Malcolm James Daisley (Recorded, 19 March 2025)
- SC 59/2024 Whangarei District Council v Malcolm James Daisley (Recorded, 18 March 2025)
Case name
Bartholomaeus Roland Lassnig v Qian Zhou and Qian Zhou and Bartholomaeus Roland Lassnig as Trustees of the Lassnig Family Trust
Case number
SC 65/2024
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Zhou v Lassnig [2024] NZCA 177).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its analysis under s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980.
17 September 2024
_______________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed. The orders made by the Court of Appeal as to the resettlement of the Trust stand.
B The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
15 September 2025
Date of hearing
04 March 2025
Judges
Glazebrook, Ellen France, Williams, Kós and Miller JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 4 March 2025 Appellant submissions (PDF, 1.2 MB)
- Hearing date 4 March 2025 Respondent submissions (PDF, 388 KB)
- Hearing date 4 March 2025 Respondent oral outline (PDF, 213 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing date 4 March 2025 transcript (PDF, 439 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 4 March 2025 (PDF, 444 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2025] NZSC 116 (PDF, 274 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
LASSNIG v ZHOU [2025] NZSC 116 [15 September 2025] (PDF, 268 KB)
Page 11 of 75