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.
4 September 2026
Case information summary (as at 4 September 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 116 KB)
Case information summary (as at 4 September 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 132 KB)
All years
Case name
Wairarapa Moana Ki Pouākani Incorporation v Mercury NZ Limited and The Waitangi Tribunal and Ors
Case number
SC 93/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The applications for extensions of time to apply for leave to appeal in SC 93/2021 and SC 127/2021 are granted.
B Leave to appeal in SC 93/2021 and SC 127/2021 is granted (Mercury NZ Ltd v The Waitangi Tribunal [2021] NZHC 654).
C The approved question in each appeal is whether the High Court’s decision was correct.
11 October 2021
_________________________________________________________
A We extend time for the first respondent to apply for leave to cross-appeal in SC 93/2021.
B We grant leave to the first respondent in SC 93/2021 to cross-appeal.
C The approved question is whether the High Court’s decision on the first respondent’s claim in that Court was correct.
15 December 2021
________________________________________________________
A The appeal by Wairarapa Moana ki Pouākani Inc in SC 93/2021 is allowed in part. The High Court’s ruling that the Waitangi Tribunal has no power to recommend resumption in favour of a claimant without mana whenua is set aside. The appeal is otherwise dismissed.
B The appeal by Ryshell Griggs and Mark Chamberlain in SC 127/2021 and the cross-appeal by Mercury NZ Limited in SC 93/2021 are dismissed.
C Issues as to costs may be dealt with by memoranda if they are not otherwise agreed. Memoranda will be no longer than five pages and must be filed and served within 20 working days.
7 December 2022
B Leave to appeal in SC 93/2021 and SC 127/2021 is granted (Mercury NZ Ltd v The Waitangi Tribunal [2021] NZHC 654).
C The approved question in each appeal is whether the High Court’s decision was correct.
11 October 2021
_________________________________________________________
A We extend time for the first respondent to apply for leave to cross-appeal in SC 93/2021.
B We grant leave to the first respondent in SC 93/2021 to cross-appeal.
C The approved question is whether the High Court’s decision on the first respondent’s claim in that Court was correct.
15 December 2021
________________________________________________________
A The appeal by Wairarapa Moana ki Pouākani Inc in SC 93/2021 is allowed in part. The High Court’s ruling that the Waitangi Tribunal has no power to recommend resumption in favour of a claimant without mana whenua is set aside. The appeal is otherwise dismissed.
B The appeal by Ryshell Griggs and Mark Chamberlain in SC 127/2021 and the cross-appeal by Mercury NZ Limited in SC 93/2021 are dismissed.
C Issues as to costs may be dealt with by memoranda if they are not otherwise agreed. Memoranda will be no longer than five pages and must be filed and served within 20 working days.
7 December 2022
Date of hearing
09 February 2022
- 10 February 2022
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 1 October 2021 (PDF, 310 KB)
- Hearing date 9 - 10 February 2022 (PDF, 1 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 142 (PDF, 276 KB)
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Lillian Alice Taylor v The Attorney-General on behalf of the Ministry of Social Development
Case number
SC 94/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
B The application to amend the application for leave to appeal is granted.
C All other interlocutory applications are dismissed.
D The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
E There is no order as to costs.
F A copy of this judgment is to be provided to the Ombudsman.
4 November 2021
B The application to amend the application for leave to appeal is granted.
C All other interlocutory applications are dismissed.
D The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
E There is no order as to costs.
F A copy of this judgment is to be provided to the Ombudsman.
4 November 2021
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Isaac Kerehoma Stevens v The Queen
Case number
SC 96/2021
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
The application for leave to appeal direct to this Court is declined.
30 March 2022
30 March 2022
Date of Judgment
01 January 2021
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
F (SC 107/2021) v The Queen
Case number
SC 107/2021
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Application to recall judgment
Result
The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 17 March 2017 (F (SC 129/2016) v R [2017] NZSC 34) is dismissed.
2 December 2021
2 December 2021
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
F (SC 107/2021) v R [2021] NZSC 166 [2 December 2021] (PDF, 215 KB)
Case name
Paihia Property Holdings Corporate Trustee Limited v Body Corporate 193056 and Chin Yun Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 117/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay one set of costs of $2,500 to the first and second respondents.
24 February 2022
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay one set of costs of $2,500 to the first and second respondents.
24 February 2022
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Haoyu Gao, Smiling Face Limited and Xia Xue v Zespri Group Limited
Case number
SC 128/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
1 March 2022
B The applicants must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
1 March 2022
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Robert Graham and Pine Ridge Trustee Company Limited v Shabor Limited
Case number
SC 132/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal, and Respondents application for leave to bring an appeal
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Nitin Mittal v The Queen
Case number
SC 134/2021
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
23 December 2021
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
23 December 2021
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
NITIN MITTAL v R [2021] NZSC 190 [23 December 2021] (PDF, 143 KB)
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Auckland High Court and Matthew Simon Russell Palmer
Case number
SC 136/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
6 December 2021
____________________________________________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 6 December 2021 (Siemer v Auckland High Court [2021] NZSC 173) is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondents costs of $1868.90
17 February 2022
_____________________________________________________
The recall application of 14 March 2022 is dismissed.
We direct the Registrar not to accept any further application from Mr Siemer which relate in any way to the High Court and Court of Appeal judgments referred to in our judgment of 6 December 2021, our judgments of 6 December 2021 and 17 February 2022 and this decision.
22 March 2022
B Costs are reserved.
6 December 2021
____________________________________________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 6 December 2021 (Siemer v Auckland High Court [2021] NZSC 173) is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondents costs of $1868.90
17 February 2022
_____________________________________________________
The recall application of 14 March 2022 is dismissed.
We direct the Registrar not to accept any further application from Mr Siemer which relate in any way to the High Court and Court of Appeal judgments referred to in our judgment of 6 December 2021, our judgments of 6 December 2021 and 17 February 2022 and this decision.
22 March 2022
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Woolworths New Zealand Limited v Auckland Council, Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority, Foodstuffs North Island Limited and Medical Officer of Health
Case number
SC 139/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Auckland Council v Woolworths New Zealand Ltd [2021] NZCA 484).
B Leave is granted to the Medical Officer of Health to appear as an interested party at the substantive hearing.
C The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.
13 April 2022
______________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the Auckland Council costs of $35,000.
5 May 2023
B Leave is granted to the Medical Officer of Health to appear as an interested party at the substantive hearing.
C The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.
13 April 2022
______________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the Auckland Council costs of $35,000.
5 May 2023
Date of hearing
13 September 2022
- 14 September 2022
Judges
O'Regan, Ellen France, Williams and William Young JJ; Cooper P
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing 13 and 14 September 2022 Appellant submissions (PDF, 428 KB)
- Hearing 13 and 14 September 2022 First respondent submissions (PDF, 982 KB)
- Hearing Tuesday 13 September and Wednesday 14 September 2022 Interested party submissions (PDF, 1 MB)
- Hearing 13 and 14 September 2022 Joint Chronology (PDF, 200 KB)
- Hearing date Tue 13 Sept and Wed 14 Sept 2022 Woolworths outline of oral argument (PDF, 144 KB)
- Hearing date Tue 13 Sept and Wed 14 Sept 2022 Auckland Council oral outline (PDF, 1011 KB)
Transcripts
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 13 Sept and 14 Sept 2022 (PDF, 300 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2023] NZSC 45 (PDF, 284 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Videos
- Woolworths New Zealand Ltd v Auckland Council SC 139/2021 & SC 140/2021 - 14 September 2022 (Recorded, 14 September 2022)
- Woolworths New Zealand ltd v Auckland Council SC 139/2021 & SC 140/2021- 13 September 2022 (Recorded, 13 September 2022)
Page 22 of 51