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.
5 June 2026
Case information summary (as at 5 June 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 89 KB)
Case information summary (as at 5 June 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 124 KB)
All years
Case name
Peter Richard Prescott v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 97/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application for an extension of time to appeal.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
22 November 2019
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 22 November 2019 (Prescott v New Zealand Police [2019] NZSC 133) is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
5 March 2021
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
22 November 2019
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 22 November 2019 (Prescott v New Zealand Police [2019] NZSC 133) is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
5 March 2021
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Port Otago Limited v Environmental Defence Society Incorporated , Otago Regional Council, Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated and Marlborough District Council
Case number
SC 107/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,000 plus usual disbursements to each of the first, second and third respondents.
22 April 2020
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,000 plus usual disbursements to each of the first, second and third respondents.
22 April 2020
Transcripts
- Hearing date 18 March 2020 (PDF, 217 KB)
Additional document
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Savvy Vineyards 4334 Limited and Savvy Vineyards 3552 Limited v Weta Estate Limited and Tirosh Estate Limited
Case number
SC 114/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the long-term supply contracts, particularly in respect of pre-contractual negotiations and post-contractual conduct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining the elective right to purchase grapes under the contract.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted on the question (Weta Estate Ltd v Savvy Vineyards 4334 Ltd [2019] NZCA 437) whether the Court of Appeal was correct as to:
(a) the effect on the parties’ legal positions of the two earlier judgments, referred to in [4] below, dealing with whether the contract had been terminated; and
(b) the interpretation of cl 2.2 and cl 2.4.
B The application is otherwise dismissed.
12 December 2019
___________________
A The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside. The respondents are liable to the appellants on the first and second causes of action in the first amended statement of claim.
B An order directing an inquiry into damages is made in relation to the first cause of action.
C The declaration and the order directing an inquiry into damages made by the High Court in relation to the second cause of action are restored.
D The first and second respondents must pay the first and second appellants one set of costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
E The orders as to costs in the Court of Appeal and the orders as to costs in the High Court as they relate to the High Court’s dismissal of the first cause of action are quashed. Costs should be re-determined in those Courts in light of this judgment.
22 October 2020
(a) the effect on the parties’ legal positions of the two earlier judgments, referred to in [4] below, dealing with whether the contract had been terminated; and
(b) the interpretation of cl 2.2 and cl 2.4.
B The application is otherwise dismissed.
12 December 2019
___________________
A The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside. The respondents are liable to the appellants on the first and second causes of action in the first amended statement of claim.
B An order directing an inquiry into damages is made in relation to the first cause of action.
C The declaration and the order directing an inquiry into damages made by the High Court in relation to the second cause of action are restored.
D The first and second respondents must pay the first and second appellants one set of costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
E The orders as to costs in the Court of Appeal and the orders as to costs in the High Court as they relate to the High Court’s dismissal of the first cause of action are quashed. Costs should be re-determined in those Courts in light of this judgment.
22 October 2020
Date of hearing
26 May 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 May 2020 (PDF, 387 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 115 (PDF, 191 KB)
Substantive judgment
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
P(SC 120/2019) V Commissioner of Inland Revenue, W(SC 120/2019) and Attorney-General
Case number
SC 120/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
C We make an order prohibiting publication of the name or identifying particulars of P, W and A.
18 March 2020
_______________________________
A The application to review the decision of the Deputy Registrar is dismissed.
B The application for recall of our judgment of 18 March 2020 (P (SC 120/2019) v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2020] NZSC 22) is dismissed.
20 May 2020
B There is no order as to costs.
C We make an order prohibiting publication of the name or identifying particulars of P, W and A.
18 March 2020
_______________________________
A The application to review the decision of the Deputy Registrar is dismissed.
B The application for recall of our judgment of 18 March 2020 (P (SC 120/2019) v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2020] NZSC 22) is dismissed.
20 May 2020
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
David Edward Thomas v Ian Allen Thompson
Case number
SC 121/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
19 February 2020
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
19 February 2020
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
P (SC 124/2019) v The Queen
Case number
SC 124/2019
Summary
Criminal appeal - application for leave to bring appeal
Result
Leave to appeal is dismissed.
20 April 2020
20 April 2020
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
LINDA JUDITH POND v R [2020] NZSC 37 [20 April 2020] (PDF, 161 KB)
Case name
SHAY O’ CARROLL v the Queen
Case number
SC 129/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against a decision of the High Court – Whether s 155 of the Cook Islands Act 1915 (NZ) provides a jurisdictional bar to the imposition of a sentence of home detention
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Carroll v R [2019] NZCA 657).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
C Bail is extended on the same conditions until the determination of the appeal.
5 March 2020
________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment is quashed and a sentence of 10 months’ home detention is substituted. The sentence is subject to the conditions listed at [55] of the judgment.
14 September 2020
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
C Bail is extended on the same conditions until the determination of the appeal.
5 March 2020
________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment is quashed and a sentence of 10 months’ home detention is substituted. The sentence is subject to the conditions listed at [55] of the judgment.
14 September 2020
Date of hearing
11 June 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 11 June 2020 (PDF, 184 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 92 (PDF, 153 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
SHAY O’ CARROLL v R [2020] NZSC 15 [5 March 2020] (PDF, 31 KB)
Substantive judgment
SHAY O’CARROLL v R [2020] NZSC 92 (PDF, 104 KB)
Case name
Kruti Patel v Immigration and Protection Tribunal and Minister of Immigration
Case number
SC 137/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The applications for an extension of time to file the applications for leave to appeal are granted.
B The applications to adduce further evidence are dismissed.
C The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
2 April 2020
B The applications to adduce further evidence are dismissed.
C The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
2 April 2020
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Mikaere Oketopa AKA Michael Wayne October v The Queen
Case number
SC 140/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to
appeal is dismissed.
31 July 2020
appeal is dismissed.
31 July 2020
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MIKAERE OKETOPA v R [2020] NZSC 75 [31 July 2020] (PDF, 61 KB)
Case name
Northland Environmental Protection Society Incorporated v The Chief Executive of the Ministry for Primary Industries, Comptroller of Customs and The Chief Executive of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage
Case number
SC 10/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Forests Act 1949 and the Protected Objects Act 1975
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Northland Environmental Protection Society Incorporated v Chief Executive of the Ministry for Primary Industries [2017] NZCA 607).
B The approved questions are:
(a) Was the Court of Appeal correct in its interpretation of “finished or manufactured indigenous timber product” and the effect of the export restrictions in s 67C of the Forests Act 1949?
(b) Was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that some or all swamp kauri is not a “protected New Zealand object” as defined in s 2(1) of the Protected Objects Act 1975?
19 April 2018
___________________________
A The appeal relating to the interpretation of the export restriction in s 67C(1)(b) of the Forests Act 1949 is allowed.
B The appeal relating to the Protected Objects Act 1975 is dismissed.
C Costs are reserved.
9 November 2018
B The approved questions are:
(a) Was the Court of Appeal correct in its interpretation of “finished or manufactured indigenous timber product” and the effect of the export restrictions in s 67C of the Forests Act 1949?
(b) Was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that some or all swamp kauri is not a “protected New Zealand object” as defined in s 2(1) of the Protected Objects Act 1975?
19 April 2018
___________________________
A The appeal relating to the interpretation of the export restriction in s 67C(1)(b) of the Forests Act 1949 is allowed.
B The appeal relating to the Protected Objects Act 1975 is dismissed.
C Costs are reserved.
9 November 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 June 2018 (PDF, 394 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 105 (PDF, 61 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Page 27 of 50