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.
22 September 2026
Case information summary (as at 18 September 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 112 KB)
Case information summary (as at 18 September 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 152 KB)
All years
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
Case name
AN v Bupa Care Services NZ Limited and District Court at Manukau
Case number
SC 12/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court erred in refusing to allow the applicant to file an application for habeas corpus – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding the applicant’s appeal should not be given precedence, per s 17(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001.
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed. B No order as to costs. 19 March 2018 _____________________ The application for recall is dismissed. 22 March 2018
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Jeremy James McGuire v The Secretary for Justice
Case number
SC 22/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Legal Services Act 2011 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in striking out the applicant’s application for judicial review – Whether a self-represented litigant who is a practising lawyer can receive a costs award.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (McGuire v The Secretary for Justice [2018] NZCA 37)
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-appeal
12 June 2018
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
27 November 2018
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-appeal
12 June 2018
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order for costs.
27 November 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 1 August 2018 (PDF, 407 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 116 (PDF, 293 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Mathias Ortmann, Bram Van der Kolk and Finn Habib Batato v The United States of America and The District Court at North Shore
Case number
SC 54/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of the application for judicial review of the District Court’s determination under s 24 of the Extradition Act 1999.
Result
The Court has jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeals.
20 December 2018
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
__________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the
judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to
this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020]
NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
20 December 2018
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
__________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the
judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to
this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020]
NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
Case Synopses
- Hearing 10 June 14 June 2019 (PDF, 264 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Transcript hearing 10 to 17 June 2019 NZSC Trans 25 (PDF, 4.2 MB)
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Additional document
Hearing date
10 - 14 June 2019
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcript
Supreme Court judgment / Media Release
Case name
Finn Habib Batato v The United States of America
Case number
SC 55/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the District Court’s determination under s 24 of the Extradition Act 1999 – Whether the Supreme Court of New Zealand has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under the Extradition Act if the proceedings were commenced before 1 July 2013.
Result
The Court has jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeals.
20 December 2018
-
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
___________________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to intervene is declined.
B No order as to costs.
20 May 2019
___________________________________________________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
____________________________________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020]
NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
20 December 2018
-
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
___________________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to intervene is declined.
B No order as to costs.
20 May 2019
___________________________________________________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
____________________________________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020]
NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
Case Synopses
- Hearing 10 June 14 June 2019 (PDF, 264 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Transcript hearing 10 to 17 June 2019 NZSC Trans 25 (PDF, 4.2 MB)
Leave to intervene declined
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Additional document
Transcript
Hearing date
10 - 14 June 2019
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Supreme Court judgment / Media Release
Case name
Mathias Ortmann and Bram Van der Kolk v The United States of America
Case number
SC 56/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the District Court’s determination under s 24 of the Extradition Act 1999 – Whether the Supreme Court of New Zealand has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under the Extradition Act if the proceedings were commenced before 1 July 2013.
Result
The Court has jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeals.
20 December 2018
-
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
___________________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to intervene is declined.
B No order as to costs.
20 May 2019
___________________________________________________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
_________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to
this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020] NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
20 December 2018
-
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
___________________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to intervene is declined.
B No order as to costs.
20 May 2019
___________________________________________________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
_________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to
this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020] NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
Case Synopses
- Hearing 10 June 14 June 2019 (PDF, 264 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Leave to intervene declined
Additional document
Transcript hearing 10 to 17 June 2019 NZSC Trans 25 (PDF, 4.2 MB)
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Additional document
Hearing date
10 - 14 June 2019
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Willaims JJ
Supreme Court judgment / Media Release
Transcript
Case name
Kim Dotcom v The United States of America
Case number
SC 57/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the Copyright Act 1994 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its findings on the admissibility of evidence challenging the record of the case.
Result
The Court has jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeals.
20 December 2018
-
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
___________________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to intervene is declined.
B No order as to costs.
20 May 2019
___________________________________________________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
__________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the
judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020]
NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
20 December 2018
-
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
___________________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to intervene is declined.
B No order as to costs.
20 May 2019
___________________________________________________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
__________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the
judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020]
NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
Case Synopses
- Hearing 10 June 14 June 2019 (PDF, 264 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Leave to intervene declined
Additional document
Transcript hearing 10 to 17 June 2019 NZSC Trans 25 (PDF, 4.2 MB)
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Additional document
Supreme Court judgment / Media Release
Transcript
Hearing date
10 - 14 June 2019
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Page 28 of 51