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.
19 June 2026
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 89 KB)
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 126 KB)
All years
Case name
Jason Brendon Philip v The King
Case number
SC 32/2022
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
A The appeal against sentence is allowed. The sentence of two years and 11 months’ imprisonment is quashed and a sentence of one year and seven months is substituted.
B The standard conditions under s 14(1) of the Parole Act 2002 apply but expire on the sentence expiry date.
16 December 2022
B The standard conditions under s 14(1) of the Parole Act 2002 apply but expire on the sentence expiry date.
16 December 2022
Date of hearing
08 September 2022
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 8 September 2022 Appellant submissions (PDF, 2.4 MB)
- Hearing date 8 September 2022 Respondent submissions (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 September 2022 PHILIP Jason Brendon v R (PDF, 432 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 149 (PDF, 264 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
JASON BRENDON PHILIP v R [2022] NZSC 88 [20 July 2022] (PDF, 177 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
Barry Bai and Caoping Ding v Thomas Edmund William James and Iain McLennan, Keaton Pronk and McDonald Vague Limited
Case number
SC 36/2022
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 25 March 2022 (Ding v James [2022] NZSC 28) is dismissed.
B The application for leave to appeal in SC 36/2022 is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.
11 May 2022
B The application for leave to appeal in SC 36/2022 is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.
11 May 2022
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Kaine Van Hemert v The King
Case number
SC 38/2022
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
A The applications for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal (R v Van Hemert [2021] NZCA 261) [the Court of Appeal judgment] and the decision of the High Court (R v Van Hemert [2021] NZHC 2877) resentencing Mr Van Hemert [the resentencing judgment] are granted.
B Leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment and the resentencing judgment is granted.
C The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the presumption in favour of life imprisonment in s 102 of the Sentencing Act 2002 was not displaced given the circumstances of the offence and of the applicant.
3 August 2022
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal against sentence is allowed.
B The minimum period of imprisonment of 11 years and six months is quashed and a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years is substituted.
31 August 2023
B Leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment and the resentencing judgment is granted.
C The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the presumption in favour of life imprisonment in s 102 of the Sentencing Act 2002 was not displaced given the circumstances of the offence and of the applicant.
3 August 2022
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal against sentence is allowed.
B The minimum period of imprisonment of 11 years and six months is quashed and a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years is substituted.
31 August 2023
Date of hearing
18 November 2022
Judges
Glazebrook, O’Regan, Ellen France, Williams and Kós JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 18 November 2022 Appellants submissions (PDF, 478 KB)
- Hearing date 18 November 2022 Respondents submissions (PDF, 501 KB)
- Hearing date 18 November 2022 Intervener Criminal Bar Association submissions (PDF, 445 KB)
- Hearing date 18 November 2022 Intervener Defence Lawyers Association submissions (PDF, 208 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing date 18 November 2022 Transcript (PDF, 586 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 18 November Van Hemert v The King (PDF, 472 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2023] NZSC 116 (PDF, 307 KB)
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
KAINE VAN HEMERT v R [2022] NZSC 94 [3 August 2022] (PDF, 191 KB)
Substantive judgment
KAINE VAN HEMERT v R [2023] NZSC 116 [31 August 2023] (PDF, 471 KB)
Case name
Aston-Edward William Earnest Wedgwood v The King
Case number
SC 43/2022
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
R (SC 64/2022) v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 64/2022
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (R (CA586/2021) v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2022] NZCA 225).
B The approved question is how does the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 affect the exercise of the court’s discretion to renew an Extended Supervision Order when the individual concerned is also subject to a Compulsory Care Order?
11 April 2023
_________________________________________________________
The application for recusal is dismissed.
26 April 2023
_________________________________________________________
A The application by the respondent to adduce further evidence is granted.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for reconsideration in light of this judgment and any further evidence adduced in that Court. Pending the High Court’s decision on review under s 107RA(5) of the Parole Act, the appellant remains subject to the extended supervision order.
7 May 2024
B The approved question is how does the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 affect the exercise of the court’s discretion to renew an Extended Supervision Order when the individual concerned is also subject to a Compulsory Care Order?
11 April 2023
_________________________________________________________
The application for recusal is dismissed.
26 April 2023
_________________________________________________________
A The application by the respondent to adduce further evidence is granted.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for reconsideration in light of this judgment and any further evidence adduced in that Court. Pending the High Court’s decision on review under s 107RA(5) of the Parole Act, the appellant remains subject to the extended supervision order.
7 May 2024
Date of hearing
08 August 2023
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Williams and Kós JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 8 August 2023 Appellants Submissions (PDF, 349 KB)
- Hearing date 8 August 2023 Respondents Submissions (PDF, 548 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 August 2023 (PDF, 481 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 8 August 2023 (PDF, 489 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2024] NZSC 47 (PDF, 291 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Videos
- R v Chief Executive of the Dept of Corrections (SC 64/2022) (Recorded, 8 August 2023)
Case name
Peter Daniel Staite, Jean Tanirau-Carston and Lynette Kathleen Palmer as trustees and representatives of the beneficiaries of the Whaoa No 1 Lands Trust, Peter Daniel Staite, Jean Tanirau-Carston, Teressa Hurihanganui, Dorothy Raroa and Lynette Kathleen P
Case number
SC 72/2022
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 respondents costs of $2,500.
20 October 2022
B The applicants must pay the respondents costs of $2,500.
20 October 2022
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Justin Richard Burke v The King
Case number
SC 75/2022
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Burke v R [2022] NZCA 279).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted and applied s 66(2) of the Crimes Act 1961.
21 October 2022
__________________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B We seek submissions from counsel on the consequential orders that should follow, as set out at [175] of the reasons of the Court.
22 April 2024
_________________________________________________________________________________
A The appellant’s conviction for manslaughter is quashed.
B An order is made under ss 234(2) and 241(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 substituting a conviction for injuring with intent to injure under s 189(2) of the Crimes Act 1961.
C An order is made under ss 234(5) and 241(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 substituting a sentence of three years’ imprisonment.
16 May 2024
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted and applied s 66(2) of the Crimes Act 1961.
21 October 2022
__________________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B We seek submissions from counsel on the consequential orders that should follow, as set out at [175] of the reasons of the Court.
22 April 2024
_________________________________________________________________________________
A The appellant’s conviction for manslaughter is quashed.
B An order is made under ss 234(2) and 241(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 substituting a conviction for injuring with intent to injure under s 189(2) of the Crimes Act 1961.
C An order is made under ss 234(5) and 241(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 substituting a sentence of three years’ imprisonment.
16 May 2024
Date of hearing
20 March 2023
- 21 March 2023
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Williams, Kós JJ | Venue Christchurch High Court Courtroom 12
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing 20 March 2023 Appellant Submissions (PDF, 428 KB)
- Hearing 20 March 2023 Respondent Submissions (PDF, 1.1 MB)
- Hearing 20 March 2023 Intervener Submissions CBA (PDF, 910 KB)
- Hearing 20 March 2023 Intervener Submissions (PDF, 6.4 MB)
Transcripts
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 20 March and 21 March 2023 (PDF, 334 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2024] NZSC 37 (PDF, 303 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Substantive judgment
JUSTIN RICHARD BURKE v R [2024] NZSC 59 [16 May 2024] (PDF, 181 KB)
Videos
- Justin Richard Burke v The King SC 75/2022 - 21 March 2023 (Recorded, 21 March 2023)
- Justin Richard Burke v The King SC 75/2022 - 20 March 2023 (Recorded, 20 March 2023)
Case name
Cloud Ocean Water Limited v Aotearoa Water Action Incorporated, Canterbury Regional Council and Southridge Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 82/2022
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Aotearoa Water Action Inc v Canterbury Regional Council [2022] NZCA 325).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
17 November 2022
________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements.
C There is no order as to costs in favour of or against the second or third respondent or the Intervener.
20 November 2023
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
17 November 2022
________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements.
C There is no order as to costs in favour of or against the second or third respondent or the Intervener.
20 November 2023
Date of hearing
22 March 2023
- 23 March 2023
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Williams and French JJ | Venue: Christchurch High Court Courtroom 12
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing 22 and 23 March 2023 Appellant submissions (PDF, 435 KB)
- Hearing 22 and 23 March 2023 First Respondent Submissions (PDF, 445 KB)
- Hearing 22 and 23 March 2023 Second Respondent Submissions (PDF, 174 KB)
- Hearing 22 and 23 March 2023 Third Respondent Submissions (PDF, 346 KB)
- Hearing 22 and 22 March 2023 Intervener Submissions (PDF, 333 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing date 22 - 23 March 2023 (PDF, 948 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 22 March and 23 March 2023 (PDF, 699 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2023] NZSC 153 (PDF, 297 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Videos
- Cloud Ocean Water Limited v Aotearoa Water Action Incorporated, Canterbury Regional Council and Rapaki Natural Resources Limited SC 82/2022 - 23 March 2023 (Recorded, 23 March 2023)
- Cloud Ocean Water Limited v Aotearoa Water Action Incorporated, Canterbury Regional Council and Rapaki Natural Resources Limited SC 82/2022 - 22 March 2023 (Recorded, 22 March 2023)
Case name
Jing Jun Yu and Andrew Investments (2004) Limited v Dale Gordon Bradley and Jillian Anne Braley
Case number
SC 93/2022
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring a civil appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay the respondents costs of $2,500.
21 December 2022
B The applicants must pay the respondents costs of $2,500.
21 December 2022
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Steven Richard Young v Attorney-General
Case number
SC 98/2022
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Young v Attorney-General [2022] NZCA 391).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
14 December 2022
__________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
30 October 2023
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
14 December 2022
__________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
30 October 2023
Date of hearing
14 March 2023
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing 14 March 2023 Appellant submissions (PDF, 1.5 MB)
- Hearing 14 March 2023 Appellant oral outline (PDF, 711 KB)
- Hearing 14 March 2023 Respondent submissions (PDF, 3.7 MB)
Transcripts
Media Releases
- MR [2023] NZSC 142 (PDF, 288 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 10 of 24