Supreme Court case information

Civil Appeal

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
_________________________________________________

A Ms Fleming’s appeal (SC 42/2024) is allowed. 
B The Employment Court declaration as to Ms Fleming’s  employee status is reinstated.
C The question of determination of the quantum of remedies  for Ms Fleming is remitted to the Employment Court.
D Mr Humphreys’ appeal (SC 44/2024) is allowed. 
E The Employment Court declaration as to Mr Humphreys’  employee status is reinstated.
F The first respondent must pay the appellant in SC 44/2024 costs of $50,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
G Subject to Order F, costs in SC 42/2024 and SC 44/2024 are otherwise reserved. If parties cannot agree on costs, counsel are to file memoranda (maximum of 5 pages) on costs; counsel for Ms Fleming by 5 February 2026 and each of the respondents by 19 February 2026.
9 December 2025

Civil Appeal

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
_______________________________________________________________
A Ms Fleming’s appeal (SC 42/2024) is allowed. 
B The Employment Court declaration as to Ms Fleming’s  employee status is reinstated.
C The question of determination of the quantum of remedies  for Ms Fleming is remitted to the Employment Court.
D Mr Humphreys’ appeal (SC 44/2024) is allowed. 
E The Employment Court declaration as to Mr Humphreys’  employee status is reinstated.
F The first respondent must pay the appellant in SC 44/2024 costs of $50,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
G Subject to Order F, costs in SC 42/2024 and SC 44/2024 are otherwise reserved. If parties cannot agree on costs, counsel are to file memoranda (maximum of 5 pages) on costs; counsel for Ms Fleming by 5 February 2026 and each of the respondents by 19 February 2026.
9 December 2025

Civil Appeal

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
__________________________________________________________________________

A The appeal is allowed in part. The finding that the appellant fraudulently concealed the respondent’s right of action is set aside.
B The appeal in respect of the award of damages of $90,000 for loss of the value of the Knight Road property, and interest on that sum in the terms set out by the High Court, is dismissed.
C The damages awarded to the respondent are otherwise set aside.
D The cross-appeal is dismissed.
E The respondent must pay the appellant costs of $45,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.     
4 June 2026