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
H (SC 49/2021) v The Queen
Case number
SC 49/2021
Summary
Order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of retrial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
Result
ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.
Date of hearing
15 November 2021
Judges
William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Case name
Peter Gomm, Jennifer Mary Shipley and Clive William Charles Tilby v Mainzeal Property and Construction Limited (in liquidation), Andrew James Bethell, Richard Ciliang Yan and Andrew McKay
Case number
SC 52/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal and Cross Appeal
Result
A The appeals by the directors are dismissed.
B The cross-appeal by the liquidators is allowed to the extent that in lieu of the remittal of the proceedings back to the High Court, we order the directors to contribute to the assets of Mainzeal $39.8 million together with interest at prescribed rates since 28 February 2013 with the liabilities of Dame Jennifer Shipley and Messrs Tilby and Gomm each limited to $6.6 million and interest.
C The directors are to pay costs in the sum of $65,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
25 August 2023
B The cross-appeal by the liquidators is allowed to the extent that in lieu of the remittal of the proceedings back to the High Court, we order the directors to contribute to the assets of Mainzeal $39.8 million together with interest at prescribed rates since 28 February 2013 with the liabilities of Dame Jennifer Shipley and Messrs Tilby and Gomm each limited to $6.6 million and interest.
C The directors are to pay costs in the sum of $65,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
25 August 2023
Date of hearing
07 March 2022
- 11 March 2022
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 7 - 11 March 2022 (PDF, 2 MB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing Mon 7 March - Fri 11 March 2022 (PDF, 436 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2023] NZSC 113 (PDF, 342 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Malcolm Bruce Moncrief-Spittle and David Cumin v Regional Facilities Auckland Ltd and Auckland Council
Case number
SC 57/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Moncrief Spittle v Regional Facilities Auckland Ltd [2021] NZCA 142).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against the High Court’s substantive decision.
5 August 2021
_________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Leave to adduce the affidavit of 18 February 2022 of David Cumin is declined.
C Costs are reserved.
5 December 2022
_____________________________________________________________________________
The appellants must pay the respondents costs of $10,000.
14 March 2023
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against the High Court’s substantive decision.
5 August 2021
_________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Leave to adduce the affidavit of 18 February 2022 of David Cumin is declined.
C Costs are reserved.
5 December 2022
_____________________________________________________________________________
The appellants must pay the respondents costs of $10,000.
14 March 2023
Date of hearing
21 February 2022
- 22 February 2022
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook . O'Regan and Ellen France JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 21 - 22 February 2022 (PDF, 770 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 21 February 2022 (PDF, 188 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 138 (PDF, 193 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Peter William Mawhinney v Auckland Council
Case number
SC 59/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to amend the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
21 September 2021
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
21 September 2021
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Melco Property Holdings (NZ) Limited v Anthony John Hall
Case number
SC 64/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Melco Property Holdings (NZ) 2012 Ltd v Hall [2021] NZCA 184).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
3 September 2021
________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to adduce new evidence (the email chain) is dismissed.
B The appeal is allowed. The decisions of the Court of Appeal and High Court refusing to sustain the caveat are set aside.
C Order made that caveat No. 11659182.1 lodged by Melco on 16 January 2020 over the title to the property at 5 Parliament Street, Lower Hutt (WN13A/124), not lapse.
D Costs are reserved.
06 May 2022
__________________________________________
A The respondent must pay the appellant costs in this Court of $22,500 plus usual disbursements.
B The costs award made in the Court of Appeal is quashed. The appellant is awarded costs in that Court on a band A basis together with usual disbursements.
C The appellant is awarded costs in the High Court on a 2B basis together with reasonable disbursements, to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
24 August 2022
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
3 September 2021
________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to adduce new evidence (the email chain) is dismissed.
B The appeal is allowed. The decisions of the Court of Appeal and High Court refusing to sustain the caveat are set aside.
C Order made that caveat No. 11659182.1 lodged by Melco on 16 January 2020 over the title to the property at 5 Parliament Street, Lower Hutt (WN13A/124), not lapse.
D Costs are reserved.
06 May 2022
__________________________________________
A The respondent must pay the appellant costs in this Court of $22,500 plus usual disbursements.
B The costs award made in the Court of Appeal is quashed. The appellant is awarded costs in that Court on a band A basis together with usual disbursements.
C The appellant is awarded costs in the High Court on a 2B basis together with reasonable disbursements, to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
24 August 2022
Date of hearing
23 February 2022
Judges
William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France, Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 23 February 2022 (PDF, 253 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 60 (PDF, 232 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Case name
Gill Pizza Limited, Sandeep Singh, Jatinder Singh, Mandeep Singh and Malotia Limited v A Labour Inspector (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment)
Case number
SC 67/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (A Labour Inspector (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment) v Gill Pizza Ltd [2021] NZCA 192).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the Employment Court erred in finding that, if a defendant asserts there is no employment relationship, the Labour Inspector must first seek a declaration of employment status from the Employment Court under s 6(5) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 before commencing or continuing a proceeding under s 228(1) of that Act.
12 August 2021
__________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $15,000 plus usual disbursements.
21 December 2021
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the Employment Court erred in finding that, if a defendant asserts there is no employment relationship, the Labour Inspector must first seek a declaration of employment status from the Employment Court under s 6(5) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 before commencing or continuing a proceeding under s 228(1) of that Act.
12 August 2021
__________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $15,000 plus usual disbursements.
21 December 2021
Date of hearing
04 November 2021
Judges
Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan , Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 4 November 2021 (PDF, 257 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 184 (PDF, 292 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Benjamin Morland Easton v Registrar of the High Court of New Zealand
Case number
SC 82/2021
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 the respondent costs of $2,500.
22 September 2021
__________________________________________________________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 22 September 2021 (Easton v Registrar of the High Court of New Zealand [2021] NZSC 123) is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
22 July 2022
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
22 September 2021
__________________________________________________________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 22 September 2021 (Easton v Registrar of the High Court of New Zealand [2021] NZSC 123) is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
22 July 2022
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
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
Christopher Ryan v Health and Disability Commissioner
Case number
SC 98/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Ryan v The Health and Disability Commissioner [2021] NZCA 347).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to uphold the finding of liability under s 72 of the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994.
2 November 2021
________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
28 April 2023
________________________________________________
The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
26 June 2023
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to uphold the finding of liability under s 72 of the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994.
2 November 2021
________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
28 April 2023
________________________________________________
The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
26 June 2023
Date of hearing
24 March 2022
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing 24 March 2022 (PDF, 433 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2023] NZSC 42 (PDF, 286 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Caleb Benjamin Judd v The Queen
Case number
SC 100/2021
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
9 December 2021
9 December 2021
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 11 of 22