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
Cheyman Lee Mitchell v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 116/2021
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Mitchell v New Zealand Police [2021] NZCA 417).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
14 December 2021
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
11 August 2023
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
14 December 2021
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
11 August 2023
Date of hearing
10 May 2022
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, O’Regan, Ellen France, Williams and Kós JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 10 May 2022 Appellant submissions (PDF, 633 KB)
- Hearing date 10 May 2022 Respondent submissions (PDF, 434 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 May 2022 (PDF, 389 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2023] NZSC 104 (PDF, 287 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Ryshell Griggs and Mark Phillip Chamberlain on Behalf of Ngāi Tūmapūhia-ā-Rangi Hapū v Waitangi Tribunal and Ors
Case number
SC 127/2021
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 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 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
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 142 (PDF, 276 KB)
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Christine Marama Cowan and Te Rahui John Cowan v John Arthur Cowan, Kurt Thomas Gibbons and 170 Queens Drive Limited.
Case number
SC 130/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Cowan v Cowan [2021] NZCA 463).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal to that Court.
20 December 2021
___________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
12 April 2022
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal to that Court.
20 December 2021
___________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
12 April 2022
Date of hearing
15 February 2022
Judges
Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France, Williams, JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 15 December 2021 (PDF, 214 KB)
- Hearing date 15 February 2022 (PDF, 276 KB)
Media Releases
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Woolworths New Zealand Limited v Auckland Council, Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority, Foodstuffs North Island Limited and Medical Officer of Health
Case number
SC 139/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Auckland Council v Woolworths New Zealand Ltd [2021] NZCA 484).
B Leave is granted to the Medical Officer of Health to appear as an interested party at the substantive hearing.
C The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.
13 April 2022
______________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the Auckland Council costs of $35,000.
5 May 2023
B Leave is granted to the Medical Officer of Health to appear as an interested party at the substantive hearing.
C The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.
13 April 2022
______________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the Auckland Council costs of $35,000.
5 May 2023
Date of hearing
13 September 2022
- 14 September 2022
Judges
O'Regan, Ellen France, Williams and William Young JJ; Cooper P
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing 13 and 14 September 2022 Appellant submissions (PDF, 428 KB)
- Hearing 13 and 14 September 2022 First respondent submissions (PDF, 982 KB)
- Hearing Tuesday 13 September and Wednesday 14 September 2022 Interested party submissions (PDF, 1 MB)
- Hearing 13 and 14 September 2022 Joint Chronology (PDF, 200 KB)
- Hearing date Tue 13 Sept and Wed 14 Sept 2022 Woolworths outline of oral argument (PDF, 144 KB)
- Hearing date Tue 13 Sept and Wed 14 Sept 2022 Auckland Council oral outline (PDF, 1011 KB)
Transcripts
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 13 Sept and 14 Sept 2022 (PDF, 300 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2023] NZSC 45 (PDF, 284 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Videos
- Woolworths New Zealand Ltd v Auckland Council SC 139/2021 & SC 140/2021 - 14 September 2022 (Recorded, 14 September 2022)
- Woolworths New Zealand ltd v Auckland Council SC 139/2021 & SC 140/2021- 13 September 2022 (Recorded, 13 September 2022)
Case name
Foodstuffs North Island Limited v Auckland Council, Woolworths New Zealand Limited and Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority
Case number
SC 140/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Auckland Council v Woolworths New Zealand Ltd [2021] NZCA 484).
B Leave is granted to the Medical Officer of Health to appear as an interested party at the substantive hearing.
C The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.
13 April 2022
_____________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the Auckland Council costs of $35,000.
5 May 2023
B Leave is granted to the Medical Officer of Health to appear as an interested party at the substantive hearing.
C The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.
13 April 2022
_____________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the Auckland Council costs of $35,000.
5 May 2023
Date of hearing
13 September 2022
- 14 September 2022
Judges
O'Regan, Ellen France, Williams and William Young JJ; Cooper P
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing Tuesday 13 Sept Wed 14 Sept 2022 Appellant submissions (PDF, 390 KB)
- Hearing Tue 13 and Wed 14 Sept 2022 First respondent submissions (PDF, 841 KB)
- Hearing Tuesday 13 September and Wednesday 14 September 2022 Interested party submissions (PDF, 1 MB)
- Hearing 13 and 14 September 2022 Joint Chronology (PDF, 200 KB)
- Hearing date Tue 13 Sept and Wed 14 Sept 2022 Woolworths outline of oral argument (PDF, 144 KB)
- Hearing date Tue 13 Sept and Wed 14 Sept 2022 Auckland Council oral outline (PDF, 1011 KB)
Transcripts
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 13 Sept and 14 Sept 2022 (PDF, 300 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2023] NZSC 45 (PDF, 284 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Videos
- Woolworths New Zealand Ltd v Auckland Council SC 139/2021 & SC 140/2021 - 14 September 2022 (Recorded, 14 September 2022)
- Woolworths New Zealand ltd v Auckland Council SC 139/2021 & SC 140/2021- 13 September 2022 (Recorded, 13 September 2022)
Case name
Michael John Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited, Genesis Energy Limited, Dairy Holdings Limited, New Zealand Steel Limited, Z Energy Limited, New Zealand Refining Company Limited and BT Mining Limited
Case number
SC 149/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Smith v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd [2021] NZCA 522).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal and allow the cross appeal.
31 March 2022
__________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The appellant’s claim is reinstated.
C There is no order as to costs.
7 February 2024
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal and allow the cross appeal.
31 March 2022
__________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The appellant’s claim is reinstated.
C There is no order as to costs.
7 February 2024
Date of hearing
15 August 2022
- 17 August 2022
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, Ellen France, Williams and Kós JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date Monday 15 Wednesday 17 August 2022 Appellant submissions (PDF, 1.1 MB)
- Hearing date Monday 15 Wednesday 17 August 2022 First to fifth respondents submissions (PDF, 422 KB)
- Hearing date Monday 15 Wednesday 17 August 2022 Sixth respondent Channel Infrastructure NZ Limited submissions (PDF, 177 KB)
- Hearing date Monday 15 Wednesday 17 August 2022 Seventh respondent BT Mining submissions (PDF, 235 KB)
- Hearing date Monday 15 Wednesday 17 August 2022 Intervener LCANZI submissions (PDF, 354 KB)
- Hearing date Monday 15 Wednesday 17 August 2022 Intervener Te Hunga Roia Maori submissions (PDF, 737 KB)
- Hearing date Monday 15 Wednesday 17 August 2022 Intervener Human Rights Commission submissions (PDF, 358 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing date 15 - 17 August 2022 (PDF, 1.6 MB)
Case Synopses
Media Releases
- MR [2024] NZSC 5 (PDF, 334 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
[2024] NZSC 5 (PDF, 693 KB)
Videos
- Michael John Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited SC 149/2021 - 17 August 2022 (Recorded, 17 August 2022)
- Michael John Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited SC 149/2021 - 16 August 2022 (Recorded, 16 August 2022)
- Michael John Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited SC 149/2021 - 15 August 2022 (Recorded, 15 August 2022)
Case name
Auckland Council v C P Group Limited, Millennium & Copthorne Hotels New Zealand Limited, MLC Scenic Limited and T & T Clarry's Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 158/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (C P Group Ltd v Auckland Council [2021] NZCA 587).
B The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
30 March 2022
_________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeal is set aside. The decision of the High Court dismissing the respondents’ application for judicial review is reinstated.
B The respondents must pay the appellant one set of costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
C The award of costs and disbursements made in favour of the respondents in the Court of Appeal is quashed. That Court should redetermine costs in light of this Court’s judgment allowing the appeal.
D Costs in the High Court are to be determined by that Court in the light of this Court’s judgment allowing the appeal.
E Leave is reserved to the parties to apply for consequential orders if required.
12 May 2023
B The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
30 March 2022
_________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeal is set aside. The decision of the High Court dismissing the respondents’ application for judicial review is reinstated.
B The respondents must pay the appellant one set of costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
C The award of costs and disbursements made in favour of the respondents in the Court of Appeal is quashed. That Court should redetermine costs in light of this Court’s judgment allowing the appeal.
D Costs in the High Court are to be determined by that Court in the light of this Court’s judgment allowing the appeal.
E Leave is reserved to the parties to apply for consequential orders if required.
12 May 2023
Date of hearing
20 July 2022
- 21 July 2022
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O’Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 20 July 2022 and 21 July 2022 Appellant Submissions (PDF, 851 KB)
- Hearing date 20 July and 21 July 2022 Appellants Outline of Oral Argument (PDF, 85 KB)
- Hearing date 20 July 2022 and 21 July 2022 Appellant Chronology (PDF, 228 KB)
- Hearing date 20 July 2022 21 July 2022 1st 3rd Respondent Submissions (PDF, 744 KB)
- Hearing date 20 July 2022 and 21 July 222 2nd 4th Respondent Submissions (PDF, 433 KB)
- Hearing date 20 July 2022 21 July 2022 Intervener submissions (PDF, 173 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing 20 July 2022 (PDF, 927 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 20 and 21 July 2022 (PDF, 495 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2023] NZSC 53 (PDF, 251 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Videos
- Auckland City Council v C P Group Limited SC 158/2021 - 21 July 2022 (Recorded, 21 July 2022)
- Auckland City Council v C P Group Limited SC 158/2021 - 20 July 2022 (Recorded, 20 July 2022)
Case name
Leslie Norman Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Limited
Case number
SC 5/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Roche Products (New Zealand) Ltd v Austin [2019] NZCA 660).
B The approved question is whether the applicant’s claim for compensatory damages should have been struck out on the basis that his injuries were not an ordinary consequence of the consumption of Roaccutane.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
19 May 2020
___________________________________________________
A The appeal will be dismissed one month from the date of this judgment unless the appellant makes an application under s 135 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 together with an application to this Court for a stay of this proceeding pending completion of that process.
B There is no order as to costs.
31 March 2021
___________________________________________________
A This Court’s decision in Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Ltd [2021] NZSC 30 is stayed until midday on 6 December 2021, unless the stay is extended in this Court on the application of Mr Austin.
B Any party may seek an order lapsing the stay at any stage.
C Costs are reserved.
16 June 2021
___________________________________________________
A The stay ordered in Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Ltd [2021] NZSC 62 is lifted.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.
25 September 2024
B The approved question is whether the applicant’s claim for compensatory damages should have been struck out on the basis that his injuries were not an ordinary consequence of the consumption of Roaccutane.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
19 May 2020
___________________________________________________
A The appeal will be dismissed one month from the date of this judgment unless the appellant makes an application under s 135 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 together with an application to this Court for a stay of this proceeding pending completion of that process.
B There is no order as to costs.
31 March 2021
___________________________________________________
A This Court’s decision in Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Ltd [2021] NZSC 30 is stayed until midday on 6 December 2021, unless the stay is extended in this Court on the application of Mr Austin.
B Any party may seek an order lapsing the stay at any stage.
C Costs are reserved.
16 June 2021
___________________________________________________
A The stay ordered in Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Ltd [2021] NZSC 62 is lifted.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.
25 September 2024
Date of hearing
10 September 2020
Judges
William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan, Ellen France, Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 September 2020 (PDF, 225 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 30 (PDF, 281 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Recall judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Trans-Tasman Resources Limited v The Taranaki-Whanganui Conservation Board and Ors
Case number
SC 28/2020
Summary
Civil appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Trans-Tasman Resources Ltd v Taranaki Whanganui Conservation Board [2020] NZCA 86).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
17 July 2020
____________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Leave is reserved to a party to apply to the High Court for directions if necessary.
C Costs are reserved.
30 September 2021
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
17 July 2020
____________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Leave is reserved to a party to apply to the High Court for directions if necessary.
C Costs are reserved.
30 September 2021
Date of hearing
17 November 2020
- 19 November 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 17-19 November 2020 (PDF, 1.3 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 127 (PDF, 193 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Bathurst Resources Limited & Buller Coal Limited v L&M Coal Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 29/2020
Summary
Civil appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Bathurst Resources Ltd v L&M Coal Holdings Ltd [2020] NZCA 113).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
27 July 2020
________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed. The judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside and judgment is entered for the appellants.
B The application to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
C The respondent must pay the appellants costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for second counsel.
D Costs should be re-determined in the Courts below in light of this judgment.
14 July 2021
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
27 July 2020
________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed. The judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside and judgment is entered for the appellants.
B The application to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
C The respondent must pay the appellants costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for second counsel.
D Costs should be re-determined in the Courts below in light of this judgment.
14 July 2021
Date of hearing
08 October 2020
- 09 October 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O’Regan, Ellen France, Williams JJ
Transcripts
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 85 (PDF, 289 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 12 of 22