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
M v Attorney General (in respect of the Ministry of Health), Waitemata District Health Board and Capital and Coast District Health Board
Case number
SC 82/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (M (CA677/2017) v Attorney-General [2020] NZCA 311).
B The approved question is:
Was the applicant detained unlawfully after 20 December 2008 because the direction of the Attorney-General under s 31(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 that he be detained as a care recipient under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 was not issued until 14 January 2009, and, if so, for how long?
C In all other respects the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
16 December 2020
The application for reconsideration of the approved question on which leave was given in this Court’s judgment of 16 December 2020 (M (SC 82/2020) v Attorney-General [2020] NZSC 145) is dismissed.
23 March 2021
____________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B A declaration is made that the appellant was detained unlawfully from 21 December 2008 until 14 January 2009.
17 September 2021
B The approved question is:
Was the applicant detained unlawfully after 20 December 2008 because the direction of the Attorney-General under s 31(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 that he be detained as a care recipient under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 was not issued until 14 January 2009, and, if so, for how long?
C In all other respects the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
16 December 2020
The application for reconsideration of the approved question on which leave was given in this Court’s judgment of 16 December 2020 (M (SC 82/2020) v Attorney-General [2020] NZSC 145) is dismissed.
23 March 2021
____________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B A declaration is made that the appellant was detained unlawfully from 21 December 2008 until 14 January 2009.
17 September 2021
Date of hearing
27 April 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 April 2021 (PDF, 372 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 118 (PDF, 195 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Substantive judgment
Case name
Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Frucor Suntory New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 92/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal (SC 81/2020) against the Court of Appeal’s decision is granted (Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Frucor Suntory New Zealand Limited [2020] NZCA 383).
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
C The application for leave to appeal (SC 92/2020) against the Court of Appeal’s decision is granted (Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Frucor Suntory New Zealand Limited [2020] NZCA 383).
D The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that shortfall penalties do not apply.
18 December 2020
____________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed with the result that the appellant’s challenge to shortfall penalties is dismissed.
C The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $45,000 plus usual disbursements.
30 September 2022
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
C The application for leave to appeal (SC 92/2020) against the Court of Appeal’s decision is granted (Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Frucor Suntory New Zealand Limited [2020] NZCA 383).
D The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that shortfall penalties do not apply.
18 December 2020
____________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed with the result that the appellant’s challenge to shortfall penalties is dismissed.
C The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $45,000 plus usual disbursements.
30 September 2022
Date of hearing
08 June 2021
- 10 June 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ
Case Synopses
- Case Synopsis Frucor Suntory (PDF, 410 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 113 (PDF, 195 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
H v Minister of Immigration
Case number
SC 104/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (H v The Minister of Immigration [2020] NZCA 562).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
19 March 2021
______________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed on the basis set out at [32]–[33].
B Costs are reserved.
23 December 2021
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
19 March 2021
______________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed on the basis set out at [32]–[33].
B Costs are reserved.
23 December 2021
Date of hearing
20 July 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan and Arnold JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 12 March 2021 (PDF, 168 KB)
- Hearing date 20 July 2021 (PDF, 437 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 192 (PDF, 391 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Brooke Christie Rolleston v The Queen
Case number
SC 17/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether a member of the jury appeared biased – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted to the applicants (Rolleston v R [2018] NZCA 611).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeals.
21 March 2019
_________________________
A The application to cross-examine the foreperson is dismissed.
B The appeals are dismissed.
C Existing suppression orders in respect of the minutes issued in relation to this matter remain in place but are varied to continue until further order of this Court.
19 November 2019
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeals.
21 March 2019
_________________________
A The application to cross-examine the foreperson is dismissed.
B The appeals are dismissed.
C Existing suppression orders in respect of the minutes issued in relation to this matter remain in place but are varied to continue until further order of this Court.
19 November 2019
Date of hearing
13 November 2019
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 June 2019 SC 17/SC 18 (PDF, 197 KB)
- Hearing date 13 November 2019 (PDF, 126 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 129 (PDF, 65 KB)
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme Court - order made
Additional document
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Additional document
Case name
Brandon James Roche v The Queen
Case number
SC 18/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether a member of the jury appeared biased – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted to the applicants (Rolleston v R [2018] NZCA 611).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeals.
21 March 2019
____________________
A The application to cross-examine the foreperson is dismissed.
B The appeals are dismissed.
C Existing suppression orders in respect of the minutes issued in relation to this matter remain in place but are varied to continue until further order of this Court.
19 November 2019
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeals.
21 March 2019
____________________
A The application to cross-examine the foreperson is dismissed.
B The appeals are dismissed.
C Existing suppression orders in respect of the minutes issued in relation to this matter remain in place but are varied to continue until further order of this Court.
19 November 2019
Date of hearing
13 November 2019
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 June 2019 SC 17/SC 18 (PDF, 197 KB)
- Hearing date 13 November 2019 (PDF, 126 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 129 (PDF, 65 KB)
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme Court - order made
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Additional document
Additional document
Case name
The Queen v Maurice William Reti and Logan Aaron Wood
Case number
SC 23/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Reti v R [2019] NZCA 17).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the evidence obtained pursuant to the production order of 4 August 2016 and pursuant to the execution of the search warrant on 1 November 2016 was inadmissible at the trial.
C 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 trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
4 April 2019
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B We make an 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 trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
5 March 2020
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the evidence obtained pursuant to the production order of 4 August 2016 and pursuant to the execution of the search warrant on 1 November 2016 was inadmissible at the trial.
C 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 trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
4 April 2019
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B We make an 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 trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
5 March 2020
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave granted
R v MAURICE WILLIAM RETI [2019] NZSC 36 [4 April 2019] (PDF, 182 KB)
Substantive judgment
Date of hearing
23 July 2019
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Case name
Scott v Williams
Case number
SC 45/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether there are exceptional circumstances in this case to justify an appeal from two High Court decisions under section 75 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 – Whether an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal should be granted.
Result
A The applications for extensions of time for applying for leave to appeal ([2018] NZHC 1979 and [2019] NZHC 935) are dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
25 July 2019
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
25 July 2019
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SCOTT v WILLIAMS [2019] NZSC 80 [25 July 2019] (PDF, 44 KB)
Case name
Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis v The King
Case number
SC 49/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether there was a miscarriage of justice arising from risks of contamination of or improperly obtained complainant evidence - Whether there was a miscarriage of justice arising from lack of expert evidence on the reliability of children complainants’ evidence – Whether there was a miscarriage of justice due to unreliable expert evidence being led at trial.
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 granted.
C The approved ground of appeal is whether a miscarriage of justice occurred in this case.
31 July 2019
_____________________________________________________
The appeal is to continue despite the death of the appellant.
1 September 2020
_____________________________________________________
A The applications to adduce further evidence are granted.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The convictions of the appellant are quashed.
7 October 2022
B The application for leave to appeal is granted.
C The approved ground of appeal is whether a miscarriage of justice occurred in this case.
31 July 2019
_____________________________________________________
The appeal is to continue despite the death of the appellant.
1 September 2020
_____________________________________________________
A The applications to adduce further evidence are granted.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The convictions of the appellant are quashed.
7 October 2022
Date of hearing
04 October 2021
- 15 October 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Williams and Arnold JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 14 November 2019 (PDF, 246 KB)
- Hearing date 25 June 2020 Tikanga hearing (PDF, 308 KB)
- Hearing date 11 November 2020 (PDF, 146 KB)
- Hearing date 25 March 2021 (PDF, 151 KB)
- Hearing date 12 - 14 October 2021 (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 14 November 2019 (PDF, 338 KB)
- Hearing date 25 June 2020 Tikanga hearing (PDF, 156 KB)
- Hearing date 25 March 2021 (PDF, 431 KB)
- Hearing date 4 October 2021 (onwards) (PDF, 235 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 83 (PDF, 61 KB)
- MR [2020] NZSC 89 (PDF, 66 KB)
- MR [2021] NZSC 63 (PDF, 279 KB)
- MR [2021] NZSC 77 (PDF, 279 KB)
- MR [2022] NZSC 114 (PDF, 293 KB)
- MR [2022] NZSC 115 (PDF, 339 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Substantive judgment
Videos
- Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis v R SC 49/2019 - 7 October 2022 (Recorded, 7 October 2022)
Case name
Dermot Gregory Nottingham v The Queen
Case number
SC 83/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Harassment Act 1997, s 8(1) – Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 211(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction and sentence.
Result
A The application for an extension of time is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
12 December 2019
_______________
A The judgment of 12 December 2019 (Nottingham v R [2019] NZSC 144) is recalled and leave to appeal is granted in relation to the appeal against sentence.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to impose the maximum period of home detention in circumstances where the offender had already served a period of home detention in relation to the offending.
20 March 2020
----------------------------------------------
A The appeal against sentence is allowed. The sentence of 12 months’ home detention imposed by the Court of Appeal is varied by replacing that sentence with a sentence of eight and a half months’ home detention with a start date of 30 July 2019.
B Having served more than 12 months’ home detention, Mr Nottingham has served that part of his sentence. The standard and special post-detention conditions imposed by the Court of Appeal remain in place for the remainder of the 12 month and six month post detention periods respectively.
C The remaining period of community work to be served by Mr Nottingham is remitted.
31 July 2020
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
12 December 2019
_______________
A The judgment of 12 December 2019 (Nottingham v R [2019] NZSC 144) is recalled and leave to appeal is granted in relation to the appeal against sentence.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to impose the maximum period of home detention in circumstances where the offender had already served a period of home detention in relation to the offending.
20 March 2020
----------------------------------------------
A The appeal against sentence is allowed. The sentence of 12 months’ home detention imposed by the Court of Appeal is varied by replacing that sentence with a sentence of eight and a half months’ home detention with a start date of 30 July 2019.
B Having served more than 12 months’ home detention, Mr Nottingham has served that part of his sentence. The standard and special post-detention conditions imposed by the Court of Appeal remain in place for the remainder of the 12 month and six month post detention periods respectively.
C The remaining period of community work to be served by Mr Nottingham is remitted.
31 July 2020
Date of hearing
28 May 2020
Judges
William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan , Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 28 May 2020 (PDF, 195 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 74 (PDF, 126 KB)
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Case name
Bryce Brougham v Christine Anne Elizabeth Regan and Mark Jefferey Tuffin as trustees of the Winchester Trust and Racheal Christina Dey
Case number
SC 104/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a standard form loan agreement was a contract of guarantee under s 27 of the Property Law Act 2007 – Whether imposing guarantee obligations on one of two guarantors named in a contract of guarantee is contingent on both named guarantors signing.
Result
A An extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
B Leave to appeal is granted (Regan v Brougham [2019] NZCA 401).
C The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was right to allow the appeal to that Court.
12 December 2019
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The orders made in the Court of Appeal are set aside and judgment is entered for the appellant.
C The respondents must pay the appellant costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
D The award of costs and disbursements in the lower Courts in favour of the first respondents is set aside. Such costs and disbursements should be reassessed by the Court of Appeal in light of this judgment. The award of costs in favour of the second respondent stands.
E The first respondents’ interlocutory application to adduce further evidence is dismissed. 30 October 2020
B Leave to appeal is granted (Regan v Brougham [2019] NZCA 401).
C The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was right to allow the appeal to that Court.
12 December 2019
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The orders made in the Court of Appeal are set aside and judgment is entered for the appellant.
C The respondents must pay the appellant costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
D The award of costs and disbursements in the lower Courts in favour of the first respondents is set aside. Such costs and disbursements should be reassessed by the Court of Appeal in light of this judgment. The award of costs in favour of the second respondent stands.
E The first respondents’ interlocutory application to adduce further evidence is dismissed. 30 October 2020
Date of hearing
09 June 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 9 June 2020 (PDF, 409 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 118 (PDF, 189 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 14 of 22