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.
17 August 2026
Case information summary (as at 17 August 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 17 August 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 128 KB)
All years
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
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
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
Case name
Local Government Mutual Funds Trustee Limited v Napier City Council
Case number
SC 103/2022
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Napier City Council v Local Government Mutual Funds Trustee Ltd [2022] NZCA 422).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct:
(a) in its interpretation of exclusion 13(a) of the Protection Wording; and
(b) in its consequent finding that the claim by the respondent in relation to its liability to owners of apartments in the Waterfront Apartments complex was excluded by exclusion 13(a) only to the extent that the respondent’s liability arose directly or indirectly out of, or in respect of, weathertightness defects.
21 December 2022
______________________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
1 August 2023
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct:
(a) in its interpretation of exclusion 13(a) of the Protection Wording; and
(b) in its consequent finding that the claim by the respondent in relation to its liability to owners of apartments in the Waterfront Apartments complex was excluded by exclusion 13(a) only to the extent that the respondent’s liability arose directly or indirectly out of, or in respect of, weathertightness defects.
21 December 2022
______________________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
1 August 2023
Date of hearing
27 April 2023
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, O'Regan, Ellen France, Williams and Kós JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing 27 April 2023 Appellant Submissions (PDF, 7.9 MB)
- Hearing 27 April 2023 Appellant oral outline (PDF, 318 KB)
- Hearing 27 April 2023 Respondent Submissions (PDF, 681 KB)
- Hearing 27 April 2023 Respondent Oral Outline (PDF, 779 KB)
- Hearing 27 April 2023 Joint Chronology (PDF, 347 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 April 2023 (PDF, 550 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 27 April 2023 (PDF, 557 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2023] NZSC 97 (PDF, 259 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Videos
- Local Government Mutual Funds Trustee Limited v Napier City Council - SC 103/2022 (Recorded, 27 April 2023)
Case name
A, B and C v D and E Limited as Trustees of the Z Trust
Case number
SC 106/2022
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (D and E Ltd as Trustees of the Z Trust v A, B and C [2022] NZCA 430).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
C We make an order prohibiting publication of names, addresses or identifying particulars of any persons or entities connected to this proceeding.
20 December 2022
_____________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
28 November 2024
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
C We make an order prohibiting publication of names, addresses or identifying particulars of any persons or entities connected to this proceeding.
20 December 2022
_____________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
28 November 2024
Date of hearing
13 June 2023
- 14 June 2023
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 13 and 14 June 2023 Appellant submissions (PDF, 461 KB)
- Hearing date 13 and 14 June 2023 Respondent submissions (PDF, 963 KB)
- Hearing date 13 and 14 June 2023 Counsel to Assist Submissions (PDF, 257 KB)
- Hearing date 13 and 14 June 2023 Joint Chronology (PDF, 545 KB)
Transcripts
Media Releases
- MR [2024] NZSC 161 (PDF, 242 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Donglin Deng v Lu Zheng
Case number
SC 5/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Zheng v Deng [2020] NZCA 614).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to make a declaration that there was a partnership between Mr Zheng and Mr Deng in which they were equal partners and to make orders that were consequential on that finding.
14 May 2021
_________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Mr Deng must pay Mr Zheng costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (including travelling expenses for two counsel), to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
20 June 2022
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to make a declaration that there was a partnership between Mr Zheng and Mr Deng in which they were equal partners and to make orders that were consequential on that finding.
14 May 2021
_________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Mr Deng must pay Mr Zheng costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (including travelling expenses for two counsel), to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
20 June 2022
Date of hearing
17 August 2021
Judges
William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 17 August 2021 (PDF, 553 KB)
Media Releases
- MR 2022 NZSC 76 (PDF, 334 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
DONGLIN DENG v LU ZHENG [2021] NZSC 43 [14 May 2021] (PDF, 200 KB)
Substantive judgment
DONGLIN DENG v LU ZHENG [2022] NZSC 76 [20 June 2022] (PDF, 503 KB)
Case name
Te Warena Taua, George Hori Winikerei Taua, Ngarama Walker, Hamuera Taua and Miriama Tamaariki as Trustees of the Te Kaweray Iwi Tribal Authority and Te Warena Taua, George Hori Winikerei Taua, Ngarama Walker, Hamuera Taua and Miriama Tamaariki as Truste
Case number
SC 9/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Taua v Tahi Enterprises Ltd [2020] NZCA 639).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
15 July 2021
_____________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed to the extent that, by consent, the orders made in the High Court and the Court of Appeal granting discovery of the register of iwi members are set aside and the other orders set out below at [16] are substituted.
B Leave is reserved to the parties and any member of the iwi to apply to the High Court for modifications of these orders. The High Court may make such orders, including any additional or ancillary orders.
C There is no order as to costs in this Court. The costs orders made in the Court of Appeal on the appeal in that Court in favour of the respondents are set aside. The respondents must pay the appellants costs in that Court calculated for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements. The costs orders made in the High Court stand.
15 December 2021
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
15 July 2021
_____________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed to the extent that, by consent, the orders made in the High Court and the Court of Appeal granting discovery of the register of iwi members are set aside and the other orders set out below at [16] are substituted.
B Leave is reserved to the parties and any member of the iwi to apply to the High Court for modifications of these orders. The High Court may make such orders, including any additional or ancillary orders.
C There is no order as to costs in this Court. The costs orders made in the Court of Appeal on the appeal in that Court in favour of the respondents are set aside. The respondents must pay the appellants costs in that Court calculated for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements. The costs orders made in the High Court stand.
15 December 2021
Date of hearing
19 November 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France, Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 18 May 2021 (PDF, 202 KB)
- Hearing date 19 November 2021 (PDF, 279 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Case name
Katharine Elizabeth Preston v Grant Lee Preston and Grant Lee Preston and Fisher Partners Limited as Trustees of the Grant Preston Family Trust
Case number
SC 10/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Preston v Preston [2020] NZCA 679).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss Ms Preston’s appeal in relation to her claim for an award of part of the assets of the Grant Preston Family Trust under s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980.
12 May 2021
____________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B Orders are made that the Grant Preston Family Trust pay the Huntbos Family Trust $141,000 and release any claim to the $192,000 of the funds held on joint account (the Grant Preston Family Trust share of these funds is $102,000 and the Huntbos Family Trust share is $90,000).
C The Grant Preston Family Trust deed is amended by removing the appellant as a discretionary beneficiary.
D Leave is reserved to the parties to seek further directions or orders that may be necessary to give effect to this judgment.
E The first respondent must pay the appellant costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for second counsel. Unless the parties can agree, costs in the Courts below are to be redetermined in those Courts in accordance with this judgment.
9 November 2021
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss Ms Preston’s appeal in relation to her claim for an award of part of the assets of the Grant Preston Family Trust under s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980.
12 May 2021
____________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B Orders are made that the Grant Preston Family Trust pay the Huntbos Family Trust $141,000 and release any claim to the $192,000 of the funds held on joint account (the Grant Preston Family Trust share of these funds is $102,000 and the Huntbos Family Trust share is $90,000).
C The Grant Preston Family Trust deed is amended by removing the appellant as a discretionary beneficiary.
D Leave is reserved to the parties to seek further directions or orders that may be necessary to give effect to this judgment.
E The first respondent must pay the appellant costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for second counsel. Unless the parties can agree, costs in the Courts below are to be redetermined in those Courts in accordance with this judgment.
9 November 2021
Date of hearing
03 August 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O’Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 3 August 2021 (PDF, 444 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 154 (PDF, 195 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Tourism Holdings Limited v A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Case number
SC 15/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Tourism Holdings Ltd [2021] NZCA 1).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal correctly answered the questions of law submitted for determination by it.
6 May 2021
___________________________________________________________
A We amend the answer given by the Court of Appeal to the first of the questions submitted for determination by that Court so that it reads:
Payments are “a regular part of the employee’s pay” if they are of a kind made regularly when assessed against the standard of a four-week period.
That apart, the appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $15,000 plus usual disbursements.
15 November 2021
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal correctly answered the questions of law submitted for determination by it.
6 May 2021
___________________________________________________________
A We amend the answer given by the Court of Appeal to the first of the questions submitted for determination by that Court so that it reads:
Payments are “a regular part of the employee’s pay” if they are of a kind made regularly when assessed against the standard of a four-week period.
That apart, the appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $15,000 plus usual disbursements.
15 November 2021
Date of hearing
01 July 2021
Judges
William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 1 July 2021 (PDF, 391 KB)
Media Releases
- MR 2021 NZSC 157 (PDF, 250 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 10 of 22