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
David Simon Barton v Chief Executive, Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 141/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
1 July 2022
1 July 2022
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Dylan Edward Coleman v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 148/2021
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
7 April 2022
7 April 2022
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
TUV v The Chief of New Zealand Defence Force
Case number
SC 14/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (TUV v Chief of New Zealand Defence Force [2020] NZCA 12).
B The approved ground is:
(i) Does the test in O’Connor v Hart [1985] 1 NZLR 159 (PC) (that a contract is not voidable for mental incapacity unless the other contracting party has actual or constructive knowledge of the incapacity, or equitable fraud is established) apply in the employment jurisdiction (in particular, to a settlement agreement that has been certified under s 149 of the Employment Relations Act 2000)?
(ii) If not, what is the relevant test and should the settlement agreement have been set aside in this case on the grounds of mental incapacity?
15 May 2020
___________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The Courts below were correct not to set aside the settlement agreement in this case on the grounds of mental incapacity.
C There is no order as to costs.
3 June 2022
B The approved ground is:
(i) Does the test in O’Connor v Hart [1985] 1 NZLR 159 (PC) (that a contract is not voidable for mental incapacity unless the other contracting party has actual or constructive knowledge of the incapacity, or equitable fraud is established) apply in the employment jurisdiction (in particular, to a settlement agreement that has been certified under s 149 of the Employment Relations Act 2000)?
(ii) If not, what is the relevant test and should the settlement agreement have been set aside in this case on the grounds of mental incapacity?
15 May 2020
___________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The Courts below were correct not to set aside the settlement agreement in this case on the grounds of mental incapacity.
C There is no order as to costs.
3 June 2022
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 September 2021 (PDF, 298 KB)
- Hearing date 8 September 2020 (PDF, 712 KB)
Media Releases
- MR 2022 NZSC 69 (PDF, 195 KB)
Employment Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
John Frederick Ericson v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 46/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring civil 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 There is no order as to costs.
23 July 2020
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.
23 July 2020
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
[2020] NZSC 69 (PDF, 40 KB)
Case name
Rhys Richard Ngahiwi Warren v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 115/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal - Habeas Corpus - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
23 December 2020
23 December 2020
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
S and M v Vector Limited, Auckland District Court and H
Case number
SC 58/2019
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 trial remains in force. 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 of trial remains in force. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
21 September 2020
21 September 2020
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Case name
FMV v TZB
Case number
SC 72/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Jurisdiction – Employment Relations Act 2000, s 161(1)(r) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Employment Relations Authority had exclusive jurisdiction over the applicant’s claim that her employer breached various duties of care in relation to her employment – Whether the Court erred in upholding the High Court’s order granting permanent name suppression.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (FMV v TZB [2019] NZCA 282).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
8 October 2019
________________________________________________
A The High Court’s suppression order is amended to suppress only the identities of the parties and to remain in force so long as the suppression order made by the Employment Relations Authority remains in force.
B The appeal is otherwise dismissed.
C Costs are reserved.
20 August 2021
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
8 October 2019
________________________________________________
A The High Court’s suppression order is amended to suppress only the identities of the parties and to remain in force so long as the suppression order made by the Employment Relations Authority remains in force.
B The appeal is otherwise dismissed.
C Costs are reserved.
20 August 2021
Transcripts
- Hearing transcript 17 March 2020 SC 72 2019 (PDF, 509 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 102 (PDF, 195 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
FMV v TZB [2019] NZSC 108 [8 October 2019] (PDF, 32 KB)
Substantive judgment
FMV v TZB [2021] NZSC 102 [20 August 2021] (PDF, 392 KB)
Supreme court decision
Hearing date
17 March 2020
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Williams JJ
Case name
Port Otago Limited v Environmental Defence Society Incorporated , Otago Regional Council, Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated and Marlborough District Council
Case number
SC 107/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,000 plus usual disbursements to each of the first, second and third respondents.
22 April 2020
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,000 plus usual disbursements to each of the first, second and third respondents.
22 April 2020
Transcripts
- Hearing date 18 March 2020 (PDF, 217 KB)
Additional document
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Eric Meserve Houghton v Timothy Ernest Corbett Saunders, Samuel John Magill, John Michael Feeney, Craig Edgeworth Horrocks, Peter David Hunter, Peter Thomas and Joan Withers, and Credit Suisse Private Equity Inc, and Credit Suisse First Boston Asian Me
Case number
SC 117/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the expert evidence as to the quantum of loss is admissible – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against a refusal to strike out the respondent’ s defence under s 63 of the Securities Act 1978 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondents collectively and $2,500 to the second and third respondents collectively.
13 December 2019
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondents collectively and $2,500 to the second and third respondents collectively.
13 December 2019
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Case name
David Stanley Tranter v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 126/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the High Court was correct to refuse the applicant’s claim for habeas corpus.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
19 December 2019
19 December 2019
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 5 of 24