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
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
Quentin Stobart Haines, BPE Trustees (No. 1) Limited and Quentin Haines Properties Limited v Harry Memelink and Cisca Forester as Trustees of the Link Trust No.1 and Roy Bassett-Burr
Case number
SC 93/2020
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 against the interim decision is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal against the interim and substantive decisions is dismissed.
C The applicants must pay the respondents costs of $2,500.
1 March 2021
B The application for leave to appeal against the interim and substantive decisions is dismissed.
C The applicants must pay the respondents costs of $2,500.
1 March 2021
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
James Charles Stringer v Colin Graeme Craig, Helen Ruth Craig, Angela Maria Storr, Kevin Eric Stitt and Stephen Dylan Taylor
Case number
SC 96/2020
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 first respondent costs of $2,500.
16 February 2021
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay the first respondent costs of $2,500.
16 February 2021
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
An Li Tao v Strata Title Administration Ltd, Jigar Pandya and Body Corporate 198693
Case number
SC 103/2020
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 There is no order as to costs.
17 March 2021
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.
17 March 2021
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
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
Martin Charles Round v The Queen
Case number
SC 109/2020
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Application for leave to 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 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 is permitted.
18 February 2021
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C 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 is permitted.
18 February 2021
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Case name
Yan Zhang v Telco Asset Management Limited
Case number
SC 110/2020
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 file further submissions is dismissed.
C The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
D The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
9 March 2021
B The application for leave to file further submissions is dismissed.
C The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
D The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
9 March 2021
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
SKP Incorporated v Auckland Council and Kennedy Point Boatharbour Limited
Case number
SC 118/2020
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 costs of $1,750 to each of the respondents.
27 April 2021
___________________________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 27 April 2021 (SKP Inc v Auckland Council [2021] NZSC 35) is allowed only to make the correction identified at [5] below.
B The [2021] NZSC 35 judgment is reissued with this correction.
5 May 2021
_____________________________________
The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 27 April 2021, reissued on 5 May 2021 (SKP Inc v Auckland Council [2021] NZSC 35), is dismissed.
19 May 2021
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay costs of $1,750 to each of the respondents.
27 April 2021
___________________________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 27 April 2021 (SKP Inc v Auckland Council [2021] NZSC 35) is allowed only to make the correction identified at [5] below.
B The [2021] NZSC 35 judgment is reissued with this correction.
5 May 2021
_____________________________________
The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 27 April 2021, reissued on 5 May 2021 (SKP Inc v Auckland Council [2021] NZSC 35), is dismissed.
19 May 2021
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Recall judgment
Case name
R (SC 1/2019) V The Queen
Case number
SC 1/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (R (CA158/2018) v R [2018] NZCA 529.
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
21 February 2019
_________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
16 August 2019
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
21 February 2019
_________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
16 August 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 14 May 2019 (PDF, 137 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 87 (PDF, 62 KB)
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
R (SC 1/2019) v R [2019] NZSC 10 [21 February 2019] (PDF, 180 KB)
Substantive judgment
R (SC 1/2019) v R [2019] NZSC 87 [16 August 2019] (PDF, 127 KB)
Case name
James Hardie Industries Plc, James Hardie NZ Holdings & RCI Holdings Pty LImited v Karen Louise White, Waitakere Group Limited, Metlifecare Pinseong Limited, Forest Lake Gardens Limited, Vision (Dannemora) LImited (Name changed to Metlifecare Dannemora
Case number
SC 12/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that there is a serious issue to be tried as to whether the applicant owed a duty of care to those affected by the actions or omissions of its subsidiaries – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that there is a serious issue to be tried as to whether the applicant breached the Fair Trading Act 1986 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that there is a serious issue to be tried as to whether the applicant was a “manufacturer” of goods in breach of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicants’ appeal against a decision of the High Court not to grant summary judgment – (cross-appeal) Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to set aside a decision of the High Court partially upholding a protest to jurisdiction.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants are to pay to the respondents costs of $2,500.
16 April 2019
B The applicants are to pay to the respondents costs of $2,500.
16 April 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 23 of 80