Supreme Court case information

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.

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.
21 November 2025

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 RETRIAL.  PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

A   The appeal is allowed.

B   The convictions are quashed and a retrial is ordered.

C   Any bail application should be made to the District Court.

D   We make an order prohibiting publication of the name, address, occupation or identifying particulars of the appellant until final disposition of retrial pursuant to s 200(2)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

11 June 2026

Civil appeal - application for leave to bring an appeal

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay the first to sixth respondents one set of costs of $2,500.
15 April 2026

Civil appeal - application for leave to bring an appeal

A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B The applications to file reply submissions are dismissed.
C The applications for stay of execution are dismissed.
D The application to admit new evidence is dismissed.
E The first applicant must pay each respondent costs of $2,500.
1 May 2026
______________________________________________________________________________
The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 1 May 2026 (Chen v Goodmore Investments (New Zealand) Ltd [2026] NZSC 40) is dismissed.
8 May 2026

Civil appeal - application for leave to bring an appeal

A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B The applications to file reply submissions are dismissed.
C The applications for stay of execution are dismissed.
D The application to admit new evidence is dismissed.
E The first applicant must pay each respondent costs of $2,500.
1 May 2026
______________________________________________________________________________
The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 1 May 2026 (Chen v Goodmore Investments (New Zealand) Ltd [2026] NZSC 40) is dismissed.
8 May 2026

Civil Appeal

A The applications for extensions of time to apply for leave to appeal are granted.
B Leave to appeal is granted (J v Attorney-General [2023] NZCA 660).
C The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals.
18 April 2024
__________________________________________________

A The appeal is allowed in part.  The approach of the Court of Appeal to s 85 of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 was incorrect.  The Family Court, in considering this matter in the context of a review under Part 6 of the Act, is to address J’s condition and status in accordance with our approach to s 85.    

B The further evidence described below at [156] is admitted.  

C The application for recall of this Court’s leave judgment of 18 April 2024 (J, Compulsory Care Recipient, by his Welfare Guardian, T v Attorney General [2024] NZSC 34) is allowed only to clarify the matters which are properly before the Court.

D The judgment of this Court of 18 April 2024 (J, Compulsory Care Recipient, by his Welfare Guardian, Tv Attorney General [2024] NZSC 34) is reissued accordingly.

E Costs are reserved.                                                                                                                        

15 August 2025

Civil Appeal

A The applications for extensions of time to apply for leave to appeal are granted.
B Leave to appeal is granted (J v Attorney-General [2023] NZCA 660).
C The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals.
18 April 2024
_______________________________________

A The appeal is allowed in part.  The approach of the Court of Appeal to s 85 of the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 was incorrect.  The Family Court, in considering this matter in the context of a review under Part 6 of the Act, is to address J’s condition and status in accordance with our approach to s 85.    

B The further evidence described below at [156] is admitted.  

C The application for recall of this Court’s leave judgment of 18 April 2024 (J, Compulsory Care Recipient, by his Welfare Guardian, T v Attorney General [2024] NZSC 34) is allowed only to clarify the matters which are properly before the Court.

D The judgment of this Court of 18 April 2024 (J, Compulsory Care Recipient, by his Welfare Guardian, Tv Attorney General [2024] NZSC 34) is reissued accordingly.

E Costs are reserved.                                                                                                                         15 August 2025

Civil Appeal

A The application for leave to appeal by Ms Fleming is granted in part to the extent described below (Attorney-General v Fleming [2024] NZCA 92).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct:
(i) to determine that Ms Fleming was not “engaged, employed or contracted” by the Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora as a “homeworker” under s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000; and
(ii) as to the test for “work” when work is conducted by homeworkers who work overnight in their home.
C The application for leave to appeal by Mr Humphreys is granted (Attorney-General v Fleming [2024] NZCA 92).
D The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to determine that Mr Humphreys was not “engaged, employed or contracted” by the Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora as a “homeworker” under s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 for the period from August 2020 onwards when in receipt of funding under the Individualised Funding scheme.
E Counsel in both appeals are asked to address the matters set out at [1]–[2] below.
4 October 2024
_________________________________________________

A Ms Fleming’s appeal (SC 42/2024) is allowed. 
B The Employment Court declaration as to Ms Fleming’s  employee status is reinstated.
C The question of determination of the quantum of remedies  for Ms Fleming is remitted to the Employment Court.
D Mr Humphreys’ appeal (SC 44/2024) is allowed. 
E The Employment Court declaration as to Mr Humphreys’  employee status is reinstated.
F The first respondent must pay the appellant in SC 44/2024 costs of $50,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
G Subject to Order F, costs in SC 42/2024 and SC 44/2024 are otherwise reserved. If parties cannot agree on costs, counsel are to file memoranda (maximum of 5 pages) on costs; counsel for Ms Fleming by 5 February 2026 and each of the respondents by 19 February 2026.
9 December 2025