Supreme Court case information

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

Civil Appeal

A The applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal are granted (Whangarei District Council v Daisley [2024] NZCA 161).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to (1) dismiss the appeal against the High Court’s finding that the applicant was liable in negligence; and (2) allow the appeal against the High Court’s finding that the applicant was liable for misfeasance in public office, for which it should pay exemplary damages.
25 September 2024
__________________________________________________________________________

A The appeal is allowed in part. The finding that the appellant fraudulently concealed the respondent’s right of action is set aside.
B The appeal in respect of the award of damages of $90,000 for loss of the value of the Knight Road property, and interest on that sum in the terms set out by the High Court, is dismissed.
C The damages awarded to the respondent are otherwise set aside.
D The cross-appeal is dismissed.
E The respondent must pay the appellant costs of $45,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.     
4 June 2026

Criminal Appeal

A Leave to appeal is granted (Tamihere v R [2024] NZCA 300).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct not to exercise its jurisdiction under s 406(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961 to quash Mr Tamihere’s convictions.
20 December 2024
__________________________________________________
A The application to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
B The appeal is allowed.
C We exercise the Court’s jurisdiction under s 406(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961 to quash Mr Tamihere’s convictions. We make an order directing a retrial.
D Order redacting paragraphs [49]–[61], [79]–[120], [147]– [161], [163]–[164] and [167]–[170] from the judgment delivered on 31 March 2026.
E Order prohibiting publication of the unredacted version of the judgment pending final disposition of retrial.     
31 March 2026

Criminal Appeal

A The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
B Leave to appeal is granted in part (Jury v R [2024] NZCA 320).
C The approved questions are:
(a) whether the High Court erred by admitting the hearsay statements of Rex Maney in evidence, and if so, whether the error occasioned a miscarriage of justice; and
(b) whether the trial Judge’s failure to give a reliability direction under s 122 of the Evidence Act 2006 with respect to those statements occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
D The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
17 March 2025

Civil Appeal 

A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Pascoe v Minister for Land Information [2024] NZCA 557).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that negotiations prior to the compulsory acquisition of land for essential works, under s 18 of the Public Works Act 1981, may be undertaken by an accredited contractor rather than by the Respondent personally (or an official of Toitū Te Whenua | Land Information New Zealand with delegated authority by the Respondent).
C Counsel to assist the Court will be appointed by the Registrar.                          
19 May 2025

___________________________________________________________
A The application of counsel assisting the Court for leave to adduce further evidence is granted.
B The Court answers the question for which leave was granted in the following way: the negotiations function under s 18(1)(d) of the Public Works Act 1981 may be performed by an accredited contractor, rather than the Minister personally or the Minister’s delegate within Toitū Te Whenua | Land Information New Zealand (LINZ), provided the accredited contractor holds delegated authority to perform that function.
C The Court finds that LINZ officials delegated the negotiations function outside the Public Service in this case but did not follow the necessary statutory processes.  The appellants did not refuse to negotiate, for purposes of s 18(2), by refusing to deal with the accredited contractor.
D The appeal is allowed accordingly.  The proceeding is remitted to the High Court to determine what relief, if any, is appropriate.
E The respondent must pay the appellants one set of costs of $3,000 plus usual disbursements. 
18 December 2025

Civil Appeal 

A    Kea Investments Ltd’s application for leave to appeal is granted (Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] NZCA 609, [2024] 3 NZLR 901).
B    The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to discharge the permanent anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions awarded to Kea Investments Ltd in the High Court.
C    Counsel to assist the Court will be appointed by the Registrar.
D    The applications to adduce further evidence are dismissed.
E    The application to extend the stay in Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] NZCA 686, (2024) 26 PRNZ 667 is granted pending determination of the appeal. 
 4 July 2025
_______________________________________
A The application for adjournment is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.                                                                                
30 September 2025
_______________________________________

A The appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] NZCA 609, [2024] 3 NZLR 901 is allowed.
B The orders made by the High Court in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd (in interim liq) [2023] NZHC 3260 at [156(a)(i) - (iv)], and in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd (in interim liq) [2023] NZHC 3532 at [7], are reinstated.
C Costs are reserved. 
10 November 2025

Criminal Appeal

A Leave to appeal is granted ([2024] NZCA 626).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against sentence.
04 April 2025
________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The proceeding is remitted to the District Court for resentencing.
C The applications to adduce further evidence and for name suppression are dismissed.
D Bail is granted on the terms currently applicable, as amended by this Court’s minute of 10 March 2026. Any application for variation to bail shall be addressed by the District Court.

Civil Appeal

A Subject to C, the applications for leave to appeal are granted (Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa v Bay of Plenty Regional Council [2022] NZCA 598).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals.
C The application for leave to appeal on costs is dismissed (Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa v Bay of Plenty Regional Council [2022] NZCA 598).
D An extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted (Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa v Bay of Plenty Regional Council [2020] NZHC 3388).
E The application for leave to appeal is granted (Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa v Bay of Plenty Regional Council [2020] NZHC 3388).
F The approved question is whether the High Court erred in upholding the Environment Court’s decision in relation to the negative tikanga effects.
17 April 2023
______________________________
A Sustainable Otakiri Inc’s appeal is dismissed.
B Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa’s appeal is dismissed.
C Costs are reserved.
12 November 2025

Civil Appeal

A Subject to C, the applications for leave to appeal are granted (Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa v Bay of Plenty Regional Council [2022] NZCA 598).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals.
C The application for leave to appeal on costs is dismissed (Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa v Bay of Plenty Regional Council [2022] NZCA 598).
D An extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted (Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa v Bay of Plenty Regional Council [2020] NZHC 3388).
E The application for leave to appeal is granted (Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa v Bay of Plenty Regional Council [2020] NZHC 3388).
F The approved question is whether the High Court erred in upholding the Environment Court’s decision in relation to the negative tikanga effects.
17 April 2023
_______________________________
A Sustainable Otakiri Inc’s appeal is dismissed.
B Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa’s appeal is dismissed.
C Costs are reserved.
12 November 2025