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
Melco Property Holdings (NZ) Limited v Anthony John Hall
Case number
SC 64/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Melco Property Holdings (NZ) 2012 Ltd v Hall [2021] NZCA 184).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
3 September 2021
________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to adduce new evidence (the email chain) is dismissed.
B The appeal is allowed. The decisions of the Court of Appeal and High Court refusing to sustain the caveat are set aside.
C Order made that caveat No. 11659182.1 lodged by Melco on 16 January 2020 over the title to the property at 5 Parliament Street, Lower Hutt (WN13A/124), not lapse.
D Costs are reserved.
06 May 2022
__________________________________________
A The respondent must pay the appellant costs in this Court of $22,500 plus usual disbursements.
B The costs award made in the Court of Appeal is quashed. The appellant is awarded costs in that Court on a band A basis together with usual disbursements.
C The appellant is awarded costs in the High Court on a 2B basis together with reasonable disbursements, to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
24 August 2022
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
3 September 2021
________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to adduce new evidence (the email chain) is dismissed.
B The appeal is allowed. The decisions of the Court of Appeal and High Court refusing to sustain the caveat are set aside.
C Order made that caveat No. 11659182.1 lodged by Melco on 16 January 2020 over the title to the property at 5 Parliament Street, Lower Hutt (WN13A/124), not lapse.
D Costs are reserved.
06 May 2022
__________________________________________
A The respondent must pay the appellant costs in this Court of $22,500 plus usual disbursements.
B The costs award made in the Court of Appeal is quashed. The appellant is awarded costs in that Court on a band A basis together with usual disbursements.
C The appellant is awarded costs in the High Court on a 2B basis together with reasonable disbursements, to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
24 August 2022
Date of hearing
23 February 2022
Judges
William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France, Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 23 February 2022 (PDF, 253 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 60 (PDF, 232 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Case name
D (SC 83/2021) v High Court Auckland
Case number
SC 83/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
09 August 2021
09 August 2021
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Lillian Alice Taylor v The Attorney-General on behalf of the Ministry of Social Development
Case number
SC 94/2021
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 to amend the application for leave to appeal is granted.
C All other interlocutory applications are dismissed.
D The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
E There is no order as to costs.
F A copy of this judgment is to be provided to the Ombudsman.
4 November 2021
B The application to amend the application for leave to appeal is granted.
C All other interlocutory applications are dismissed.
D The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
E There is no order as to costs.
F A copy of this judgment is to be provided to the Ombudsman.
4 November 2021
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Lynne Frances Snowdon v Radio New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 142/2021
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 dismissed.
B The application to adduce new evidence is dismissed.
C The application for a stay of the execution of the costs decision of the Employment Court is dismissed.
D The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
22 February 2022
________________________________________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 22 February 2022 (Snowdon v Radio New Zealand Ltd [2022] NZSC 9) is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
23 December 2022
B The application to adduce new evidence is dismissed.
C The application for a stay of the execution of the costs decision of the Employment Court is dismissed.
D The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
22 February 2022
________________________________________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 22 February 2022 (Snowdon v Radio New Zealand Ltd [2022] NZSC 9) is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
23 December 2022
Employment Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Auckland Council v C P Group Limited, Millennium & Copthorne Hotels New Zealand Limited, MLC Scenic Limited and T & T Clarry's Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 158/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (C P Group Ltd v Auckland Council [2021] NZCA 587).
B The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
30 March 2022
_________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeal is set aside. The decision of the High Court dismissing the respondents’ application for judicial review is reinstated.
B The respondents must pay the appellant one set of costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
C The award of costs and disbursements made in favour of the respondents in the Court of Appeal is quashed. That Court should redetermine costs in light of this Court’s judgment allowing the appeal.
D Costs in the High Court are to be determined by that Court in the light of this Court’s judgment allowing the appeal.
E Leave is reserved to the parties to apply for consequential orders if required.
12 May 2023
B The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
30 March 2022
_________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeal is set aside. The decision of the High Court dismissing the respondents’ application for judicial review is reinstated.
B The respondents must pay the appellant one set of costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
C The award of costs and disbursements made in favour of the respondents in the Court of Appeal is quashed. That Court should redetermine costs in light of this Court’s judgment allowing the appeal.
D Costs in the High Court are to be determined by that Court in the light of this Court’s judgment allowing the appeal.
E Leave is reserved to the parties to apply for consequential orders if required.
12 May 2023
Date of hearing
20 July 2022
- 21 July 2022
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O’Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 20 July 2022 and 21 July 2022 Appellant Submissions (PDF, 851 KB)
- Hearing date 20 July and 21 July 2022 Appellants Outline of Oral Argument (PDF, 85 KB)
- Hearing date 20 July 2022 and 21 July 2022 Appellant Chronology (PDF, 228 KB)
- Hearing date 20 July 2022 21 July 2022 1st 3rd Respondent Submissions (PDF, 744 KB)
- Hearing date 20 July 2022 and 21 July 222 2nd 4th Respondent Submissions (PDF, 433 KB)
- Hearing date 20 July 2022 21 July 2022 Intervener submissions (PDF, 173 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing 20 July 2022 (PDF, 927 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 20 and 21 July 2022 (PDF, 495 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2023] NZSC 53 (PDF, 251 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Videos
- Auckland City Council v C P Group Limited SC 158/2021 - 21 July 2022 (Recorded, 21 July 2022)
- Auckland City Council v C P Group Limited SC 158/2021 - 20 July 2022 (Recorded, 20 July 2022)
Case name
Peniamina Ieremia v The Queen
Case number
SC 19/2020
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted in part (Ieremia v R [2020] NZCA 17).
B The approved questions are:
(i) whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse leave to adduce the evidence of Mr Wilson and, if so, whether a miscarriage of justice arose as a result of this evidence not being before the jury at the applicant’s trial; and
(ii) whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that evidence of the complainants’ previous convictions was inadmissible at the applicant’s trial, or that, if any of it was admissible, its exclusion did not cause a miscarriage of justice.
3 July 2020
__________________________
A The application to adduce new evidence is granted.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The appellant’s convictions are quashed.
D A retrial is ordered.
E 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 the retrial. Publication in law report or law digest is permitted.
14 December 2020
B The approved questions are:
(i) whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse leave to adduce the evidence of Mr Wilson and, if so, whether a miscarriage of justice arose as a result of this evidence not being before the jury at the applicant’s trial; and
(ii) whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that evidence of the complainants’ previous convictions was inadmissible at the applicant’s trial, or that, if any of it was admissible, its exclusion did not cause a miscarriage of justice.
3 July 2020
__________________________
A The application to adduce new evidence is granted.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The appellant’s convictions are quashed.
D A retrial is ordered.
E 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 the retrial. Publication in law report or law digest is permitted.
14 December 2020
Case name
Melissa-Mae Ruru v The Queen
Case number
SC 25/2020
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Application for leave to bring a pre-trial appeal
Result
A Ms Ruru’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Mr Sykes’ application for an extension of time for leave to appeal is granted.
C Mr Sykes’ application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
D 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 permitted.
11 May 2020
B Mr Sykes’ application for an extension of time for leave to appeal is granted.
C Mr Sykes’ application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
D 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 permitted.
11 May 2020
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MELISSA-MAE RURU v R [2020] NZSC 45 [11 May 2020 (PDF, 167 KB)
Case name
Tyson Jack Sykes v The Queen
Case number
SC 26/2020
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Application for leave to appeal
Result
A Ms Ruru’s application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Mr Sykes’ application for an extension of time for leave to appeal is granted.
C Mr Sykes’ application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
D 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 permitted. 11 May 2020 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.
11 May 2020
B Mr Sykes’ application for an extension of time for leave to appeal is granted.
C Mr Sykes’ application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
D 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 permitted. 11 May 2020 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.
11 May 2020
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MELISSA-MAE RURU v R [2020] NZSC 45 [11 May 2020] (PDF, 167 KB)
Case name
Bathurst Resources Limited & Buller Coal Limited v L&M Coal Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 29/2020
Summary
Civil appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Bathurst Resources Ltd v L&M Coal Holdings Ltd [2020] NZCA 113).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
27 July 2020
________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed. The judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside and judgment is entered for the appellants.
B The application to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
C The respondent must pay the appellants costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for second counsel.
D Costs should be re-determined in the Courts below in light of this judgment.
14 July 2021
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
27 July 2020
________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed. The judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside and judgment is entered for the appellants.
B The application to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
C The respondent must pay the appellants costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for second counsel.
D Costs should be re-determined in the Courts below in light of this judgment.
14 July 2021
Date of hearing
08 October 2020
- 09 October 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O’Regan, Ellen France, Williams JJ
Transcripts
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 85 (PDF, 289 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Fredrick Hill v Māori Trustee and Official Assignee
Case number
SC 49/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for an oral hearing is dismissed.
B The application to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
C The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
D The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
1 September 2020
B The application to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
C The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
D The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
1 September 2020
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 8 of 17