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
Brownie Joseph Harding v The Queen
Case number
SC 63/2020
Summary
Criminal 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 against conviction is dismissed (Harding v R [2019] NZCA 259).
C The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted (Harding v R [2020] NZCA 217). The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against sentence.
D The Registrar is to set down the appeal against sentence to be heard together with the appeal against sentence in Berkland v R [2020] NZSC 125.
17 November 2020
B The application for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed (Harding v R [2019] NZCA 259).
C The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted (Harding v R [2020] NZCA 217). The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against sentence.
D The Registrar is to set down the appeal against sentence to be heard together with the appeal against sentence in Berkland v R [2020] NZSC 125.
17 November 2020
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Brownie Joseph Harding v The King
Case number
SC 64/2020
Summary
Criminal 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 against conviction is dismissed (Harding v R [2019] NZCA 259).
C The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted (Harding v R [2020] NZCA 217). The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against sentence.
D The Registrar is to set down the appeal against sentence to be heard together with the appeal against sentence in Berkland v R [2020] NZSC 125.
17 November 2020
________________________________________________________________
A Mr Berkland’s appeal in SC 40/2020 is allowed. His sentence of 12 years and nine months’ imprisonment, together with a 50 per cent MPI, is quashed, and a sentence of eight years and eight months’ imprisonment is substituted.
B Mr Harding’s appeal in SC 64/2020 is allowed. His sentence of 28 and a half years is quashed, and a new sentence of 21 years is substituted. There is no adjustment to the MPI.
7 December 2022
B The application for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed (Harding v R [2019] NZCA 259).
C The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted (Harding v R [2020] NZCA 217). The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against sentence.
D The Registrar is to set down the appeal against sentence to be heard together with the appeal against sentence in Berkland v R [2020] NZSC 125.
17 November 2020
________________________________________________________________
A Mr Berkland’s appeal in SC 40/2020 is allowed. His sentence of 12 years and nine months’ imprisonment, together with a 50 per cent MPI, is quashed, and a sentence of eight years and eight months’ imprisonment is substituted.
B Mr Harding’s appeal in SC 64/2020 is allowed. His sentence of 28 and a half years is quashed, and a new sentence of 21 years is substituted. There is no adjustment to the MPI.
7 December 2022
Date of hearing
23 March 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 23 - 24 March 2021 (PDF, 799 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 23 March 2021 (PDF, 288 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 143 (PDF, 261 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Daniel Clinton Fitzgerald v The Queen
Case number
SC 67/2020
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Fitzgerald v R [2020] NZCA 292).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002 does not apply to Mr Fitzgerald.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
D The application to amend the applicant’s notice of application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
3 November 2020
_______________________________________________________
A The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
B The appeal against sentence is allowed. The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for re-sentencing.
7 October 202
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002 does not apply to Mr Fitzgerald.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
D The application to amend the applicant’s notice of application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
3 November 2020
_______________________________________________________
A The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
B The appeal against sentence is allowed. The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for re-sentencing.
7 October 202
Date of hearing
23 February 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 23 February 2021 (PDF, 536 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 131 (PDF, 197 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Frucor Suntory New Zealand Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 81/2020
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
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 - 10 June 2021 (PDF, 1 MB)
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
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
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
D(SC 26/2018) v The Queen
Case number
SC 26/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the appellant’s call to a mental health line should have been admitted at trial – Whether the appellant should have been permitted to lead evidence under Evidence Act 2006, s 44(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
10 July 2019
10 July 2019
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
D (SC 26/2019) v R [2019] NZSC 72 [10 July 2019] (PDF, 50 KB)
Case name
D v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 31/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
The judgment of this Court of 21 June 2019 ([2019] NZSC 58) is
recalled and reissued with the applicant’s name anonymised.
9 February 2021
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A The application for leave to appeal against an order that the applicant be placed on the Child Sex Offender Register is granted ([2019] NZCA 30).
B The approved question is whether and, if so, how the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 has to be taken into account in decisions under s 9 of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016.
21 June 2019
Reissued 9 February 2021
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A The application to adduce further evidence is granted.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The registration order made by the District Court under s 9(1) of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016 is quashed.
9 February 2021
recalled and reissued with the applicant’s name anonymised.
9 February 2021
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A The application for leave to appeal against an order that the applicant be placed on the Child Sex Offender Register is granted ([2019] NZCA 30).
B The approved question is whether and, if so, how the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 has to be taken into account in decisions under s 9 of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016.
21 June 2019
Reissued 9 February 2021
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A The application to adduce further evidence is granted.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The registration order made by the District Court under s 9(1) of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016 is quashed.
9 February 2021
Transcripts
- Hearing date 30 October 2019 (PDF, 416 KB)
Media Releases
- MR 2021 NZSC 2 (PDF, 197 KB)
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Additional document
Case name
Synlait Milk Limited v New Zealand Industrial Park Limited and Ye Qing
Case number
SC 50/2019
Summary
Civil – Property Law Act 2007, s 317 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the appeal and declining to modify covenants burdening land owned by the appellant.
Result
A By consent, an order is made substituting Synlait Milk Ltd for Stonehill Trustee Ltd as applicant subject to the conditions set out in the joint memorandum of counsel dated 6 September 2019.
B Leave to appeal is granted to Synlait Milk Ltd as applicant (New Zealand Industrial Park Ltd v Stonehill Trustee Ltd [2019] NZCA 147).
C The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to reverse the decision of the High Court (Stonehill Trustee Ltd v New Zealand Industrial Park Ltd [2018] NZHC 2938).
D The application by Synlait Milk Ltd to adduce further evidence will be determined at or after the hearing of the appeal.
E Leave is granted for the respondents to file an affidavit or affidavits responding to the evidence that Synlait Milk Ltd seeks to adduce. Such affidavit or affidavits must be filed on or before 15 November 2019.
29 October 2019
______________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B There is no order as to costs.
22 December 2020
B Leave to appeal is granted to Synlait Milk Ltd as applicant (New Zealand Industrial Park Ltd v Stonehill Trustee Ltd [2019] NZCA 147).
C The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to reverse the decision of the High Court (Stonehill Trustee Ltd v New Zealand Industrial Park Ltd [2018] NZHC 2938).
D The application by Synlait Milk Ltd to adduce further evidence will be determined at or after the hearing of the appeal.
E Leave is granted for the respondents to file an affidavit or affidavits responding to the evidence that Synlait Milk Ltd seeks to adduce. Such affidavit or affidavits must be filed on or before 15 November 2019.
29 October 2019
______________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B There is no order as to costs.
22 December 2020
Transcripts
- Hearing date 3 - 4 June 2020 (PDF, 621 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 157 (PDF, 535 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook and O'Regan JJ
Case name
Minister of Justice of New Zealand and Attorney General of New Zealand v Kyung Yup Kim
Case number
SC 57/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in quashing and remitting the Minister of Justice’s decision to surrender the respondent for extradition to the People’s Republic of China – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding there is a preliminary question of whether diplomatic assurances as to criminal justice rights should be accepted given the general human rights situation in a receiving state – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting the legal test to determine whether the respondent’ s fair trial rights would be upheld.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision is granted (Kim v Minister of Justice of New Zealand [2019] NZCA 209). The respondent’s application for leave to cross-appeal is also granted.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to quash and remit the Minister of Justice’ s decision to surrender the respondent under s 30 of the Extradition Act 1999.
20 September 2019
_______________________
A The appeal is adjourned until 30 July 2021.
B A report is to be filed by the parties on or before 30 July 2021 outlining the matters set out at [443], [455]–[457] and [463].
C The cross-appeal is dismissed.
4 June 2021
____________________________________
A The application for leave to adduce the expert reports annexed to the parties’ joint report dated 3 December 2021 is granted.
B The appeal is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeal is set aside.
C The Minister of Justice’s decision of 19 September 2016 to surrender the respondent under s 30 of the Extradition Act 1999 is reinstated.
D Costs are reserved.
13 April 2022
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to quash and remit the Minister of Justice’ s decision to surrender the respondent under s 30 of the Extradition Act 1999.
20 September 2019
_______________________
A The appeal is adjourned until 30 July 2021.
B A report is to be filed by the parties on or before 30 July 2021 outlining the matters set out at [443], [455]–[457] and [463].
C The cross-appeal is dismissed.
4 June 2021
____________________________________
A The application for leave to adduce the expert reports annexed to the parties’ joint report dated 3 December 2021 is granted.
B The appeal is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeal is set aside.
C The Minister of Justice’s decision of 19 September 2016 to surrender the respondent under s 30 of the Extradition Act 1999 is reinstated.
D Costs are reserved.
13 April 2022
Date of hearing
04 February 2022
Judges
Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France, Arnold and French JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 4 December 2019 (PDF, 230 KB)
- Hearing date 25 February 2020 SC 57_2019 (PDF, 720 KB)
- Hearing date 4 February 2022 (PDF, 440 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing on 4 December 2019 (PDF, 160 KB)
- Hearing on 25 February 2020 (PDF, 158 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 57 (PDF, 312 KB)
- MR [2022] NZSC 44 (PDF, 294 KB)
High Court decision
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme Court - order made
Supreme Court - order made
Additional document
Substantive judgment
Page 9 of 17