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
Bryce Brougham v Christine Anne Elizabeth Regan and Mark Jefferey Tuffin as trustees of the Winchester Trust and Racheal Christina Dey
Case number
SC 104/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a standard form loan agreement was a contract of guarantee under s 27 of the Property Law Act 2007 – Whether imposing guarantee obligations on one of two guarantors named in a contract of guarantee is contingent on both named guarantors signing.
Result
A An extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
B Leave to appeal is granted (Regan v Brougham [2019] NZCA 401).
C The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was right to allow the appeal to that Court.
12 December 2019
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The orders made in the Court of Appeal are set aside and judgment is entered for the appellant.
C The respondents must pay the appellant costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
D The award of costs and disbursements in the lower Courts in favour of the first respondents is set aside. Such costs and disbursements should be reassessed by the Court of Appeal in light of this judgment. The award of costs in favour of the second respondent stands.
E The first respondents’ interlocutory application to adduce further evidence is dismissed. 30 October 2020
B Leave to appeal is granted (Regan v Brougham [2019] NZCA 401).
C The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was right to allow the appeal to that Court.
12 December 2019
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The orders made in the Court of Appeal are set aside and judgment is entered for the appellant.
C The respondents must pay the appellant costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
D The award of costs and disbursements in the lower Courts in favour of the first respondents is set aside. Such costs and disbursements should be reassessed by the Court of Appeal in light of this judgment. The award of costs in favour of the second respondent stands.
E The first respondents’ interlocutory application to adduce further evidence is dismissed. 30 October 2020
Date of hearing
09 June 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 9 June 2020 (PDF, 409 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 118 (PDF, 189 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Savvy Vineyards 4334 Limited and Savvy Vineyards 3552 Limited v Weta Estate Limited and Tirosh Estate Limited
Case number
SC 114/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the long-term supply contracts, particularly in respect of pre-contractual negotiations and post-contractual conduct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining the elective right to purchase grapes under the contract.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted on the question (Weta Estate Ltd v Savvy Vineyards 4334 Ltd [2019] NZCA 437) whether the Court of Appeal was correct as to:
(a) the effect on the parties’ legal positions of the two earlier judgments, referred to in [4] below, dealing with whether the contract had been terminated; and
(b) the interpretation of cl 2.2 and cl 2.4.
B The application is otherwise dismissed.
12 December 2019
___________________
A The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside. The respondents are liable to the appellants on the first and second causes of action in the first amended statement of claim.
B An order directing an inquiry into damages is made in relation to the first cause of action.
C The declaration and the order directing an inquiry into damages made by the High Court in relation to the second cause of action are restored.
D The first and second respondents must pay the first and second appellants one set of costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
E The orders as to costs in the Court of Appeal and the orders as to costs in the High Court as they relate to the High Court’s dismissal of the first cause of action are quashed. Costs should be re-determined in those Courts in light of this judgment.
22 October 2020
(a) the effect on the parties’ legal positions of the two earlier judgments, referred to in [4] below, dealing with whether the contract had been terminated; and
(b) the interpretation of cl 2.2 and cl 2.4.
B The application is otherwise dismissed.
12 December 2019
___________________
A The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside. The respondents are liable to the appellants on the first and second causes of action in the first amended statement of claim.
B An order directing an inquiry into damages is made in relation to the first cause of action.
C The declaration and the order directing an inquiry into damages made by the High Court in relation to the second cause of action are restored.
D The first and second respondents must pay the first and second appellants one set of costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
E The orders as to costs in the Court of Appeal and the orders as to costs in the High Court as they relate to the High Court’s dismissal of the first cause of action are quashed. Costs should be re-determined in those Courts in light of this judgment.
22 October 2020
Date of hearing
26 May 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 May 2020 (PDF, 387 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 115 (PDF, 191 KB)
Substantive judgment
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Lambie Trustee Limited v Prudence Anne Addleman
Case number
SC 118/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted on whether the Court of Appeal was correct to order the applicant to disclose to the respondent any legal opinions and other advice obtained by the trustees of the Lambie Trust and funded by the Trust (Addleman v Lambie Trustee Ltd [2019] NZCA 480, (2019) 5 NZTR 29-016).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to reject the applicant’s claims of legal advice privilege and litigation privilege respectively.
C In all other respects, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
4 March 2020
______________________
A With the clarification that the orders for disclosure made by the Court of Appeal do not extend to legal advice given from June 2015 in connection with this litigation and with leave reserved to Lambie Trustee Ltd to revert to this Court in relation to advice received after 7 November 2014 and before June 2015, the appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
1 June 2021
__________________________________
A Mrs Addleman is to receive out of the Lambie Trust her actual costs in relation to the appeal to this Court plus usual disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary). We allow for second counsel. Mrs Addleman is to provide a schedule of the costs incurred to Lambie Trustee Ltd within 10 working days of the date of delivery of this judgment. Any issue as to the reasonableness of the costs sought is to be determined by the Registrar.
B Lambie Trustee Ltd is not entitled to any indemnity for costs and expenses in connection with the appeal to this Court, including both its own legal fees and any solicitor client costs and disbursements due to Mrs Addleman.
C Lambie Trustee Ltd is to reimburse the Lambie Trust (from funds not sourced from the Trust) the costs awarded by this Court on the appeal.
D The orders of this Court at B and C, above, apply to the award of costs in the Court of Appeal.
E Mrs Addleman is entitled to costs on a 2B basis together with reasonable disbursements in relation to costs in the High Court. Orders B and C, above, apply to the award of costs in that Court.
17 February 2023
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to reject the applicant’s claims of legal advice privilege and litigation privilege respectively.
C In all other respects, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
4 March 2020
______________________
A With the clarification that the orders for disclosure made by the Court of Appeal do not extend to legal advice given from June 2015 in connection with this litigation and with leave reserved to Lambie Trustee Ltd to revert to this Court in relation to advice received after 7 November 2014 and before June 2015, the appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
1 June 2021
__________________________________
A Mrs Addleman is to receive out of the Lambie Trust her actual costs in relation to the appeal to this Court plus usual disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary). We allow for second counsel. Mrs Addleman is to provide a schedule of the costs incurred to Lambie Trustee Ltd within 10 working days of the date of delivery of this judgment. Any issue as to the reasonableness of the costs sought is to be determined by the Registrar.
B Lambie Trustee Ltd is not entitled to any indemnity for costs and expenses in connection with the appeal to this Court, including both its own legal fees and any solicitor client costs and disbursements due to Mrs Addleman.
C Lambie Trustee Ltd is to reimburse the Lambie Trust (from funds not sourced from the Trust) the costs awarded by this Court on the appeal.
D The orders of this Court at B and C, above, apply to the award of costs in the Court of Appeal.
E Mrs Addleman is entitled to costs on a 2B basis together with reasonable disbursements in relation to costs in the High Court. Orders B and C, above, apply to the award of costs in that Court.
17 February 2023
Date of hearing
02 December 2020
Judges
William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 2 December 2020 (PDF, 492 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 54 (PDF, 401 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Summary
Case name
Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust v Minister of Conservation, Fullers Group Limited and Motutapu Island Restoration Trust
Case number
SC 11/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Conservation Act 1987 and Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that concessions to conduct guided tours over Rangitoto and Motutapu could be granted despite iwi objections.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Tribal Trust v Minister of Conservation [2017] NZCA 613).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal of the applicant to that Court.
8 May 2018
______________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B We direct that the second respondent’ s application for a concession be reconsidered by the first respondent’ s delegate in light of this judgment. The licence awarded to the second respondent on 31 August 2015 will remain in force until that reconsideration has occurred.
C The decision of the first respondent’s delegate granting a permit to the third respondent dated 15 October 2015 is quashed. We direct that the third respondent’s application for a concession be reconsidered by the first respondent’s delegate in light of this judgment.
D Costs are reserved.
14 December 2018
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal of the applicant to that Court.
8 May 2018
______________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B We direct that the second respondent’ s application for a concession be reconsidered by the first respondent’ s delegate in light of this judgment. The licence awarded to the second respondent on 31 August 2015 will remain in force until that reconsideration has occurred.
C The decision of the first respondent’s delegate granting a permit to the third respondent dated 15 October 2015 is quashed. We direct that the third respondent’s application for a concession be reconsidered by the first respondent’s delegate in light of this judgment.
D Costs are reserved.
14 December 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 14 August 2018 (PDF, 646 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 122 (PDF, 260 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Colin Graeme Craig v Jordan Henry Williams
Case number
SC 21/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Defamation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the decision of the High Court to order a full retrial – (cross-appeal) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’ s order setting aside the jury’s verdict on damages.
Result
A Leave to appeal and leave to cross appeal is granted (Williams v Craig [2018] NZCA 31).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the appeal to that Court in part and dismissing the cross appeal to that Court.
4 July 2018
_________________
A The appeal is allowed. The orders of the Court of Appeal entering judgment for the respondent on liability and directing a retrial of the respondent’s claim for damages are set aside. An order for a general retrial on liability and damages is substituted.
B The cross-appeal is dismissed.
C The respondent must pay the appellant costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
D The costs award made in the Court of Appeal is set aside. If costs in that Court cannot be agreed they should be set by the Court of Appeal in light of this judgment. Any costs issues arising in the High Court shall be considered by the High Court in light of this judgment.
11 April 2019
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the appeal to that Court in part and dismissing the cross appeal to that Court.
4 July 2018
_________________
A The appeal is allowed. The orders of the Court of Appeal entering judgment for the respondent on liability and directing a retrial of the respondent’s claim for damages are set aside. An order for a general retrial on liability and damages is substituted.
B The cross-appeal is dismissed.
C The respondent must pay the appellant costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
D The costs award made in the Court of Appeal is set aside. If costs in that Court cannot be agreed they should be set by the Court of Appeal in light of this judgment. Any costs issues arising in the High Court shall be considered by the High Court in light of this judgment.
11 April 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 4-5 September 2018 (PDF, 895 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 38 (PDF, 293 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Additional document
Case name
Mark Robert Sandman v Colin Charles McKay, Roger David Cann and David John Clark
Case number
SC 35/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in granting summary judgment to the respondents on the cause of action against them.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (McKay v Sandman [2018] NZCA 103, [2018] NZAR 707).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in granting summary judgment to the respondents on the cause of action against them.
7 August 2018
________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the respondents.
16 April 2019
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in granting summary judgment to the respondents on the cause of action against them.
7 August 2018
________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the respondents.
16 April 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 12 November 2018 (PDF, 568 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 55 (PDF, 286 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
D v The Queen
Case number
SC 39/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in partly dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction – Whether the trial Judge misdirected the jury – Whether evidence adduced at trial was unfairly prejudicial to the applicant.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 20 August 2018
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
D (SC 39/2018) v R [2018] NZSC 76 [20 August 2018] (PDF, 207 KB)
Case name
H v Refugee and Protection Officer
Case number
SC 52/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Immigration Act 2009, s 249 – Whether the Court of Appeal was right to dismiss the applicant’s appeal.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (H (CA580/2017) v Refugee and Protection Officer [2018] NZCA 188).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to dismiss the appeal.
24 August 2018
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The order of the High Court dismissing the proceeding is set aside.
C In its place, an order is made declining the respondent’s application to dismiss the proceeding for want of jurisdiction.
D The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for hearing.
E Costs are reserved.
25 February 2019
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was right to dismiss the appeal.
24 August 2018
_______________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The order of the High Court dismissing the proceeding is set aside.
C In its place, an order is made declining the respondent’s application to dismiss the proceeding for want of jurisdiction.
D The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for hearing.
E Costs are reserved.
25 February 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 29 October 2018 (PDF, 357 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 13 (PDF, 64 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Mathias Ortmann, Bram Van der Kolk and Finn Habib Batato v The United States of America and The District Court at North Shore
Case number
SC 54/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the High Court’s dismissal of the application for judicial review of the District Court’s determination under s 24 of the Extradition Act 1999.
Result
The Court has jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeals.
20 December 2018
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
__________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the
judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to
this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020]
NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
20 December 2018
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
__________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the
judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to
this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020]
NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
Case Synopses
- Hearing 10 June 14 June 2019 (PDF, 264 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Transcript hearing 10 to 17 June 2019 NZSC Trans 25 (PDF, 4.2 MB)
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Additional document
Hearing date
10 - 14 June 2019
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcript
Supreme Court judgment / Media Release
Case name
Finn Habib Batato v The United States of America
Case number
SC 55/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the District Court’s determination under s 24 of the Extradition Act 1999 – Whether the Supreme Court of New Zealand has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under the Extradition Act if the proceedings were commenced before 1 July 2013.
Result
The Court has jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeals.
20 December 2018
-
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
___________________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to intervene is declined.
B No order as to costs.
20 May 2019
___________________________________________________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
____________________________________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020]
NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
20 December 2018
-
A The applications for leave to appeal (Ortmann v United States of America [2018] NZCA 233, [2018] 3 NZLR 475) are granted, except to the extent set out at C below.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals (other than the appeal in CA302/2015).
C To the extent that any of the applications for leave seek to challenge any refusal of leave by the Court of Appeal, they are dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined with regard to the appeal in CA302/2015.
20 December 2018
___________________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to intervene is declined.
B No order as to costs.
20 May 2019
___________________________________________________________________
A The appeals in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 relating to the applications for judicial review are allowed.
B The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are allowed in relation to count 3. The appellants are discharged in respect of count 3. The appeals in SC 55/2018, SC 56/2018 and SC 57/2018 are otherwise dismissed.
C The parties are to file submissions in accordance with the directions given at [597]–[598] of this judgment.
D The first respondent in SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018 must pay the appellants in those appeals costs of $15,000 and disbursements of $5,000.
E Costs in the High Court and Court of Appeal in relation to the judicial review aspect of the proceedings in those Courts should be determined after the judicial review issues that remain outstanding have been resolved.
4 November 2020
____________________________________________________________________________________________
A We remit the proceedings to the Court of Appeal for the identification of the outstanding issues in relation to the judicial review appeals (SC 54/2018 and SC 58/2018) and the resolution of those issues.
B We direct the Registrar to provide to the Court of Appeal copies of the submissions made by the parties in response to this Court’s request for submissions in its substantive judgment (Ortmann v United States of America [2020]
NZSC 120).
22 February 2021
Case Synopses
- Hearing 10 June 14 June 2019 (PDF, 264 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Transcript hearing 10 to 17 June 2019 NZSC Trans 25 (PDF, 4.2 MB)
Leave to intervene declined
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Additional document
Transcript
Hearing date
10 - 14 June 2019
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Supreme Court judgment / Media Release
Page 10 of 17