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
Kirstin Marjory Slessor v Commissioner of Police
Case number
SC 3/2024
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
8 May 2024
_________________________________________
Following delivery of this judgment on 8 May 2024, counsel advised that the
applicant was in fact legally aided. Accordingly no order for costs is now made.
25 July 2024
High Court decision
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v SLESSOR [2022] NZHC 3511 [19 December 2022
Court of Appeal decision
SLESSOR v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2023] NZCA 612 [1 December 2023]
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
KIRSTIN MAJORY SLESSOR v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2024] NZSC 48 [8 May 2024] (PDF, 191 KB)
Case name
Tristan Lee Tamati v The King
Case number
SC 48/2024
Summary

Criminal Appeal
Result

A Leave to appeal is granted (Tamati v R [2024] NZCA 113).
B The approved questions are as follows:
(a) whether errors by trial counsel may have occasioned a miscarriage of justice; and
(b) whether in the circumstances a reliability warning was required.
2 August 2024
________________________________________________
The appeal is dismissed.                                                                                                                                          
03 July 2025
Date of hearing
25 February 2025
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, Williams, Kós and Miller JJ
Submissions from counsel
Transcripts
Case Synopses
Media Releases
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
[2024] NZCA 113
Leave judgment - leave granted
TAMATI v R [2024] NZSC 91 [2 August 2024] (PDF, 135 KB)
Substantive judgment
TAMATI v R [2025] NZSC 70 [3 July 2025] (PDF, 287 KB)
Videos
Case name
Raymond Iveagh Jury v The King
Case number
SC 114/2024
Summary

Criminal Appeal
Result

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
Date of hearing
05 August 2025
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, Ellen France, Kós and Miller JJ
Transcripts
Case Synopses
High Court decision
R v JURY [2020] NZHC 2618 [2 October 2020]
Court of Appeal decision
JURY v R [2024] NZCA 320 [16 July 2024]
Leave judgment - leave granted
JURY v R [2025] NZSC 14 [17 March 2025] (PDF, 161 KB)
Case name
Solicitor-General's Reference (No 1 of 2023) from CA636/2021 ([2022] NZCA 504)
Case number
SC 12/2023
Summary
Solicitor-General's Reference
Result
A We grant leave to the Solicitor-General to refer the following question of law (arising from Darling v R [2022] NZCA 504) to this Court under s 317 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011: On the facts as set out in the Court of Appeal decision and the relevant documents on which guilty pleas were entered, did Mr Anderson’s acquittal mean that Mr Darling could not, in law, have been convicted of the offence with which he was charged, despite his guilty plea?

B We appoint Ms Guy Kidd KC as counsel to assist the Court under s 318(3)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
6 April 2023
__________________________________________________________
The question of law (arising from Darling v R [2022] NZCA 504) referred to this Court being whether Mr Anderson’s acquittal meant that Mr Darling could not, in law, have been convicted of the offence with which he was charged, despite his guilty plea, is answered “No”.
17 November 2023
Date of hearing
16 August 2023
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, O’Regan, Ellen France, Williams and Kós JJ; Venue: Auckland Environment Court, Courtroom 2, 41 Federal Street, Auckland
Submissions from counsel
Transcripts
Case Synopses
Media Releases
Court of Appeal decision
DARLING v R [2022] NZCA 504 [21 October 2022]
Leave judgment - leave granted
SOLICITOR-GENERAL’S REFERENCE (NO 1 OF 2023) FROM CA636/2021 [2023] NZSC 30 [6 April 2023] (PDF, 33 KB)
Substantive judgment
SOLICITOR-GENERAL’S REFERENCE (NO 1 OF 2023) [2023] NZSC 151 [17 November 2023] (PDF, 287 KB)
Videos
Case name
Ian James Burden, PGT Reclaimed (International) Limited and Plantation Grown Timbers (Vietnam) Limited v ESR Group (NZ) Limited
Case number
SC 96/2023
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (ESR Group (NZ) Ltd v Burden [2023] NZCA 335).
B The approved questions are as follows:
(a) Was the Court of Appeal correct to conclude, for the purposes of s 9(1) of the Copyright Act 1994, that a copyright holder’s consent is not necessary for a work to be “in circulation”?
(b) Was the Court of Appeal correct to conclude, for the purposes of s 9(1) of the Copyright Act 1994, that circulation outside of New Zealand could constitute “circulation”?
7 December 2023
_____________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The High Court order awarding damages is reinstated.
C The respondent must pay the appellants costs of $25,000, plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel. 
D Costs in the Courts below, if not agreed, can be settled by those Courts.
25 March 2025
Date of hearing
26 April 2024
Judges
Glazebrook, Ellen France, Williams Kós and O'Regan JJ
Submissions from counsel
Transcripts
Case Synopses
Media Releases
High Court decision
BURDEN v ESR GROUP (NZ) LTD [2022] NZHC 1818 [29 July 2022]
Court of Appeal decision
ESR GROUP (NZ) LIMITED v BURDEN [2023] NZCA 335 [31 July 2023]
Leave judgment - leave granted
IAN JAMES BURDEN v ESR GROUP (NZ) LIMITED [2023] NZSC 159 [7 December 2023] (PDF, 160 KB)
Substantive judgment
BURDEN v ESR GROUP (NZ) LIMITED [2025] NZSC 18 [25 March 2025] (PDF, 469 KB)
Case name
Caleb Afamasaga v The Queen
Case number
SC 5/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in analysing the prejudicial effect of text messages produced at trial – Whether that error was a miscarriage of justice
Result
The application for an extension of time to make an application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
27 February 2019
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
AFAMASAGA V R, MAKALIMA V R AND BANABA V R [2015] NZCA 615 [18 December 2015]
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CALEB AFAMASAGA v R [2019] NZSC 16 [27 February 2019] (PDF, 191 KB)
Case name
Talley's Group Limited v Worksafe New Zealand
Case number
SC 11/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 379 – Use of prosecution summary of facts – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not dismissing the defective charging documents – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not considering the prosecution’s actions amounted to an abuse of process.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
5 April 2019
High Court decision
WORKSAFE NEW ZEALAND v TALLEYʼS GROUP LIMITED [2017] NZHC 1103 [25 May 2017]
Court of Appeal decision
TALLEY’S GROUP LIMITED v WORKSAFE NEW ZEALAND [2018] NZCA 587 [14 December 2018] 
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TALLEY’S GROUP LIMITED v WORKSAFE NEW ZEALAND [2019] NZSC 37 [5 April 2019] (PDF, 210 KB)
Case name
Ridgway Empire Limited v Jill Grant
Case number
SC 43/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Precontractual misrepresentation – Whether a representation by a non‑expert that a building is not leaky is a representation of fact or opinion – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
8 August 2019
High Court decision
GRANT v RIDGWAY EMPIRE LTD [2018] NZHC 2642 [11 October 2018]
Court of Appeal decision
RIDGWAY EMPIRE LTD v JILL GRANT [2019] NZCA 134 [2 May 2019]
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
RIDGWAY EMPIRE LTD v GRANT [2019] NZSC 85 [8 August 2019] (PDF, 52 KB)
Case name
Jeffrey Robert Bunting v The Queen
Case number
SC 44/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was no material trial counsel error – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that propensity evidence was admissible.
Result
A The application for an extension of time is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with leave reserved as set out in [11] below.
9 September 2019
Transcripts
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
BUNTING v R [2018] NZCA 602 [20 December 2018]
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JEFFREY ROBERT BUNTING v R [2019] NZSC 95 [9 September 2019] (PDF, 46 KB)
Oral leave hearing date
Thursday 29 August 2019
Case name
Franco Belgiorno-Nettis v Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel and Auckland Council
Case number
SC 53/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not setting aside the recommendations of the respondents in a judicial review claim having regard to all circumstances including the gravity of the respondent’ s error and prejudice to the applicant.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondent.
10 October 2019
High Court decision
BELGIORNO-NETTIS v AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL [2018] NZHC 459 [19 March 2018]
Court of Appeal decision
BELGIORNO-NETTIS v AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL [2019] NZCA 175 [22 May 2019]
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
FRANCO BELGIORNO-NETTIS v AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL [2019] NZSC 112 [10 October 2019] (PDF, 47 KB)
Page 1 of 16