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
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
Robert Frank Terry v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 87/2020
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
18 December 2020
18 December 2020
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
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
Leticia Margaret Drake and Gavin John Steward v Commissioner of New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 97/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
1 March 2021
1 March 2021
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court of New Zealand
Case number
SC 101/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for review of the decision of the Registrar to refuse to accept for filing a statement of claim seeking judicial review is dismissed.
B The application for directions is dismissed.
27 November 2020
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 27 November 2020 (Siemer v Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court of New Zealand [2020] NZSC 135) is dismissed.
11 February 2021
B The application for directions is dismissed.
27 November 2020
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 27 November 2020 (Siemer v Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court of New Zealand [2020] NZSC 135) is dismissed.
11 February 2021
Supreme court decision
Recall judgment
Recall judgment
Case name
Michael Main v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 2/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Deputy Registrar to refuse the application for leave to appeal.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 18 February 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
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
5 April 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
James Hardie Industries Plc, James Hardie NZ Holdings & RCI Holdings Pty LImited v Karen Louise White, Waitakere Group Limited, Metlifecare Pinseong Limited, Forest Lake Gardens Limited, Vision (Dannemora) LImited (Name changed to Metlifecare Dannemora
Case number
SC 12/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that there is a serious issue to be tried as to whether the applicant owed a duty of care to those affected by the actions or omissions of its subsidiaries – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that there is a serious issue to be tried as to whether the applicant breached the Fair Trading Act 1986 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that there is a serious issue to be tried as to whether the applicant was a “manufacturer” of goods in breach of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicants’ appeal against a decision of the High Court not to grant summary judgment – (cross-appeal) Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to set aside a decision of the High Court partially upholding a protest to jurisdiction.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants are to pay to the respondents costs of $2,500.
16 April 2019
B The applicants are to pay to the respondents costs of $2,500.
16 April 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited v Financial Markets Authority
Case number
SC 13/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Financial Market Authority’s disclosure of confidential documents obtained from ANZ to third parties was for a permitted purpose under s 59(3) under the Financial Markets Authority Act 2011.
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal in SC 13/2019 and SC 21/2019 are dismissed.
B Costs of $3,500 are awarded to the respondent.
12 April 2019
B Costs of $3,500 are awarded to the respondent.
12 April 2019
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Eight Mile Style, LLC & Martin Affiliated, LLC v New Zealand National Party and Greg Hamilton
Case number
SC 15/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Copyright Act 1994, s 121– User principle – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of damages principles.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay costs of $4,500 plus usual disbursements to the respondents collectively.
14 May 2019
B The applicants must pay costs of $4,500 plus usual disbursements to the respondents collectively.
14 May 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Transcript
Page 14 of 55