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
ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited v Financial Markets Authority
Case number
SC 21/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its redactions of two published judgments pending determination of the Applicant’s substantive appeal to the Supreme Court.
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
Blue Reach Services Limited and Blue Reach Wireless Limited v Spark New Zealand Trading Limited
Case number
SC 24/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to uphold a decision of the High Court striking out the applicants’ claim on the basis it could not succeed by virtue of s 106 of the Commerce Act 1986.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $4,500 plus usual disbursements.
28 June 2019
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $4,500 plus usual disbursements.
28 June 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Transcript
O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Case name
FTG Securities Limited v Bank of New Zealand, Stephen John Tubbs, Colin Anthony Gower and Robert Bruce Walker
Case number
SC 27/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether a prohibition on assignment of a deed of priority and subordination without the consent of the other party is enforceable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to make declarations as to the interpretation of the deed of priority and subordination.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $4,500 to the respondents (to be shared equally between the first and third respondents unless they agree otherwise) plus usual disbursements.
26 August 2019
B The applicant must pay costs of $4,500 to the respondents (to be shared equally between the first and third respondents unless they agree otherwise) plus usual disbursements.
26 August 2019
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Transcript
Winkelmann CJ, O'Regan and Williams JJ
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
New Zealand Law Society v John Llewellyn Stanley
Case number
SC 41/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining whether the Applicant was a fit and proper person to be admitted as a barrister and solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand, particularly in relation to the Applicant’s prior convictions.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Stanley v The New Zealand Law Society [2019] NZCA 119).
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal against the High Court judgment (Stanley v New Zealand Law Society [2018] NZHC 1154) and to make an order for Mr Stanley’s admission.
13 November 2019
___________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
17 August 2020
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal against the High Court judgment (Stanley v New Zealand Law Society [2018] NZHC 1154) and to make an order for Mr Stanley’s admission.
13 November 2019
___________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
17 August 2020
Transcripts
- Hearing date 25 September 2019 (PDF, 172 KB)
- Hearing date 23 April 2020 (PDF, 336 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 83 (PDF, 132 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
[2020] NZSC 83 (PDF, 550 KB)
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
Lance Phillip Newing v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 51/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Driving with excess blood alcohol – Whether the District Court erred in refusing to discharge the applicant without conviction.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 22 August 2019
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
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
Case name
Marko Otis v The Queen
Case number
SC 60/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether there are exceptional circumstances justifying a direct appeal from the High Court – Whether the High Court erred in upholding the District Court’s refusal to grant a discharge without conviction.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
11 October 2019
11 October 2019
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Case name
Melanie Wichart v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 61/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining leave to bring a second appeal (in relation to admissible evidence for proving a charge of driving with excess blood alcohol and in relation to the onus of proof in relation to the expiry date of a specimen kit).
Result
A The application for an extension of time is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
27 September 2019
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
27 September 2019
District Court decision
Not publicly available
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 15 of 55