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 Bushline Trustees Limited, Stephen Daniel Coomey as trustee of Bushline Trust One, and Sharon Louise Coomey as trustee of Bushline Trust Two
Case number
SC 64/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contract law – Interest rate swaps – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the bank made a particular representation despite a factual finding in the High Court to the contrary – Whether the Court erred in holding that various representations made by the bank were undertakings forming part of the contract between the parties – Whether the Court erred in holding that the bank breached its undertaking to monitor and advise Bushline – Whether the Court erred in holding that it was not fair and reasonable, per s 4 of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979, for various disclaimer clauses to preclude liability in relation to various representations and undertakings – Whether the Court erred in holding that various exclusion clauses do not preclude liability in relation to various representations and undertakings – Whether the Court erred in holding that two of Bushline’ s misrepresentation and breach of contract claims were not time barred under the Limitations Act 1950.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Bushline Trustees Ltd v ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd [2019] NZCA 245).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal from the judgment of the High Court (Bushline Trustees Ltd v ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd [2017] NZHC 2520, [2018] NZCCLR 19). 15 October 2019
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B We make no award of costs in this Court.
C We reserve leave for any party to apply for an order dealing with costs in the Courts below. Any such application should be made within 20 working days of the date of this judgment.
24 July 2020
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal from the judgment of the High Court (Bushline Trustees Ltd v ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd [2017] NZHC 2520, [2018] NZCCLR 19). 15 October 2019
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B We make no award of costs in this Court.
C We reserve leave for any party to apply for an order dealing with costs in the Courts below. Any such application should be made within 20 working days of the date of this judgment.
24 July 2020
Transcripts
- Hearing transcript 12 March 2020 SC 64 2019 (PDF, 373 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 71 (PDF, 135 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
[2020] NZSC 71 (PDF, 221 KB)
Date of Hearing
12 March 2020
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Williams JJ
Case name
Timothy John Jackson v The Queen
Case number
SC 66/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the applicant can bring a second appeal against conviction – Whether the absence of a trial transcript deprives the applicant of his right to appeal against conviction or made the applicant’ s conviction unsafe or unsatisfactory
District Court decision
Not publicly available
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Alexander Pieter van Heeren and Worldwide Leisure Limited v Michael David Kidd, Saraceno Holding BV, Stichting Administratiekantoor Saraceno Holding and Bank of New Zealand
Case number
SC 71/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred allowing the respondent’ s appeal
Result
A Notice of Abandonment having been filed the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed. 3 September 2019
Court of Appeal decision
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Case name
Iraia Aranga Ngamotu Burton v The Queen
Case number
SC 73/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether an extension of time should be granted – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal to it against conviction and sentence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in assessing the evidence, including propensity evidence and relevancy of evidence – Whether the applicant can produce new evidence before this Court – Whether there was a miscarriage of justice.
Result
The application for an extension of time is dismissed. 23 September 2019
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Riki Scott Steen Walls v Ulsterman Holdings Limited (in liquidation) and Vivien Madsen-Ries and Henry David Levin as liquidators of Ulsterman Holdings Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 88/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – High Court Rules 2016 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that neither the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 nor the principles of natural justice were engaged in interpreting r 15.9(2) of the High Court Rules 2016 in the applicant’s circumstances.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondents.
15 November 2019
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondents.
15 November 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Peter Richard Prescott v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 97/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application for an extension of time to appeal.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
22 November 2019
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 22 November 2019 (Prescott v New Zealand Police [2019] NZSC 133) is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
5 March 2021
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
22 November 2019
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 22 November 2019 (Prescott v New Zealand Police [2019] NZSC 133) is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
5 March 2021
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Malcolm Rabson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Supreme Court of New Zealand
Case number
SC 98/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court erred in striking out the applicant’s proceeding.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The Supreme Court of New Zealand is removed as a proposed party from this proceeding.
C Mr Rabson is to pay costs of $250 to the Crown Law Office.
18 November 2019
B The Supreme Court of New Zealand is removed as a proposed party from this proceeding.
C Mr Rabson is to pay costs of $250 to the Crown Law Office.
18 November 2019
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Rangitira Developments Limited v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated
Case number
SC 100/2019
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc v Rangitira Developments Ltd [2018] NZCA 445, [2019] NZRMA 233).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was in error in setting aside the declarations made at [86] of the judgment of the High Court (Rangitira Developments Ltd v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Ltd [2018] NZHC 146, (2018) 20 ELRNZ 312).
C There is no order as to costs.
5 November 2019
_________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
15 July 2020
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was in error in setting aside the declarations made at [86] of the judgment of the High Court (Rangitira Developments Ltd v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Ltd [2018] NZHC 146, (2018) 20 ELRNZ 312).
C There is no order as to costs.
5 November 2019
_________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
15 July 2020
Transcripts
- Hearing date 19 May 2020 (PDF, 450 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 66 (PDF, 125 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
[2020] NZSC 66 (PDF, 150 KB)
Summary
Date of hearing
19 May 2020
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ
Case name
Southern Response Earthquake Services Limited v Brendan Miles Ross and Colleen Anne Ross
Case number
SC 105/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Civil procedure – Class actions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that an opt-out procedure should be the norm for class actions in New Zealand – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that an opt-out approach was appropriate for the class action in this case.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Ross v Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd [2019] NZCA 431).
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
9 December 2019
_____________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondents costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for second counsel.
17 November 2020
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
9 December 2019
_____________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondents costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for second counsel.
17 November 2020
Transcripts
- Hearing date 15 - 16 June 2020 (PDF, 886 KB)
Case Synopses
- Southern Response v Ross synopsis June 2020 (PDF, 153 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 126 (PDF, 196 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Supreme court decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Port Otago Limited v Environmental Defence Society Incorporated , Otago Regional Council, Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated and Marlborough District Council
Case number
SC 107/2019
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 costs of $2,000 plus usual disbursements to each of the first, second and third respondents.
22 April 2020
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,000 plus usual disbursements to each of the first, second and third respondents.
22 April 2020
Transcripts
- Hearing date 18 March 2020 (PDF, 217 KB)
Additional document
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 16 of 55