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.
22 September 2026
Case information summary (as at 18 September 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 112 KB)
Case information summary (as at 18 September 2026) – Currently unavailable
All years
Case name
Foodstuffs North Island Limited v Auckland Council, Woolworths New Zealand Limited and Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority
Case number
SC 140/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Auckland Council v Woolworths New Zealand Ltd [2021] NZCA 484).
B Leave is granted to the Medical Officer of Health to appear as an interested party at the substantive hearing.
C The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.
13 April 2022
_____________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the Auckland Council costs of $35,000.
5 May 2023
B Leave is granted to the Medical Officer of Health to appear as an interested party at the substantive hearing.
C The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.
13 April 2022
_____________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the Auckland Council costs of $35,000.
5 May 2023
Date of hearing
13 September 2022
- 14 September 2022
Judges
O'Regan, Ellen France, Williams and William Young JJ; Cooper P
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing Tuesday 13 Sept Wed 14 Sept 2022 Appellant submissions (PDF, 390 KB)
- Hearing Tue 13 and Wed 14 Sept 2022 First respondent submissions (PDF, 841 KB)
- Hearing Tuesday 13 September and Wednesday 14 September 2022 Interested party submissions (PDF, 1 MB)
- Hearing 13 and 14 September 2022 Joint Chronology (PDF, 200 KB)
- Hearing date Tue 13 Sept and Wed 14 Sept 2022 Woolworths outline of oral argument (PDF, 144 KB)
- Hearing date Tue 13 Sept and Wed 14 Sept 2022 Auckland Council oral outline (PDF, 1011 KB)
Transcripts
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 13 Sept and 14 Sept 2022 (PDF, 300 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2023] NZSC 45 (PDF, 284 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Videos
- Woolworths New Zealand Ltd v Auckland Council SC 139/2021 & SC 140/2021 - 14 September 2022 (Recorded, 14 September 2022)
- Woolworths New Zealand ltd v Auckland Council SC 139/2021 & SC 140/2021- 13 September 2022 (Recorded, 13 September 2022)
Case name
Michael John Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited, Genesis Energy Limited, Dairy Holdings Limited, New Zealand Steel Limited, Z Energy Limited, New Zealand Refining Company Limited and BT Mining Limited
Case number
SC 149/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Smith v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd [2021] NZCA 522).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal and allow the cross appeal.
31 March 2022
__________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The appellant’s claim is reinstated.
C There is no order as to costs.
7 February 2024
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal and allow the cross appeal.
31 March 2022
__________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The appellant’s claim is reinstated.
C There is no order as to costs.
7 February 2024
Date of hearing
15 August 2022
- 17 August 2022
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, Ellen France, Williams and Kós JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date Monday 15 Wednesday 17 August 2022 Appellant submissions (PDF, 1.1 MB)
- Hearing date Monday 15 Wednesday 17 August 2022 First to fifth respondents submissions (PDF, 422 KB)
- Hearing date Monday 15 Wednesday 17 August 2022 Sixth respondent Channel Infrastructure NZ Limited submissions (PDF, 177 KB)
- Hearing date Monday 15 Wednesday 17 August 2022 Seventh respondent BT Mining submissions (PDF, 235 KB)
- Hearing date Monday 15 Wednesday 17 August 2022 Intervener LCANZI submissions (PDF, 354 KB)
- Hearing date Monday 15 Wednesday 17 August 2022 Intervener Te Hunga Roia Maori submissions (PDF, 737 KB)
- Hearing date Monday 15 Wednesday 17 August 2022 Intervener Human Rights Commission submissions (PDF, 358 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing date 15 - 17 August 2022 (PDF, 1.6 MB)
Case Synopses
Media Releases
- MR [2024] NZSC 5 (PDF, 334 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
[2024] NZSC 5 (PDF, 693 KB)
Videos
- Michael John Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited SC 149/2021 - 17 August 2022 (Recorded, 17 August 2022)
- Michael John Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited SC 149/2021 - 16 August 2022 (Recorded, 16 August 2022)
- Michael John Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited SC 149/2021 - 15 August 2022 (Recorded, 15 August 2022)
Case name
Strathboss Kiwifruit Limited & Seeka Limited v Attorney-General
Case number
SC 30/2020
Summary
Civil appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Attorney General v Strathboss Kiwifruit Ltd [2020] NZCA 98).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross appeal.
22 July 2020
___________________________________________________
A Notice of Abandonment having been filed, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
16 February 2021
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross appeal.
22 July 2020
___________________________________________________
A Notice of Abandonment having been filed, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
16 February 2021
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
[2020] NZSC 68 (PDF, 138 KB)
Case name
Michael Main v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 41/2020
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
12 June 2020
12 June 2020
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Michael Richard Smith v The Queen
Case number
SC 59/2020
Summary
Criminal Appeal - application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B The application for bail is dismissed.
10 September 2020
B The application for bail is dismissed.
10 September 2020
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
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
Michael John Denney v The Queen
Case number
SC 83/2020
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 9 June 2017 (Denney v R [2017] NZSC 85) is dismissed.
22 December 2020
22 December 2020
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
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
James Charles Stringer v Colin Graeme Craig, Helen Ruth Craig, Angela Maria Storr, Kevin Eric Stitt and Stephen Dylan Taylor
Case number
SC 96/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal.
Result
A The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay the first respondent costs of $2,500.
16 February 2021
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay the first respondent costs of $2,500.
16 February 2021
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
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
Page 5 of 21