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
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
Brooke Christie Rolleston v The Queen
Case number
SC 17/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether a member of the jury appeared biased – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted to the applicants (Rolleston v R [2018] NZCA 611).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeals.
21 March 2019
_________________________
A The application to cross-examine the foreperson is dismissed.
B The appeals are dismissed.
C Existing suppression orders in respect of the minutes issued in relation to this matter remain in place but are varied to continue until further order of this Court.
19 November 2019
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeals.
21 March 2019
_________________________
A The application to cross-examine the foreperson is dismissed.
B The appeals are dismissed.
C Existing suppression orders in respect of the minutes issued in relation to this matter remain in place but are varied to continue until further order of this Court.
19 November 2019
Date of hearing
13 November 2019
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 June 2019 SC 17/SC 18 (PDF, 197 KB)
- Hearing date 13 November 2019 (PDF, 126 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 129 (PDF, 65 KB)
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme Court - order made
Additional document
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Additional document
Case name
Brandon James Roche v The Queen
Case number
SC 18/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether a member of the jury appeared biased – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted to the applicants (Rolleston v R [2018] NZCA 611).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeals.
21 March 2019
____________________
A The application to cross-examine the foreperson is dismissed.
B The appeals are dismissed.
C Existing suppression orders in respect of the minutes issued in relation to this matter remain in place but are varied to continue until further order of this Court.
19 November 2019
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeals.
21 March 2019
____________________
A The application to cross-examine the foreperson is dismissed.
B The appeals are dismissed.
C Existing suppression orders in respect of the minutes issued in relation to this matter remain in place but are varied to continue until further order of this Court.
19 November 2019
Date of hearing
13 November 2019
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 June 2019 SC 17/SC 18 (PDF, 197 KB)
- Hearing date 13 November 2019 (PDF, 126 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 129 (PDF, 65 KB)
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme Court - order made
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Additional document
Additional document
Case name
Vivien Judith Madsen-Ries and Henry David Levin as liquidators of Debut Homes Limited and Debut Homes Limited (in liquidation) v Leonard Wayne Cooper and Leonard Wayne Cooper and Tracey Cooper as trustees of the L & T Cooper Family Trust
Case number
SC 29/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s 136 of the Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in considering the Respondent’s actions as a director under ss 131 and 135 of the Companies Act 1993.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Debut Homes Ltd (in liq) v Cooper [2019] NZCA 39)
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
21 June 2019
___________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The High Court orders outlined at [4(a)], (b) and (c) of this Court’s judgment are restored.
C The respondents must pay the appellants costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements. Costs in the Courts below are to be determined in accordance with this judgment.
24 September 2020
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
21 June 2019
___________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The High Court orders outlined at [4(a)], (b) and (c) of this Court’s judgment are restored.
C The respondents must pay the appellants costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements. Costs in the Courts below are to be determined in accordance with this judgment.
24 September 2020
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 100 (PDF, 74 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Transcript
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Case name
Michael Edwin Kooiman v F M Custodians Limited
Case number
SC 36/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the managing director of the fund manager had authority to commence proceedings on behalf of the respondent.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
19 July 2019
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
19 July 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
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
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
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
Adam Raphael Greenbaum v Southern Cross Hospitals Limited
Case number
SC 108/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Evidence – Confidential information – Evidence Act 2006, s 69 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’ decision dismissing appellant’s application for non-party discovery against the respondent.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
13 December 2019
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
13 December 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Eric Meserve Houghton v Timothy Ernest Corbett Saunders, Samuel John Magill, John Michael Feeney, Craig Edgeworth Horrocks, Peter David Hunter, Peter Thomas and Joan Withers, and Credit Suisse Private Equity Inc, and Credit Suisse First Boston Asian Me
Case number
SC 117/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the expert evidence as to the quantum of loss is admissible – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against a refusal to strike out the respondent’ s defence under s 63 of the Securities Act 1978 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondents collectively and $2,500 to the second and third respondents collectively.
13 December 2019
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondents collectively and $2,500 to the second and third respondents collectively.
13 December 2019
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Page 6 of 21