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.
17 July 2026
Case information summary (as at 17 July 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 17 July 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 128 KB)
All years
Case name
MC (SC 17/2023) v Family Court at Manukau and Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki | Ministry for Children
Case number
SC 17/2023
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 against the High Court judgment (MC v Family Court at Manukau [2022] NZHC 870) is dismissed.
B The application for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment (MC (CA266/2022) v Manukau Family Court [2022] NZCA 571) is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay the second respondent costs of $2,500.
15 May 2023
B The application for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment (MC (CA266/2022) v Manukau Family Court [2022] NZCA 571) is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay the second respondent costs of $2,500.
15 May 2023
High Court decision
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
John Howard Carter v Capital and Coast District Health Board, Hutt Valley District Health Board and Attorney-General (for the Ministry of Health)
Case number
SC 119/2023
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay the third respondent costs of $1,000.
29 July 2024
___________________________________________
A The application for recusal is dismissed.
B The application for recall is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.
16 August 2024
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay the third respondent costs of $1,000.
29 July 2024
___________________________________________
A The application for recusal is dismissed.
B The application for recall is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.
16 August 2024
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Abdullah Robert Boyd v Australian Federal Police, New South Wales Legal Aid, New Zealand Defence Force, New Zealand Police, Attorney-General, Office of the Inspectorate, Canterbury Intelligence Team and Ministry of Health
Case number
SC 134/2023
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
7 February 2024
7 February 2024
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Colin Samuel Henry v Ministry of Justice and Attorney-General
Case number
SC 92/2022
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring a civil 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 respondents costs of $2,500.
6 December 2022
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay the respondents costs of $2,500.
6 December 2022
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Tourism Holdings Limited v A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Case number
SC 15/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Tourism Holdings Ltd [2021] NZCA 1).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal correctly answered the questions of law submitted for determination by it.
6 May 2021
___________________________________________________________
A We amend the answer given by the Court of Appeal to the first of the questions submitted for determination by that Court so that it reads:
Payments are “a regular part of the employee’s pay” if they are of a kind made regularly when assessed against the standard of a four-week period.
That apart, the appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $15,000 plus usual disbursements.
15 November 2021
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal correctly answered the questions of law submitted for determination by it.
6 May 2021
___________________________________________________________
A We amend the answer given by the Court of Appeal to the first of the questions submitted for determination by that Court so that it reads:
Payments are “a regular part of the employee’s pay” if they are of a kind made regularly when assessed against the standard of a four-week period.
That apart, the appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $15,000 plus usual disbursements.
15 November 2021
Date of hearing
01 July 2021
Judges
William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 1 July 2021 (PDF, 391 KB)
Media Releases
- MR 2021 NZSC 157 (PDF, 250 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Gill Pizza Limited, Sandeep Singh, Jatinder Singh, Mandeep Singh and Malotia Limited v A Labour Inspector (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment)
Case number
SC 67/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (A Labour Inspector (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment) v Gill Pizza Ltd [2021] NZCA 192).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the Employment Court erred in finding that, if a defendant asserts there is no employment relationship, the Labour Inspector must first seek a declaration of employment status from the Employment Court under s 6(5) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 before commencing or continuing a proceeding under s 228(1) of that Act.
12 August 2021
__________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $15,000 plus usual disbursements.
21 December 2021
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the Employment Court erred in finding that, if a defendant asserts there is no employment relationship, the Labour Inspector must first seek a declaration of employment status from the Employment Court under s 6(5) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 before commencing or continuing a proceeding under s 228(1) of that Act.
12 August 2021
__________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $15,000 plus usual disbursements.
21 December 2021
Date of hearing
04 November 2021
Judges
Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan , Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 4 November 2021 (PDF, 257 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 184 (PDF, 292 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Lillian Alice Taylor v The Attorney-General on behalf of the Ministry of Social Development
Case number
SC 94/2021
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 to amend the application for leave to appeal is granted.
C All other interlocutory applications are dismissed.
D The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
E There is no order as to costs.
F A copy of this judgment is to be provided to the Ombudsman.
4 November 2021
B The application to amend the application for leave to appeal is granted.
C All other interlocutory applications are dismissed.
D The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
E There is no order as to costs.
F A copy of this judgment is to be provided to the Ombudsman.
4 November 2021
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Winston Raymond Peters v The Attorney-General sued on behalf of the Ministry of Social Development, Brendon Boyle and Peter Hughes
Case number
SC 99/2021
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 the respondents costs of $2,500.
2 December 2021
B The applicant must pay the respondents costs of $2,500.
2 December 2021
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Garth Bowkett Paterson v Attorney-General (for the Ministry of Justice)
Case number
SC 147/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B There is no order as to costs.
10 February 2022
10 February 2022
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
M v Attorney General (in respect of the Ministry of Health), Waitemata District Health Board and Capital and Coast District Health Board
Case number
SC 82/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (M (CA677/2017) v Attorney-General [2020] NZCA 311).
B The approved question is:
Was the applicant detained unlawfully after 20 December 2008 because the direction of the Attorney-General under s 31(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 that he be detained as a care recipient under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 was not issued until 14 January 2009, and, if so, for how long?
C In all other respects the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
16 December 2020
The application for reconsideration of the approved question on which leave was given in this Court’s judgment of 16 December 2020 (M (SC 82/2020) v Attorney-General [2020] NZSC 145) is dismissed.
23 March 2021
____________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B A declaration is made that the appellant was detained unlawfully from 21 December 2008 until 14 January 2009.
17 September 2021
B The approved question is:
Was the applicant detained unlawfully after 20 December 2008 because the direction of the Attorney-General under s 31(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 that he be detained as a care recipient under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 was not issued until 14 January 2009, and, if so, for how long?
C In all other respects the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
16 December 2020
The application for reconsideration of the approved question on which leave was given in this Court’s judgment of 16 December 2020 (M (SC 82/2020) v Attorney-General [2020] NZSC 145) is dismissed.
23 March 2021
____________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B A declaration is made that the appellant was detained unlawfully from 21 December 2008 until 14 January 2009.
17 September 2021
Date of hearing
27 April 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 April 2021 (PDF, 372 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 118 (PDF, 195 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Substantive judgment
Page 2 of 8