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
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
Case name
Geoffrey Brian Kenny v Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Case number
SC 113/2019
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 the respondent costs of $2,500.
19 December 2019
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
19 December 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Northland Environmental Protection Society Incorporated v The Chief Executive of the Ministry for Primary Industries, Comptroller of Customs and The Chief Executive of the Ministry for Culture and Heritage
Case number
SC 10/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the Forests Act 1949 and the Protected Objects Act 1975
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Northland Environmental Protection Society Incorporated v Chief Executive of the Ministry for Primary Industries [2017] NZCA 607).
B The approved questions are:
(a) Was the Court of Appeal correct in its interpretation of “finished or manufactured indigenous timber product” and the effect of the export restrictions in s 67C of the Forests Act 1949?
(b) Was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that some or all swamp kauri is not a “protected New Zealand object” as defined in s 2(1) of the Protected Objects Act 1975?
19 April 2018
___________________________
A The appeal relating to the interpretation of the export restriction in s 67C(1)(b) of the Forests Act 1949 is allowed.
B The appeal relating to the Protected Objects Act 1975 is dismissed.
C Costs are reserved.
9 November 2018
B The approved questions are:
(a) Was the Court of Appeal correct in its interpretation of “finished or manufactured indigenous timber product” and the effect of the export restrictions in s 67C of the Forests Act 1949?
(b) Was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that some or all swamp kauri is not a “protected New Zealand object” as defined in s 2(1) of the Protected Objects Act 1975?
19 April 2018
___________________________
A The appeal relating to the interpretation of the export restriction in s 67C(1)(b) of the Forests Act 1949 is allowed.
B The appeal relating to the Protected Objects Act 1975 is dismissed.
C Costs are reserved.
9 November 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 June 2018 (PDF, 394 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 105 (PDF, 61 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Nobilangelo Ceramalus v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and The Minister of Immigration
Case number
SC 15/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Immigration Act 2009 – Whether the High Court Judge erred in striking out the applicant’s application for review of Immigration New Zealand’s refusal to grant a visa.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents. 27 March 2018
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Hayley Dawn Young v The Attorney General and Ministry of Defence (United Kingdom)
Case number
SC 75/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding the second respondent’s protest to jurisdiction on the basis of sovereign immunity – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that the courts of England and Wales are the more appropriate forum for the applicant’s claim.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the second respondent costs of $2,500.
6 March 2019
B The applicant must pay the second respondent costs of $2,500.
6 March 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Kathryn Anne Harlen v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development
Case number
SC 12/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Social Security Act 1964, s 86 – Whether the High Court erred in its view of the Chief Executive’s discretion to decline to recover benefit overpayments.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
12 June 2017
12 June 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Ram Chander Dahiya v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Case number
SC 20/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal for an extension of time.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent. 8 May 2017
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent. 8 May 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Rudi Hartono and Others v Ministry for Primary Industries and Sajo Oyang Corporation
Case number
SC 61/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Fisheries Act 1996, s 256 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the Fisheries Act to the claim for unpaid wages against a forfeited vessel.
Result
Leave to appeal is granted (Sajo Oyang Corp v Ministry for Primary Industries [2017] NZCA 182).
The approved question is whether the applicants have an interest in the Oyang 75 for the purposes of s 256 of the Fisheries Act 1996.
9 August 2017
________________________________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside (save as to the direction that the proceedings be transferred to the High Court) and the judgment of the High Court is reinstated.
B The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the appellants costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We allow for second counsel.
C The appellants are entitled to costs in the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court.
D All issues as to costs in respect of the District Court and High Court are to be determined in the High Court.
2 March 2018
The approved question is whether the applicants have an interest in the Oyang 75 for the purposes of s 256 of the Fisheries Act 1996.
9 August 2017
________________________________
A The appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside (save as to the direction that the proceedings be transferred to the High Court) and the judgment of the High Court is reinstated.
B The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the appellants costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary. We allow for second counsel.
C The appellants are entitled to costs in the Court of Appeal to be fixed by that Court.
D All issues as to costs in respect of the District Court and High Court are to be determined in the High Court.
2 March 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 14 November 2017 (PDF, 505 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 17 (PDF, 291 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Joanne Mihinui,Matatahi Mihinui and Tania Mihinui v Attorney General for the Ministry of Education and Westerman Property Solutions Limited
Case number
SC 84/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Residential Tenancies Act 1986 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining leave to appeal in respect of a possession order made by the Tenancy Tribunal – Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear appeal.
Result
A The application for an extension of time is granted.
B The applications for leave to appeal and for a stay are dismissed.
C The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondent. 10 October 2017
B The applications for leave to appeal and for a stay are dismissed.
C The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondent. 10 October 2017
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
W V The Family Court at North Shore and The Chief Executive o the Ministry of Vulnerable Children
Case number
SC 120/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining an application for extension of time.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the second respondent.
8th February 2018
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the second respondent.
8th February 2018
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Court of Appeal decision
Page 3 of 9