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
127 Hobson Street Limited and Sunil Govind Parbhu v Honey Bees Preschool Limited and Jason James
Case number
SC 40/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Penalty clause – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the indemnity clause did not offend the prohibition against penalties.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (127 Hobson Street Ltd v Honey Bees Preschool Ltd [2019] NZCA 122).
B The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal to that Court and, in particular, whether the Court was correct to conclude that the indemnity clause did not offend the prohibition against penalties.
27 June 2019
____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements to the respondents.
5 June 2020
B The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal to that Court and, in particular, whether the Court was correct to conclude that the indemnity clause did not offend the prohibition against penalties.
27 June 2019
____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements to the respondents.
5 June 2020
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 53 (PDF, 205 KB)
Substantive judgment
[2020] NZSC 53 (PDF, 209 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Hearing - Judges
Winkelmann CJ, O'Regan, Ellen France,Williams and Arnold JJ
Transcript:
Case name
Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis v The King
Case number
SC 49/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether there was a miscarriage of justice arising from risks of contamination of or improperly obtained complainant evidence - Whether there was a miscarriage of justice arising from lack of expert evidence on the reliability of children complainants’ evidence – Whether there was a miscarriage of justice due to unreliable expert evidence being led at trial.
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 granted.
C The approved ground of appeal is whether a miscarriage of justice occurred in this case.
31 July 2019
_____________________________________________________
The appeal is to continue despite the death of the appellant.
1 September 2020
_____________________________________________________
A The applications to adduce further evidence are granted.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The convictions of the appellant are quashed.
7 October 2022
B The application for leave to appeal is granted.
C The approved ground of appeal is whether a miscarriage of justice occurred in this case.
31 July 2019
_____________________________________________________
The appeal is to continue despite the death of the appellant.
1 September 2020
_____________________________________________________
A The applications to adduce further evidence are granted.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The convictions of the appellant are quashed.
7 October 2022
Date of hearing
04 October 2021
- 15 October 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Williams and Arnold JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 14 November 2019 (PDF, 246 KB)
- Hearing date 25 June 2020 Tikanga hearing (PDF, 308 KB)
- Hearing date 11 November 2020 (PDF, 146 KB)
- Hearing date 25 March 2021 (PDF, 151 KB)
- Hearing date 12 - 14 October 2021 (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 14 November 2019 (PDF, 338 KB)
- Hearing date 25 June 2020 Tikanga hearing (PDF, 156 KB)
- Hearing date 25 March 2021 (PDF, 431 KB)
- Hearing date 4 October 2021 (onwards) (PDF, 235 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 83 (PDF, 61 KB)
- MR [2020] NZSC 89 (PDF, 66 KB)
- MR [2021] NZSC 63 (PDF, 279 KB)
- MR [2021] NZSC 77 (PDF, 279 KB)
- MR [2022] NZSC 114 (PDF, 293 KB)
- MR [2022] NZSC 115 (PDF, 339 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Substantive judgment
Videos
- Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis v R SC 49/2019 - 7 October 2022 (Recorded, 7 October 2022)
Case name
Wellsford Properties Limited and Garry Edward Hannam v Peter Anthony Sullivan and Port Albert Investments Limited
Case number
SC 52/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find Mr Hannam personally liable under s 9 of the Fair Trading Act – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to order damages of $424,371 against the applicant and Mr Hannam – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the applicant breached the agreement for sale and purchase and the Fair Trading Act 1986.
Result
A Notice of withdrawal having been filed the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
3 July 2019
3 July 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Case name
Peter James Brooks V The Queen
Case number
SC 74/2019
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed
8 October 2019
8 October 2019
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Peter Robert Howse v The Queen
Case number
SC 80/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the applicant should have been convicted at trial.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
20 September 2019
20 September 2019
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from - High Court of Wellington
Not publicly available
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
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
Case name
Frucor Beverages Limited, Harry Wang and Hayley Skarratt v Ilan Blumberg, Peter Boardman and Rachel Mackay
Case number
SC 130/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A notice of abandonment having been filed the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
3 February 2020
3 February 2020
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Case name
Geoffrey James Bird v The New Zealand Guardian Trust Company, Philip Anthony Bird, David Andrew Bird and Allen Roger Bird
Case number
SC 1/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court erred in removing the applicant as executor and trustee – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing an application for review of the Deputy Registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs.
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the second, third and fourth respondents. 8 February 2018
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the second, third and fourth respondents. 8 February 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Peter Richard Prescott v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 18/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Deputy Registrar to not waive a filing fee.
Result
A The applicant’s applications for leave to appeal and to set aside the High Court judgment are dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
9 May 2018
B The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
9 May 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 9 of 22