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.

19 June 2026

Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 89 KB)
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 126 KB) 

All years

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
High Court decision
CRAIG v STRINGER [2019] NZHC 1363 [17 June 2019]
Court of Appeal decision
CRAIG v STRINGER [2020] NZCA 260 [26 June 2020]
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JOHN CHARLES STRINGER v COLIN GRAEME CRAIG [2021] NZSC 5 [16 February 2021] (PDF, 41 KB)
Case name
ESR Group (NZ) Limited v Ian James Burden, PGT-Reclaimed (International) Limited and Plantation Grown Timbers (Vietnam) Limited
Case number
SC 105/2020
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 three respondents one set of costs of $2,500.
11 March 2021
High Court decision
BURDEN v ESR GROUP (NZ) LIMITED [2019] NZHC 2745 [29 October 201
Court of Appeal decision
BURDEN v ESR GROUP (NZ) LIMITED [2020] NZCA 560 [12 November 2020]
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ESR GROUP (NZ) LIMITED v IAN JAMES BURDEN [2021] NZSC 22 [11 March 202 (PDF, 176 KB)
Case name
Ian James Burden, PGT-Reclaimed (International) Limited and Plantation Grown Timbers (Vietnam) Limited v ESR Group (NZ) Limited
Case number
SC 106/2020
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.
8 April 2021
High Court decision
BURDEN v ESR GROUP (NZ) LIMITED [2019] NZHC 2745 [29 October 2019]
Court of Appeal decision
BURDEN v ESR GROUP (NZ) LIMITED [2020] NZCA 560 [12 November 2020]
Videos
Case name
Dion James Hunt and Ada Sharon Pue v The Queen
Case number
SC 112/2020
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B We make an order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings (including the result) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of trial. Publication in law report or law digest is permitted.
01 March 2021
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
DION JAMES HUNT & ADA SHARON PUE v R [2021] NZSC 11 [1 March 2021] (PDF, 154 KB)
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
High Court decision
WHITE v JAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND [2017] NZHC 2105 [31 August 2017]
Court of Appeal decision
JAMES HARDIE INDUSTRIES PLC v WHITE [2018] NZCA 580 [13 December 2018] 
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JAMES HARDIE INDUSTRIES PLC v KAREN LOUISE WHITE AND THE PERSONS LISTED INSCHEDULE 1 [2019] NZSC 39 [16 April 2019] (PDF, 45 KB)
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
Date of hearing
13 November 2019
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
Media Releases
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
ROLLESTON & ROCHE v R [2018] NZCA 611 [19 December 2018]
Leave judgment - leave granted
BROOKE CHRISTIE ROLLESTON v R [2019] NZSC 32 [21 March 2019] (PDF, 30 KB)
Supreme Court - order made
BROOKE CHRISTIE ROLLESTON v R [2019] NZSC 61 [26 June 2019] (PDF, 148 KB)
Substantive judgment
BROOKE CHRISTIE ROLLESTON v R [2019] NZSC 129 [19 November 2019] (PDF, 36 KB)
Additional document
Transcript hearing 30 November 2019
Additional document
BROOKE CHRISTIE ROLLESTON v R (reasons) [2020] NZSC 113 [19 October 2020] (PDF, 384 KB)
Additional document
Media release BROOKE CHRISTIE ROLLESTON v R (reasons) [2020] NZSC 113 [19 October 2020] (PDF, 190 KB)
Case name
FTG Securities Limited v Bank of New Zealand, Stephen John Tubbs, Colin Anthony Gower and Robert Bruce Walker
Case number
SC 27/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether a prohibition on assignment of a deed of priority and subordination without the consent of the other party is enforceable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to make declarations as to the interpretation of the deed of priority and subordination.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $4,500 to the respondents (to be shared equally between the first and third respondents unless they agree otherwise) plus usual disbursements.
26 August 2019
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
FTG SECURITIES LIMITED v BANK OF NEW ZEALAND [2019] NZCA 16 [20 February 2019]
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
FTG SECURITIES LIMITED v BANK OF NEW ZEALAND [2019] NZSC 93 [26 August 2019] (PDF, 49 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date 25 July 2019

Winkelmann CJ, O'Regan and Williams JJ
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
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
[2020] NZSC 53 (PDF, 209 KB)
High Court decision
HONEY BEES PRESCHOOL LTD v 127 HOBSON STREET LTD [2018] NZHC 32 [31 January 2018]
Court of Appeal decision
127 HOBSON STREET LTD v HONEY BEES PRESCHOOL LTD [2019] NZCA 122 [18 April 2019]
Leave judgment - leave granted
127 HOBSON STREET LIMITED v HONEY BEES PRESCHOOL LIMITED [2019] NZSC 62 [27 June 2019] (PDF, 29 KB)
Substantive judgment
127 HOBSON STREET LIMITED v HONEY BEES PRESCHOOL LIMITED [2020] NZSC 53 [5 June 2020] (PDF, 209 KB)
Hearing - Judges

Winkelmann CJ,  O'Regan, Ellen France,Williams and Arnold JJ
Transcript:
Hearing date 10 October 2019
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
Date of hearing
04 October 2021 - 15 October 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Williams and Arnold JJ
Transcripts
Case Synopses
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
PETER HUGH MCGREGOR ELLIS v R [2019] NZSC 83 [31 July 2019] (PDF, 220 KB)
Substantive judgment
PETER HUGH MCGREGOR ELLIS v R [2020] NZSC 89 [1 September 2020] (PDF, 70 KB)
Additional document
PETER HUGH MCGREGOR ELLIS v R [2020] NZSC 137 [13 November 2020] Reasons 7 December 2020 (PDF, 202 KB)
Supreme court decision
PETER HUGH MCGREGOR ELLIS v R [2021] NZSC 63 [15 June 2021] (PDF, 113 KB)
Supreme court decision
PETER HUGH MCGREGOR ELLIS v R [2021] NZSC 77 [1 July 2021] (PDF, 260 KB)
Substantive judgment
PETER HUGH MCGREGOR ELLIS v R [2022] NZSC 114 [7 October 2022] (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Substantive judgment
PETER HUGH MCGREGOR ELLIS v R [2022] NZSC 115 [7 October 2022] (PDF, 1 MB)
Videos
Case name
ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited v Bushline Trustees Limited, Stephen Daniel Coomey as trustee of Bushline Trust One, and Sharon Louise Coomey as trustee of Bushline Trust Two
Case number
SC 64/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contract law – Interest rate swaps – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the bank made a particular representation despite a factual finding in the High Court to the contrary – Whether the Court erred in holding that various representations made by the bank were undertakings forming part of the contract between the parties – Whether the Court erred in holding that the bank breached its undertaking to monitor and advise Bushline – Whether the Court erred in holding that it was not fair and reasonable, per s 4 of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979, for various disclaimer clauses to preclude liability in relation to various representations and undertakings – Whether the Court erred in holding that various exclusion clauses do not preclude liability in relation to various representations and undertakings – Whether the Court erred in holding that two of Bushline’ s misrepresentation and breach of contract claims were not time barred under the Limitations Act 1950.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Bushline Trustees Ltd v ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd [2019] NZCA 245).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal from the judgment of the High Court (Bushline Trustees Ltd v ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd [2017] NZHC 2520, [2018] NZCCLR 19). 15 October 2019
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B We make no award of costs in this Court.
C We reserve leave for any party to apply for an order dealing with costs in the Courts below. Any such application should be made within 20 working days of the date of this judgment.
24 July 2020
Transcripts
Media Releases
High Court decision
BUSHLINE TRUSTEES LTD v ANZ BANK NZ LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2520 [16 October 2017]
Court of Appeal decision
BUSHLINE TRUSTEES LIMITED v ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2019] NZCA 245 [24 June 2019]
Leave judgment - leave granted
ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v BUSHLINE TRUSTEES LIMITED AND STEPHEN DANIEL COOMEY AS TRUSTEES OF BUSHLINE TRUST ONE, [2019] NZSC 115 [15 October 2019] (PDF, 32 KB)
Substantive judgment
[2020] NZSC 71 (PDF, 221 KB)
Date of Hearing

12 March 2020

Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Williams JJ
Page 32 of 43