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.
31 July 2026
Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 131 KB)
All years
Case name
Robert John Herd and Rhumba Holdings Limited v Rodney David Haines Kathleen Anne Norman
Case number
SC 80/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay the respondents costs of $2,500.
21 December 2020
B The applicants must pay the respondents costs of $2,500.
21 December 2020
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Frucor Suntory New Zealand Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 81/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal (SC 81/2020) against the Court of Appeal’s decision is granted (Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Frucor Suntory New Zealand Limited [2020] NZCA 383).
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
C The application for leave to appeal (SC 92/2020) against the Court of Appeal’s decision is granted (Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Frucor Suntory New Zealand Limited [2020] NZCA 383).
D The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that shortfall penalties do not apply.
18 December 2020
________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed with the result that the appellant’s challenge to shortfall penalties is dismissed.
C The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $45,000 plus usual disbursements.
30 September 2022
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
C The application for leave to appeal (SC 92/2020) against the Court of Appeal’s decision is granted (Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Frucor Suntory New Zealand Limited [2020] NZCA 383).
D The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that shortfall penalties do not apply.
18 December 2020
________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed with the result that the appellant’s challenge to shortfall penalties is dismissed.
C The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $45,000 plus usual disbursements.
30 September 2022
Date of hearing
08 June 2021
- 10 June 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 - 10 June 2021 (PDF, 1 MB)
Case Synopses
- Case Synopsis Frucor Suntory (PDF, 410 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 113 (PDF, 195 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Frucor Suntory New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 92/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal (SC 81/2020) against the Court of Appeal’s decision is granted (Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Frucor Suntory New Zealand Limited [2020] NZCA 383).
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
C The application for leave to appeal (SC 92/2020) against the Court of Appeal’s decision is granted (Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Frucor Suntory New Zealand Limited [2020] NZCA 383).
D The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that shortfall penalties do not apply.
18 December 2020
____________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed with the result that the appellant’s challenge to shortfall penalties is dismissed.
C The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $45,000 plus usual disbursements.
30 September 2022
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
C The application for leave to appeal (SC 92/2020) against the Court of Appeal’s decision is granted (Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Frucor Suntory New Zealand Limited [2020] NZCA 383).
D The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that shortfall penalties do not apply.
18 December 2020
____________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed with the result that the appellant’s challenge to shortfall penalties is dismissed.
C The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $45,000 plus usual disbursements.
30 September 2022
Date of hearing
08 June 2021
- 10 June 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ
Case Synopses
- Case Synopsis Frucor Suntory (PDF, 410 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 113 (PDF, 195 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Quentin Stobart Haines, BPE Trustees (No. 1) Limited and Quentin Haines Properties Limited v Harry Memelink and Cisca Forester as Trustees of the Link Trust No.1 and Roy Bassett-Burr
Case number
SC 93/2020
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 against the interim decision is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal against the interim and substantive decisions is dismissed.
C The applicants must pay the respondents costs of $2,500.
1 March 2021
B The application for leave to appeal against the interim and substantive decisions is dismissed.
C The applicants must pay the respondents costs of $2,500.
1 March 2021
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Joseph Parker v The Queen and Stuff Limited
Case number
SC 98/2020
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 continuing suppression of the applicant's name, address, occupation and any identifying particulars until 2 pm on Friday 12 March 2021.
Suppression will lapse at that time.
11 March 2021
B We make an order continuing suppression of the applicant's name, address, occupation and any identifying particulars until 2 pm on Friday 12 March 2021.
Suppression will lapse at that time.
11 March 2021
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JOSEPH PARKER v R [2021] NZSC 20 [11 March 2020] (PDF, 168 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
B The applicant must pay the three respondents one set of costs of $2,500.
11 March 2021
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
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
8 April 2021
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Videos
- SC 96/2023 Ian James Burden and Ors v ESR Group (NZ) Limited (Recorded, 26 April 2024)
Case name
Yan Zhang v Telco Asset Management Limited
Case number
SC 110/2020
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 file further submissions is dismissed.
C The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
D The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
9 March 2021
B The application for leave to file further submissions is dismissed.
C The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
D The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
9 March 2021
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
SKP Incorporated v Auckland Council and Kennedy Point Boatharbour Limited
Case number
SC 118/2020
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 costs of $1,750 to each of the respondents.
27 April 2021
___________________________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 27 April 2021 (SKP Inc v Auckland Council [2021] NZSC 35) is allowed only to make the correction identified at [5] below.
B The [2021] NZSC 35 judgment is reissued with this correction.
5 May 2021
_____________________________________
The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 27 April 2021, reissued on 5 May 2021 (SKP Inc v Auckland Council [2021] NZSC 35), is dismissed.
19 May 2021
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay costs of $1,750 to each of the respondents.
27 April 2021
___________________________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 27 April 2021 (SKP Inc v Auckland Council [2021] NZSC 35) is allowed only to make the correction identified at [5] below.
B The [2021] NZSC 35 judgment is reissued with this correction.
5 May 2021
_____________________________________
The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 27 April 2021, reissued on 5 May 2021 (SKP Inc v Auckland Council [2021] NZSC 35), is dismissed.
19 May 2021
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Recall judgment
Case name
Robert Noe and Atrap Incorporated v Ratzapper Australasia Limited
Case number
SC 3/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Arbitration Act 1996, sch 1, art 36 – Whether the applicant was “otherwise unable to present” his case – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against enforcement of the arbitral award.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
27 March 2019
B The applicants must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
27 March 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 19 of 78