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
The Queen v W (SC39/2019) and H (SC39/2019)
Case number
SC 39/2019
Summary
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 permitted.
Result
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 permitted.
14 September 2020
14 September 2020
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Hearing date - Judges
19 August 2019
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France 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
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
Ridgway Empire Limited v Jill Grant
Case number
SC 43/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Precontractual misrepresentation – Whether a representation by a non‑expert that a building is not leaky is a representation of fact or opinion – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
8 August 2019
B The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
8 August 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Jeffrey Robert Bunting v The Queen
Case number
SC 44/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was no material trial counsel error – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that propensity evidence was admissible.
Result
A The application for an extension of time is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with leave reserved as set out in [11] below.
9 September 2019
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with leave reserved as set out in [11] below.
9 September 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 29 August 2019 (PDF, 100 KB)
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Oral leave hearing date
Thursday 29 August 2019
Case name
Synlait Milk Limited v New Zealand Industrial Park Limited and Ye Qing
Case number
SC 50/2019
Summary
Civil – Property Law Act 2007, s 317 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the appeal and declining to modify covenants burdening land owned by the appellant.
Result
A By consent, an order is made substituting Synlait Milk Ltd for Stonehill Trustee Ltd as applicant subject to the conditions set out in the joint memorandum of counsel dated 6 September 2019.
B Leave to appeal is granted to Synlait Milk Ltd as applicant (New Zealand Industrial Park Ltd v Stonehill Trustee Ltd [2019] NZCA 147).
C The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to reverse the decision of the High Court (Stonehill Trustee Ltd v New Zealand Industrial Park Ltd [2018] NZHC 2938).
D The application by Synlait Milk Ltd to adduce further evidence will be determined at or after the hearing of the appeal.
E Leave is granted for the respondents to file an affidavit or affidavits responding to the evidence that Synlait Milk Ltd seeks to adduce. Such affidavit or affidavits must be filed on or before 15 November 2019.
29 October 2019
______________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B There is no order as to costs.
22 December 2020
B Leave to appeal is granted to Synlait Milk Ltd as applicant (New Zealand Industrial Park Ltd v Stonehill Trustee Ltd [2019] NZCA 147).
C The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to reverse the decision of the High Court (Stonehill Trustee Ltd v New Zealand Industrial Park Ltd [2018] NZHC 2938).
D The application by Synlait Milk Ltd to adduce further evidence will be determined at or after the hearing of the appeal.
E Leave is granted for the respondents to file an affidavit or affidavits responding to the evidence that Synlait Milk Ltd seeks to adduce. Such affidavit or affidavits must be filed on or before 15 November 2019.
29 October 2019
______________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B There is no order as to costs.
22 December 2020
Transcripts
- Hearing date 3 - 4 June 2020 (PDF, 621 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 157 (PDF, 535 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook and O'Regan JJ
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
Allan Jack West v Geoffrey Allan West, David John Cameron West and The Partners of Langley Twigg Law
Case number
SC 56/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Particular discovery – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the High Court was functus officio and could not grant particular discovery.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
9 October 2019
B There is no order as to costs.
9 October 2019
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
S and M v Vector Limited, Auckland District Court and H
Case number
SC 58/2019
Summary
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 remains in force. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
Result
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 remains in force. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
21 September 2020
21 September 2020
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
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
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
- Hearing transcript 12 March 2020 SC 64 2019 (PDF, 373 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 71 (PDF, 135 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
[2020] NZSC 71 (PDF, 221 KB)
Date of Hearing
12 March 2020
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Williams JJ
Case name
Alexander Pieter van Heeren and Worldwide Leisure Limited v Michael David Kidd, Saraceno Holding BV, Stichting Administratiekantoor Saraceno Holding and Bank of New Zealand
Case number
SC 71/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred allowing the respondent’ s appeal
Result
A Notice of Abandonment having been filed the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed. 3 September 2019
Court of Appeal decision
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Page 21 of 78