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
Adam Raphael Greenbaum v Southern Cross Hospitals Limited
Case number
SC 108/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Evidence – Confidential information – Evidence Act 2006, s 69 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’ decision dismissing appellant’s application for non-party discovery against the respondent.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
13 December 2019
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
13 December 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Savvy Vineyards 4334 Limited and Savvy Vineyards 3552 Limited v Weta Estate Limited and Tirosh Estate Limited
Case number
SC 114/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the long-term supply contracts, particularly in respect of pre-contractual negotiations and post-contractual conduct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining the elective right to purchase grapes under the contract.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted on the question (Weta Estate Ltd v Savvy Vineyards 4334 Ltd [2019] NZCA 437) whether the Court of Appeal was correct as to:
(a) the effect on the parties’ legal positions of the two earlier judgments, referred to in [4] below, dealing with whether the contract had been terminated; and
(b) the interpretation of cl 2.2 and cl 2.4.
B The application is otherwise dismissed.
12 December 2019
___________________
A The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside. The respondents are liable to the appellants on the first and second causes of action in the first amended statement of claim.
B An order directing an inquiry into damages is made in relation to the first cause of action.
C The declaration and the order directing an inquiry into damages made by the High Court in relation to the second cause of action are restored.
D The first and second respondents must pay the first and second appellants one set of costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
E The orders as to costs in the Court of Appeal and the orders as to costs in the High Court as they relate to the High Court’s dismissal of the first cause of action are quashed. Costs should be re-determined in those Courts in light of this judgment.
22 October 2020
(a) the effect on the parties’ legal positions of the two earlier judgments, referred to in [4] below, dealing with whether the contract had been terminated; and
(b) the interpretation of cl 2.2 and cl 2.4.
B The application is otherwise dismissed.
12 December 2019
___________________
A The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside. The respondents are liable to the appellants on the first and second causes of action in the first amended statement of claim.
B An order directing an inquiry into damages is made in relation to the first cause of action.
C The declaration and the order directing an inquiry into damages made by the High Court in relation to the second cause of action are restored.
D The first and second respondents must pay the first and second appellants one set of costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
E The orders as to costs in the Court of Appeal and the orders as to costs in the High Court as they relate to the High Court’s dismissal of the first cause of action are quashed. Costs should be re-determined in those Courts in light of this judgment.
22 October 2020
Date of hearing
26 May 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 May 2020 (PDF, 387 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 115 (PDF, 191 KB)
Substantive judgment
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Quentin Woods v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 115/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sentencing – Special conditions – Residential restrictions – Intensive monitoring – Sentencing Act 2002, s 93(2B) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that s 93(2B) of the Sentencing Act permits imposition of conditions similar to residential restrictions and intensive monitoring – Whether the Court erred in holding that the special conditions imposed on the appellant did not amount to residential restrictions or intensive monitoring.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Woods v New Zealand Police [2019] NZCA 446).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicant’s appeals.
13 February 2020
________________________________
The appeal is allowed.
10 December 2020
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicant’s appeals.
13 February 2020
________________________________
The appeal is allowed.
10 December 2020
Date of hearing
21 May 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Arnold JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 21 May 2020 (PDF, 399 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 141 (PDF, 190 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Lambie Trustee Limited v Prudence Anne Addleman
Case number
SC 118/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted on whether the Court of Appeal was correct to order the applicant to disclose to the respondent any legal opinions and other advice obtained by the trustees of the Lambie Trust and funded by the Trust (Addleman v Lambie Trustee Ltd [2019] NZCA 480, (2019) 5 NZTR 29-016).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to reject the applicant’s claims of legal advice privilege and litigation privilege respectively.
C In all other respects, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
4 March 2020
______________________
A With the clarification that the orders for disclosure made by the Court of Appeal do not extend to legal advice given from June 2015 in connection with this litigation and with leave reserved to Lambie Trustee Ltd to revert to this Court in relation to advice received after 7 November 2014 and before June 2015, the appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
1 June 2021
__________________________________
A Mrs Addleman is to receive out of the Lambie Trust her actual costs in relation to the appeal to this Court plus usual disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary). We allow for second counsel. Mrs Addleman is to provide a schedule of the costs incurred to Lambie Trustee Ltd within 10 working days of the date of delivery of this judgment. Any issue as to the reasonableness of the costs sought is to be determined by the Registrar.
B Lambie Trustee Ltd is not entitled to any indemnity for costs and expenses in connection with the appeal to this Court, including both its own legal fees and any solicitor client costs and disbursements due to Mrs Addleman.
C Lambie Trustee Ltd is to reimburse the Lambie Trust (from funds not sourced from the Trust) the costs awarded by this Court on the appeal.
D The orders of this Court at B and C, above, apply to the award of costs in the Court of Appeal.
E Mrs Addleman is entitled to costs on a 2B basis together with reasonable disbursements in relation to costs in the High Court. Orders B and C, above, apply to the award of costs in that Court.
17 February 2023
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to reject the applicant’s claims of legal advice privilege and litigation privilege respectively.
C In all other respects, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
4 March 2020
______________________
A With the clarification that the orders for disclosure made by the Court of Appeal do not extend to legal advice given from June 2015 in connection with this litigation and with leave reserved to Lambie Trustee Ltd to revert to this Court in relation to advice received after 7 November 2014 and before June 2015, the appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
1 June 2021
__________________________________
A Mrs Addleman is to receive out of the Lambie Trust her actual costs in relation to the appeal to this Court plus usual disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary). We allow for second counsel. Mrs Addleman is to provide a schedule of the costs incurred to Lambie Trustee Ltd within 10 working days of the date of delivery of this judgment. Any issue as to the reasonableness of the costs sought is to be determined by the Registrar.
B Lambie Trustee Ltd is not entitled to any indemnity for costs and expenses in connection with the appeal to this Court, including both its own legal fees and any solicitor client costs and disbursements due to Mrs Addleman.
C Lambie Trustee Ltd is to reimburse the Lambie Trust (from funds not sourced from the Trust) the costs awarded by this Court on the appeal.
D The orders of this Court at B and C, above, apply to the award of costs in the Court of Appeal.
E Mrs Addleman is entitled to costs on a 2B basis together with reasonable disbursements in relation to costs in the High Court. Orders B and C, above, apply to the award of costs in that Court.
17 February 2023
Date of hearing
02 December 2020
Judges
William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 2 December 2020 (PDF, 492 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 54 (PDF, 401 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Summary
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
Christopher Lorraine Pickering and Aqatar Limited v Detection Services Pty Limited & Detection Solutions Pty Limited
Case number
SC 138/2019
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 costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
17 April 2020
B The applicants must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
17 April 2020
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Dermot Gregory Nottingham v Maltese Cat Limited, Clyde Alexander Maclean and Elizabeth May Currie
Case number
SC 139/2019
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 one set of costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
17 April 2020
B The applicant must pay one set of costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
17 April 2020
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
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
Paul Geoffrey Myall v Tower Insurance Limited
Case number
SC 5/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in the way it allowed for professional fees when estimating the notional cost of rebuilding a house payable under an insurance policy – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in adjusting the notional cost of rebuilding to reflect an understatement of the floor area.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500.
17 April 2018
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500.
17 April 2018
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
Page 23 of 78