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.
3 July 2026
Case information summary (as at 3 July 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 88 KB)
Case information summary (as at 3 July 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 127 KB)
All years
Case name
Brownie Joseph Harding v The King
Case number
SC 64/2020
Summary
Criminal 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 against conviction is dismissed (Harding v R [2019] NZCA 259).
C The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted (Harding v R [2020] NZCA 217). The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against sentence.
D The Registrar is to set down the appeal against sentence to be heard together with the appeal against sentence in Berkland v R [2020] NZSC 125.
17 November 2020
________________________________________________________________
A Mr Berkland’s appeal in SC 40/2020 is allowed. His sentence of 12 years and nine months’ imprisonment, together with a 50 per cent MPI, is quashed, and a sentence of eight years and eight months’ imprisonment is substituted.
B Mr Harding’s appeal in SC 64/2020 is allowed. His sentence of 28 and a half years is quashed, and a new sentence of 21 years is substituted. There is no adjustment to the MPI.
7 December 2022
B The application for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed (Harding v R [2019] NZCA 259).
C The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted (Harding v R [2020] NZCA 217). The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against sentence.
D The Registrar is to set down the appeal against sentence to be heard together with the appeal against sentence in Berkland v R [2020] NZSC 125.
17 November 2020
________________________________________________________________
A Mr Berkland’s appeal in SC 40/2020 is allowed. His sentence of 12 years and nine months’ imprisonment, together with a 50 per cent MPI, is quashed, and a sentence of eight years and eight months’ imprisonment is substituted.
B Mr Harding’s appeal in SC 64/2020 is allowed. His sentence of 28 and a half years is quashed, and a new sentence of 21 years is substituted. There is no adjustment to the MPI.
7 December 2022
Date of hearing
23 March 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 23 - 24 March 2021 (PDF, 799 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 23 March 2021 (PDF, 288 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 143 (PDF, 261 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Daniel Clinton Fitzgerald v The Queen
Case number
SC 67/2020
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Fitzgerald v R [2020] NZCA 292).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002 does not apply to Mr Fitzgerald.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
D The application to amend the applicant’s notice of application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
3 November 2020
_______________________________________________________
A The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
B The appeal against sentence is allowed. The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for re-sentencing.
7 October 202
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002 does not apply to Mr Fitzgerald.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
D The application to amend the applicant’s notice of application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
3 November 2020
_______________________________________________________
A The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
B The appeal against sentence is allowed. The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for re-sentencing.
7 October 202
Date of hearing
23 February 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 23 February 2021 (PDF, 536 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 131 (PDF, 197 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Attorney-General v Family First New Zealand
Case number
SC 79/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Family First New Zealand v Attorney General [2020] NZCA 366).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
18 December 2020
_______________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The declaration made by the Court of Appeal that the respondent qualifies for registration under the Charities Act 2005 is set aside.
C There is no order as to costs.
28 June 2022
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
18 December 2020
_______________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The declaration made by the Court of Appeal that the respondent qualifies for registration under the Charities Act 2005 is set aside.
C There is no order as to costs.
28 June 2022
Date of hearing
24 June 2021
- 25 June 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 24 June 2021 (PDF, 819 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 24 June 25 June 2021 (PDF, 428 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 80 (PDF, 320 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
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
M v Attorney General (in respect of the Ministry of Health), Waitemata District Health Board and Capital and Coast District Health Board
Case number
SC 82/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (M (CA677/2017) v Attorney-General [2020] NZCA 311).
B The approved question is:
Was the applicant detained unlawfully after 20 December 2008 because the direction of the Attorney-General under s 31(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 that he be detained as a care recipient under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 was not issued until 14 January 2009, and, if so, for how long?
C In all other respects the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
16 December 2020
The application for reconsideration of the approved question on which leave was given in this Court’s judgment of 16 December 2020 (M (SC 82/2020) v Attorney-General [2020] NZSC 145) is dismissed.
23 March 2021
____________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B A declaration is made that the appellant was detained unlawfully from 21 December 2008 until 14 January 2009.
17 September 2021
B The approved question is:
Was the applicant detained unlawfully after 20 December 2008 because the direction of the Attorney-General under s 31(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 that he be detained as a care recipient under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 was not issued until 14 January 2009, and, if so, for how long?
C In all other respects the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
16 December 2020
The application for reconsideration of the approved question on which leave was given in this Court’s judgment of 16 December 2020 (M (SC 82/2020) v Attorney-General [2020] NZSC 145) is dismissed.
23 March 2021
____________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B A declaration is made that the appellant was detained unlawfully from 21 December 2008 until 14 January 2009.
17 September 2021
Date of hearing
27 April 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 April 2021 (PDF, 372 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 118 (PDF, 195 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
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
H v Minister of Immigration
Case number
SC 104/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (H v The Minister of Immigration [2020] NZCA 562).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
19 March 2021
______________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed on the basis set out at [32]–[33].
B Costs are reserved.
23 December 2021
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
19 March 2021
______________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed on the basis set out at [32]–[33].
B Costs are reserved.
23 December 2021
Date of hearing
20 July 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan and Arnold JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 12 March 2021 (PDF, 168 KB)
- Hearing date 20 July 2021 (PDF, 437 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 192 (PDF, 391 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Matthew John Young v The Queen
Case number
SC 16/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
6 December 2019
6 December 2019
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Dermot Gregory Nottingham v The Queen
Case number
SC 83/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Harassment Act 1997, s 8(1) – Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 211(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction and sentence.
Result
A The application for an extension of time is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
12 December 2019
_______________
A The judgment of 12 December 2019 (Nottingham v R [2019] NZSC 144) is recalled and leave to appeal is granted in relation to the appeal against sentence.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to impose the maximum period of home detention in circumstances where the offender had already served a period of home detention in relation to the offending.
20 March 2020
----------------------------------------------
A The appeal against sentence is allowed. The sentence of 12 months’ home detention imposed by the Court of Appeal is varied by replacing that sentence with a sentence of eight and a half months’ home detention with a start date of 30 July 2019.
B Having served more than 12 months’ home detention, Mr Nottingham has served that part of his sentence. The standard and special post-detention conditions imposed by the Court of Appeal remain in place for the remainder of the 12 month and six month post detention periods respectively.
C The remaining period of community work to be served by Mr Nottingham is remitted.
31 July 2020
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
12 December 2019
_______________
A The judgment of 12 December 2019 (Nottingham v R [2019] NZSC 144) is recalled and leave to appeal is granted in relation to the appeal against sentence.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to impose the maximum period of home detention in circumstances where the offender had already served a period of home detention in relation to the offending.
20 March 2020
----------------------------------------------
A The appeal against sentence is allowed. The sentence of 12 months’ home detention imposed by the Court of Appeal is varied by replacing that sentence with a sentence of eight and a half months’ home detention with a start date of 30 July 2019.
B Having served more than 12 months’ home detention, Mr Nottingham has served that part of his sentence. The standard and special post-detention conditions imposed by the Court of Appeal remain in place for the remainder of the 12 month and six month post detention periods respectively.
C The remaining period of community work to be served by Mr Nottingham is remitted.
31 July 2020
Date of hearing
28 May 2020
Judges
William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan , Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 28 May 2020 (PDF, 195 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 74 (PDF, 126 KB)
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Case name
Barry Ross Laurence Castleton-Reid v Ross Ronayne Reid
Case number
SC 89/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondent did not intend to make a gift to the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the money transferred to the applicant was held on resulting trust for the respondent.
Result
A Notice of Abandonment having been filed the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
17 October 2019
17 October 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Page 4 of 9