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
Melco Property Holdings (NZ) Limited v Anthony John Hall
Case number
SC 64/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Melco Property Holdings (NZ) 2012 Ltd v Hall [2021] NZCA 184).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
3 September 2021
________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to adduce new evidence (the email chain) is dismissed.
B The appeal is allowed. The decisions of the Court of Appeal and High Court refusing to sustain the caveat are set aside.
C Order made that caveat No. 11659182.1 lodged by Melco on 16 January 2020 over the title to the property at 5 Parliament Street, Lower Hutt (WN13A/124), not lapse.
D Costs are reserved.
06 May 2022
__________________________________________
A The respondent must pay the appellant costs in this Court of $22,500 plus usual disbursements.
B The costs award made in the Court of Appeal is quashed. The appellant is awarded costs in that Court on a band A basis together with usual disbursements.
C The appellant is awarded costs in the High Court on a 2B basis together with reasonable disbursements, to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
24 August 2022
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
3 September 2021
________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to adduce new evidence (the email chain) is dismissed.
B The appeal is allowed. The decisions of the Court of Appeal and High Court refusing to sustain the caveat are set aside.
C Order made that caveat No. 11659182.1 lodged by Melco on 16 January 2020 over the title to the property at 5 Parliament Street, Lower Hutt (WN13A/124), not lapse.
D Costs are reserved.
06 May 2022
__________________________________________
A The respondent must pay the appellant costs in this Court of $22,500 plus usual disbursements.
B The costs award made in the Court of Appeal is quashed. The appellant is awarded costs in that Court on a band A basis together with usual disbursements.
C The appellant is awarded costs in the High Court on a 2B basis together with reasonable disbursements, to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
24 August 2022
Date of hearing
23 February 2022
Judges
William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France, Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 23 February 2022 (PDF, 253 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 60 (PDF, 232 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Case name
Mark Anthony Whittington v UDC Finance Limited
Case number
SC 92/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
The application for a stay is dismissed.
27 August 2021
_______________________________________________________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 27 August 2021 (Whittington v UDC Finance Ltd [2021] NZSC 106) is dismissed.
B The application to adduce evidence is dismissed.
10 September 2021
_________________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
19 October 2021
_________________________________________________________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 27 August 2021 (Whittington v UDC Finance Ltd [2021] NZSC 106) is dismissed.
B The application for stay of the High Court’s order of 25 March 2021 (UDC Finance Ltd v Whittington [2021] NZHC 627) is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
3 July 2024
27 August 2021
_______________________________________________________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 27 August 2021 (Whittington v UDC Finance Ltd [2021] NZSC 106) is dismissed.
B The application to adduce evidence is dismissed.
10 September 2021
_________________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
19 October 2021
_________________________________________________________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 27 August 2021 (Whittington v UDC Finance Ltd [2021] NZSC 106) is dismissed.
B The application for stay of the High Court’s order of 25 March 2021 (UDC Finance Ltd v Whittington [2021] NZHC 627) is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
3 July 2024
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Supreme court decision
Recall judgment
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Lynne Frances Snowdon v Radio New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 142/2021
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 dismissed.
B The application to adduce new evidence is dismissed.
C The application for a stay of the execution of the costs decision of the Employment Court is dismissed.
D The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
22 February 2022
________________________________________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 22 February 2022 (Snowdon v Radio New Zealand Ltd [2022] NZSC 9) is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
23 December 2022
B The application to adduce new evidence is dismissed.
C The application for a stay of the execution of the costs decision of the Employment Court is dismissed.
D The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
22 February 2022
________________________________________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 22 February 2022 (Snowdon v Radio New Zealand Ltd [2022] NZSC 9) is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
23 December 2022
Employment Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Peniamina Ieremia v The Queen
Case number
SC 19/2020
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted in part (Ieremia v R [2020] NZCA 17).
B The approved questions are:
(i) whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse leave to adduce the evidence of Mr Wilson and, if so, whether a miscarriage of justice arose as a result of this evidence not being before the jury at the applicant’s trial; and
(ii) whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that evidence of the complainants’ previous convictions was inadmissible at the applicant’s trial, or that, if any of it was admissible, its exclusion did not cause a miscarriage of justice.
3 July 2020
__________________________
A The application to adduce new evidence is granted.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The appellant’s convictions are quashed.
D A retrial is ordered.
E 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 the retrial. Publication in law report or law digest is permitted.
14 December 2020
B The approved questions are:
(i) whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse leave to adduce the evidence of Mr Wilson and, if so, whether a miscarriage of justice arose as a result of this evidence not being before the jury at the applicant’s trial; and
(ii) whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that evidence of the complainants’ previous convictions was inadmissible at the applicant’s trial, or that, if any of it was admissible, its exclusion did not cause a miscarriage of justice.
3 July 2020
__________________________
A The application to adduce new evidence is granted.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The appellant’s convictions are quashed.
D A retrial is ordered.
E 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 the retrial. Publication in law report or law digest is permitted.
14 December 2020
Case name
Bathurst Resources Limited & Buller Coal Limited v L&M Coal Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 29/2020
Summary
Civil appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Bathurst Resources Ltd v L&M Coal Holdings Ltd [2020] NZCA 113).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
27 July 2020
________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed. The judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside and judgment is entered for the appellants.
B The application to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
C The respondent must pay the appellants costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for second counsel.
D Costs should be re-determined in the Courts below in light of this judgment.
14 July 2021
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
27 July 2020
________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed. The judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside and judgment is entered for the appellants.
B The application to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
C The respondent must pay the appellants costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for second counsel.
D Costs should be re-determined in the Courts below in light of this judgment.
14 July 2021
Date of hearing
08 October 2020
- 09 October 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O’Regan, Ellen France, Williams JJ
Transcripts
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 85 (PDF, 289 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Fredrick Hill v Māori Trustee and Official Assignee
Case number
SC 49/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for an oral hearing is dismissed.
B The application to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
C The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
D The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
1 September 2020
B The application to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
C The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
D The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
1 September 2020
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Muhammad Shamsud-Dean SAHU KHAN v Mohammed SHARIFF
Case number
SC 4/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing an appeal against the decision of the High Court finding that the tort of deceit had not been established on the evidence.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B No order as to costs.
14 May 2019
B No order as to costs.
14 May 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
The Queen v Maurice William Reti and Logan Aaron Wood
Case number
SC 23/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Reti v R [2019] NZCA 17).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the evidence obtained pursuant to the production order of 4 August 2016 and pursuant to the execution of the search warrant on 1 November 2016 was inadmissible at the trial.
C 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.
4 April 2019
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A The 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 permitted.
5 March 2020
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the evidence obtained pursuant to the production order of 4 August 2016 and pursuant to the execution of the search warrant on 1 November 2016 was inadmissible at the trial.
C 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.
4 April 2019
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A The 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 permitted.
5 March 2020
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave granted
R v MAURICE WILLIAM RETI [2019] NZSC 36 [4 April 2019] (PDF, 182 KB)
Substantive judgment
Date of hearing
23 July 2019
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Case name
David Noel Roigard v The Queen
Case number
SC 25/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relation to evidential matters (namely jury directions and prejudice in relation to cellmate confession evidence) – Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly determined aggravating factors in determining a minimum period of imprisonment.
Result
A Leave to appeal against conviction is granted to the extent described below (Roigard v R [2019] NZCA 8).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the admissibility of the proposed evidence of the witnesses F and W.
C Leave to appeal against sentence is declined.
27 June 2019
__________________________________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
14 September 2020
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the admissibility of the proposed evidence of the witnesses F and W.
C Leave to appeal against sentence is declined.
27 June 2019
__________________________________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
14 September 2020
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 94 (PDF, 76 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
DAVID NOEL ROIGARD v R [2019] NZSC 63 [27 June 2019] (PDF, 232 KB)
Substantive judgment
Hearing - Judges
3 October 2019
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France, and Williams JJ
Case synopsis
Case name
D(SC 26/2018) v The Queen
Case number
SC 26/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the appellant’s call to a mental health line should have been admitted at trial – Whether the appellant should have been permitted to lead evidence under Evidence Act 2006, s 44(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
10 July 2019
10 July 2019
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
D (SC 26/2019) v R [2019] NZSC 72 [10 July 2019] (PDF, 50 KB)
Page 5 of 46