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.
19 June 2026
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 89 KB)
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 126 KB)
All years
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
R v The Queen
Case number
SC 67/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 43 – Propensity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction.
Result
A Notice of Abandonment having been filed the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
12 December 2019
12 December 2019
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Case name
K (SC 70/2019) v The Queen
Case number
SC 70/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling evidence admissible at trial and dismissing appeal against conviction
Result
A An extension of time for leave to appeal is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
26 September 2019
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
26 September 2019
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
K (SC 70/2019) v R [2019] NZSC 102 [26 September 2019] (PDF, 305 KB)
Case name
FMV v TZB
Case number
SC 72/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Jurisdiction – Employment Relations Act 2000, s 161(1)(r) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Employment Relations Authority had exclusive jurisdiction over the applicant’s claim that her employer breached various duties of care in relation to her employment – Whether the Court erred in upholding the High Court’s order granting permanent name suppression.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (FMV v TZB [2019] NZCA 282).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
8 October 2019
________________________________________________
A The High Court’s suppression order is amended to suppress only the identities of the parties and to remain in force so long as the suppression order made by the Employment Relations Authority remains in force.
B The appeal is otherwise dismissed.
C Costs are reserved.
20 August 2021
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
8 October 2019
________________________________________________
A The High Court’s suppression order is amended to suppress only the identities of the parties and to remain in force so long as the suppression order made by the Employment Relations Authority remains in force.
B The appeal is otherwise dismissed.
C Costs are reserved.
20 August 2021
Transcripts
- Hearing transcript 17 March 2020 SC 72 2019 (PDF, 509 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 102 (PDF, 195 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
FMV v TZB [2019] NZSC 108 [8 October 2019] (PDF, 32 KB)
Substantive judgment
FMV v TZB [2021] NZSC 102 [20 August 2021] (PDF, 392 KB)
Supreme court decision
Hearing date
17 March 2020
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Williams JJ
Case name
Iraia Aranga Ngamotu Burton v The Queen
Case number
SC 73/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether an extension of time should be granted – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal to it against conviction and sentence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in assessing the evidence, including propensity evidence and relevancy of evidence – Whether the applicant can produce new evidence before this Court – Whether there was a miscarriage of justice.
Result
The application for an extension of time is dismissed. 23 September 2019
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Farisha Farina Dean v Associate Minister of Immigration
Case number
SC 82/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Immigration Act 2009, ss 61 and 172 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the decision of the respondent not to cancel the applicant’s liability for deportation and grant her a visa was not unreasonable.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
4 November 2019
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
4 November 2019
High Court decision
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
P(SC 84/2019) v The Queen
Case number
SC 84/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in exercising its discretion not to grant name suppression under s 202 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 for a person connected with a criminal proceeding.
Result
A Notice of Abandonment having been filed the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
17 June 2020
17 June 2020
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Case name
Riki Scott Steen Walls v Ulsterman Holdings Limited (in liquidation) and Vivien Madsen-Ries and Henry David Levin as liquidators of Ulsterman Holdings Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 88/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – High Court Rules 2016 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that neither the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 nor the principles of natural justice were engaged in interpreting r 15.9(2) of the High Court Rules 2016 in the applicant’s circumstances.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondents.
15 November 2019
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondents.
15 November 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Paul Neville Bublitz v The Queen
Case number
SC 91/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 220 – Party to offence – Failure to give adequate reasons for verdict – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction.
Result
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
9 December 2019
9 December 2019
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Page 12 of 117