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
Bruce Alexander McKay v The Queen
Case number
SC 92/2019
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
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Lance David Morrison v The Queen
Case number
SC 93/2019 SC 94/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s quantum appeal for costs under s 5 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
9 December 2019
B There is no order as to costs.
9 December 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Calim Ioan v Scott Technology NZ Limited
Case number
SC 99/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal correctly applied s 67B of the Employment Relations Act 2000 in relation to the termination of the applicant’s employment – Whether the applicant was unjustifiably dismissed based on the notice period.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
19 November 2019
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
19 November 2019
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
R v Legal Services Commissioner
Case number
SC 101/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Legal Services Act 2011, s 7 – Whether the High Court erred in finding that an “administrative tribunal or judicial authority” does not include the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
6 December 2019
B There is no order as to costs.
6 December 2019
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Case name
Bryce Brougham v Christine Anne Elizabeth Regan and Mark Jefferey Tuffin as trustees of the Winchester Trust and Racheal Christina Dey
Case number
SC 104/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a standard form loan agreement was a contract of guarantee under s 27 of the Property Law Act 2007 – Whether imposing guarantee obligations on one of two guarantors named in a contract of guarantee is contingent on both named guarantors signing.
Result
A An extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
B Leave to appeal is granted (Regan v Brougham [2019] NZCA 401).
C The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was right to allow the appeal to that Court.
12 December 2019
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The orders made in the Court of Appeal are set aside and judgment is entered for the appellant.
C The respondents must pay the appellant costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
D The award of costs and disbursements in the lower Courts in favour of the first respondents is set aside. Such costs and disbursements should be reassessed by the Court of Appeal in light of this judgment. The award of costs in favour of the second respondent stands.
E The first respondents’ interlocutory application to adduce further evidence is dismissed. 30 October 2020
B Leave to appeal is granted (Regan v Brougham [2019] NZCA 401).
C The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was right to allow the appeal to that Court.
12 December 2019
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The orders made in the Court of Appeal are set aside and judgment is entered for the appellant.
C The respondents must pay the appellant costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
D The award of costs and disbursements in the lower Courts in favour of the first respondents is set aside. Such costs and disbursements should be reassessed by the Court of Appeal in light of this judgment. The award of costs in favour of the second respondent stands.
E The first respondents’ interlocutory application to adduce further evidence is dismissed. 30 October 2020
Date of hearing
09 June 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 9 June 2020 (PDF, 409 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 118 (PDF, 189 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Harjit Dheil v The Queen
Case number
SC 106/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Evidence Act 2006, ss 22A and 122 – Whether a recorded conversation should have been admitted at trial – Whether the recorded conversation was hearsay evidence – Whether the trial Judge should have given a direction in relation to the hearsay evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal.
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
HARJIT DHEIL v R [2019] NZSC 153 [20 December 2019] (PDF, 46 KB)
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
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
Eric Meserve Houghton v Timothy Ernest Corbett Saunders, Samuel John Magill, John Michael Feeney, Craig Edgeworth Horrocks, Peter David Hunter, Peter Thomas and Joan Withers, and Credit Suisse Private Equity Inc, and Credit Suisse First Boston Asian Me
Case number
SC 117/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the expert evidence as to the quantum of loss is admissible – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against a refusal to strike out the respondent’ s defence under s 63 of the Securities Act 1978 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondents collectively and $2,500 to the second and third respondents collectively.
13 December 2019
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondents collectively and $2,500 to the second and third respondents collectively.
13 December 2019
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Case name
SHAY O’ CARROLL v the Queen
Case number
SC 129/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against a decision of the High Court – Whether s 155 of the Cook Islands Act 1915 (NZ) provides a jurisdictional bar to the imposition of a sentence of home detention
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Carroll v R [2019] NZCA 657).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
C Bail is extended on the same conditions until the determination of the appeal.
5 March 2020
________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment is quashed and a sentence of 10 months’ home detention is substituted. The sentence is subject to the conditions listed at [55] of the judgment.
14 September 2020
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
C Bail is extended on the same conditions until the determination of the appeal.
5 March 2020
________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment is quashed and a sentence of 10 months’ home detention is substituted. The sentence is subject to the conditions listed at [55] of the judgment.
14 September 2020
Date of hearing
11 June 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 11 June 2020 (PDF, 184 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 92 (PDF, 153 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
SHAY O’ CARROLL v R [2020] NZSC 15 [5 March 2020] (PDF, 31 KB)
Substantive judgment
SHAY O’CARROLL v R [2020] NZSC 92 (PDF, 104 KB)
Page 13 of 117