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
Kaine Van Hemert v The King
Case number
SC 38/2022
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
A The applications for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal (R v Van Hemert [2021] NZCA 261) [the Court of Appeal judgment] and the decision of the High Court (R v Van Hemert [2021] NZHC 2877) resentencing Mr Van Hemert [the resentencing judgment] are granted.
B Leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment and the resentencing judgment is granted.
C The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the presumption in favour of life imprisonment in s 102 of the Sentencing Act 2002 was not displaced given the circumstances of the offence and of the applicant.
3 August 2022
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal against sentence is allowed.
B The minimum period of imprisonment of 11 years and six months is quashed and a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years is substituted.
31 August 2023
B Leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment and the resentencing judgment is granted.
C The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the presumption in favour of life imprisonment in s 102 of the Sentencing Act 2002 was not displaced given the circumstances of the offence and of the applicant.
3 August 2022
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal against sentence is allowed.
B The minimum period of imprisonment of 11 years and six months is quashed and a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years is substituted.
31 August 2023
Date of hearing
18 November 2022
Judges
Glazebrook, O’Regan, Ellen France, Williams and Kós JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 18 November 2022 Appellants submissions (PDF, 478 KB)
- Hearing date 18 November 2022 Respondents submissions (PDF, 501 KB)
- Hearing date 18 November 2022 Intervener Criminal Bar Association submissions (PDF, 445 KB)
- Hearing date 18 November 2022 Intervener Defence Lawyers Association submissions (PDF, 208 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing date 18 November 2022 Transcript (PDF, 586 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 18 November Van Hemert v The King (PDF, 472 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2023] NZSC 116 (PDF, 307 KB)
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
KAINE VAN HEMERT v R [2022] NZSC 94 [3 August 2022] (PDF, 191 KB)
Substantive judgment
KAINE VAN HEMERT v R [2023] NZSC 116 [31 August 2023] (PDF, 471 KB)
Case name
R (SC 64/2022) v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 64/2022
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (R (CA586/2021) v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2022] NZCA 225).
B The approved question is how does the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 affect the exercise of the court’s discretion to renew an Extended Supervision Order when the individual concerned is also subject to a Compulsory Care Order?
11 April 2023
_________________________________________________________
The application for recusal is dismissed.
26 April 2023
_________________________________________________________
A The application by the respondent to adduce further evidence is granted.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for reconsideration in light of this judgment and any further evidence adduced in that Court. Pending the High Court’s decision on review under s 107RA(5) of the Parole Act, the appellant remains subject to the extended supervision order.
7 May 2024
B The approved question is how does the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 affect the exercise of the court’s discretion to renew an Extended Supervision Order when the individual concerned is also subject to a Compulsory Care Order?
11 April 2023
_________________________________________________________
The application for recusal is dismissed.
26 April 2023
_________________________________________________________
A The application by the respondent to adduce further evidence is granted.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for reconsideration in light of this judgment and any further evidence adduced in that Court. Pending the High Court’s decision on review under s 107RA(5) of the Parole Act, the appellant remains subject to the extended supervision order.
7 May 2024
Date of hearing
08 August 2023
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Williams and Kós JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 8 August 2023 Appellants Submissions (PDF, 349 KB)
- Hearing date 8 August 2023 Respondents Submissions (PDF, 548 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 August 2023 (PDF, 481 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 8 August 2023 (PDF, 489 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2024] NZSC 47 (PDF, 291 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Videos
- R v Chief Executive of the Dept of Corrections (SC 64/2022) (Recorded, 8 August 2023)
Case name
Justin Richard Burke v The King
Case number
SC 75/2022
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Burke v R [2022] NZCA 279).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted and applied s 66(2) of the Crimes Act 1961.
21 October 2022
__________________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B We seek submissions from counsel on the consequential orders that should follow, as set out at [175] of the reasons of the Court.
22 April 2024
_________________________________________________________________________________
A The appellant’s conviction for manslaughter is quashed.
B An order is made under ss 234(2) and 241(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 substituting a conviction for injuring with intent to injure under s 189(2) of the Crimes Act 1961.
C An order is made under ss 234(5) and 241(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 substituting a sentence of three years’ imprisonment.
16 May 2024
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted and applied s 66(2) of the Crimes Act 1961.
21 October 2022
__________________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B We seek submissions from counsel on the consequential orders that should follow, as set out at [175] of the reasons of the Court.
22 April 2024
_________________________________________________________________________________
A The appellant’s conviction for manslaughter is quashed.
B An order is made under ss 234(2) and 241(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 substituting a conviction for injuring with intent to injure under s 189(2) of the Crimes Act 1961.
C An order is made under ss 234(5) and 241(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 substituting a sentence of three years’ imprisonment.
16 May 2024
Date of hearing
20 March 2023
- 21 March 2023
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Williams, Kós JJ | Venue Christchurch High Court Courtroom 12
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing 20 March 2023 Appellant Submissions (PDF, 428 KB)
- Hearing 20 March 2023 Respondent Submissions (PDF, 1.1 MB)
- Hearing 20 March 2023 Intervener Submissions CBA (PDF, 910 KB)
- Hearing 20 March 2023 Intervener Submissions (PDF, 6.4 MB)
Transcripts
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 20 March and 21 March 2023 (PDF, 334 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2024] NZSC 37 (PDF, 303 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Substantive judgment
JUSTIN RICHARD BURKE v R [2024] NZSC 59 [16 May 2024] (PDF, 181 KB)
Videos
- Justin Richard Burke v The King SC 75/2022 - 21 March 2023 (Recorded, 21 March 2023)
- Justin Richard Burke v The King SC 75/2022 - 20 March 2023 (Recorded, 20 March 2023)
Case name
Gregory John Jones v New Zealand Bloodstock Finance and Leasing Limited
Case number
SC 100/2022
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring a civil appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
2 August 2023
________________________________________________
A The application to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
B The application for recusal is dismissed.
C The application for recall is dismissed.
11 October 2023
__________________________________________________
A The second application for recall is dismissed.
B The Registrar is directed not to accept for filing any further applications in relation to this matter.
8 December 2023
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
2 August 2023
________________________________________________
A The application to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
B The application for recusal is dismissed.
C The application for recall is dismissed.
11 October 2023
__________________________________________________
A The second application for recall is dismissed.
B The Registrar is directed not to accept for filing any further applications in relation to this matter.
8 December 2023
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Recall judgment
Case name
Katharine Elizabeth Preston v Grant Lee Preston and Grant Lee Preston and Fisher Partners Limited as Trustees of the Grant Preston Family Trust
Case number
SC 10/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Preston v Preston [2020] NZCA 679).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss Ms Preston’s appeal in relation to her claim for an award of part of the assets of the Grant Preston Family Trust under s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980.
12 May 2021
____________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B Orders are made that the Grant Preston Family Trust pay the Huntbos Family Trust $141,000 and release any claim to the $192,000 of the funds held on joint account (the Grant Preston Family Trust share of these funds is $102,000 and the Huntbos Family Trust share is $90,000).
C The Grant Preston Family Trust deed is amended by removing the appellant as a discretionary beneficiary.
D Leave is reserved to the parties to seek further directions or orders that may be necessary to give effect to this judgment.
E The first respondent must pay the appellant costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for second counsel. Unless the parties can agree, costs in the Courts below are to be redetermined in those Courts in accordance with this judgment.
9 November 2021
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss Ms Preston’s appeal in relation to her claim for an award of part of the assets of the Grant Preston Family Trust under s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980.
12 May 2021
____________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B Orders are made that the Grant Preston Family Trust pay the Huntbos Family Trust $141,000 and release any claim to the $192,000 of the funds held on joint account (the Grant Preston Family Trust share of these funds is $102,000 and the Huntbos Family Trust share is $90,000).
C The Grant Preston Family Trust deed is amended by removing the appellant as a discretionary beneficiary.
D Leave is reserved to the parties to seek further directions or orders that may be necessary to give effect to this judgment.
E The first respondent must pay the appellant costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for second counsel. Unless the parties can agree, costs in the Courts below are to be redetermined in those Courts in accordance with this judgment.
9 November 2021
Date of hearing
03 August 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O’Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 3 August 2021 (PDF, 444 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 154 (PDF, 195 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Chesterfield Preschools Limited (In Liquidation) and Therese Anne Sisson v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 12/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B The application for leave to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay costs of $3,000 to the Commissioner and $1,500 to Chesterfields Preschools Ltd (in liq) plus usual disbursements.
12 July 2021
_________________________________________________________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 12 July 2021 (Chesterfields Preschools Ltd (in liq) v
Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2021] NZSC 83) is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $500 to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue.
8 October 2021
B The application for leave to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay costs of $3,000 to the Commissioner and $1,500 to Chesterfields Preschools Ltd (in liq) plus usual disbursements.
12 July 2021
_________________________________________________________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 12 July 2021 (Chesterfields Preschools Ltd (in liq) v
Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2021] NZSC 83) is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $500 to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue.
8 October 2021
Transcripts
- Hearing date 22 June 2021 (PDF, 229 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Chesterfield Preschools Limited (In Liquidation) and Therese Anne Sisson v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 17/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B The application for leave to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay costs of $3,000 to the Commissioner and $1,500 to Chesterfields Preschools Ltd (in liq) plus usual disbursements.
12 July 2021
_________________________________________________________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 12 July 2021 (Chesterfields Preschools Ltd (in liq) v
Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2021] NZSC 83) is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $500 to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue.
8 October 2021
B The application for leave to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay costs of $3,000 to the Commissioner and $1,500 to Chesterfields Preschools Ltd (in liq) plus usual disbursements.
12 July 2021
_________________________________________________________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 12 July 2021 (Chesterfields Preschools Ltd (in liq) v
Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2021] NZSC 83) is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $500 to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue.
8 October 2021
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Chesterfield Preschools Limited (In Liquidation) and Therese Anne Sisson v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 18/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B The application for leave to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay costs of $3,000 to the Commissioner and $1,500 to Chesterfields Preschools Ltd (in liq) plus usual disbursements.
12 July 2021
_________________________________________________________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 12 July 2021 (Chesterfields Preschools Ltd (in liq) v
Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2021] NZSC 83) is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $500 to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue.
8 October 2021
B The application for leave to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay costs of $3,000 to the Commissioner and $1,500 to Chesterfields Preschools Ltd (in liq) plus usual disbursements.
12 July 2021
_________________________________________________________________
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 12 July 2021 (Chesterfields Preschools Ltd (in liq) v
Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2021] NZSC 83) is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $500 to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue.
8 October 2021
Recall judgment
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Mark McKinney v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 30/2021
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application to adduce evidence in support of the application is dismissed.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
21 June 2021
_______________________________________________________
The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 21 June 2021 (McKinney v New Zealand Police [2021] NZSC 68) is dismissed.
25 March 2022
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
21 June 2021
_______________________________________________________
The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 21 June 2021 (McKinney v New Zealand Police [2021] NZSC 68) is dismissed.
25 March 2022
District Court decision
Not publicly available
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Shane Dromgool, Dorothy Dromgool, Alan Darvall Poulton, Jennifer Poulton and Newman Farms Limited v Minister for Land Information
Case number
SC 32/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Minister for Land Information v Dromgool [2021] NZCA 44). The approved question is:
Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its interpretation of the role and obligations of the Minister for Land Information in deciding an application under s 186(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 and, in particular, whether the Minister must be satisfied that the proposed taking is fair, sound and reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the network utility operator or whether it is sufficient that the Minister is satisfied the proposed taking is capable of meeting that test.
B The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
24 June 2021
__________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
22 December 2022
Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its interpretation of the role and obligations of the Minister for Land Information in deciding an application under s 186(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 and, in particular, whether the Minister must be satisfied that the proposed taking is fair, sound and reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the network utility operator or whether it is sufficient that the Minister is satisfied the proposed taking is capable of meeting that test.
B The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
24 June 2021
__________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
22 December 2022
Date of hearing
22 March 2022
Judges
Winkelman CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 22 March 2022 (PDF, 588 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 157 (PDF, 202 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 7 of 117