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
Maninder Singh v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 42/2021
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.
2 July 2021
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2 July 2021
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
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
Gill Pizza Limited, Sandeep Singh, Jatinder Singh, Mandeep Singh and Malotia Limited v A Labour Inspector (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment)
Case number
SC 67/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (A Labour Inspector (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment) v Gill Pizza Ltd [2021] NZCA 192).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the Employment Court erred in finding that, if a defendant asserts there is no employment relationship, the Labour Inspector must first seek a declaration of employment status from the Employment Court under s 6(5) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 before commencing or continuing a proceeding under s 228(1) of that Act.
12 August 2021
__________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $15,000 plus usual disbursements.
21 December 2021
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the Employment Court erred in finding that, if a defendant asserts there is no employment relationship, the Labour Inspector must first seek a declaration of employment status from the Employment Court under s 6(5) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 before commencing or continuing a proceeding under s 228(1) of that Act.
12 August 2021
__________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $15,000 plus usual disbursements.
21 December 2021
Date of hearing
04 November 2021
Judges
Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan , Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 4 November 2021 (PDF, 257 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 184 (PDF, 292 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
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
Christopher Ryan v Health and Disability Commissioner
Case number
SC 98/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Ryan v The Health and Disability Commissioner [2021] NZCA 347).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to uphold the finding of liability under s 72 of the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994.
2 November 2021
________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
28 April 2023
________________________________________________
The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
26 June 2023
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to uphold the finding of liability under s 72 of the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994.
2 November 2021
________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
28 April 2023
________________________________________________
The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
26 June 2023
Date of hearing
24 March 2022
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing 24 March 2022 (PDF, 433 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2023] NZSC 42 (PDF, 286 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
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
Leslie Norman Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Limited
Case number
SC 5/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Roche Products (New Zealand) Ltd v Austin [2019] NZCA 660).
B The approved question is whether the applicant’s claim for compensatory damages should have been struck out on the basis that his injuries were not an ordinary consequence of the consumption of Roaccutane.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
19 May 2020
___________________________________________________
A The appeal will be dismissed one month from the date of this judgment unless the appellant makes an application under s 135 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 together with an application to this Court for a stay of this proceeding pending completion of that process.
B There is no order as to costs.
31 March 2021
___________________________________________________
A This Court’s decision in Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Ltd [2021] NZSC 30 is stayed until midday on 6 December 2021, unless the stay is extended in this Court on the application of Mr Austin.
B Any party may seek an order lapsing the stay at any stage.
C Costs are reserved.
16 June 2021
___________________________________________________
A The stay ordered in Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Ltd [2021] NZSC 62 is lifted.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.
25 September 2024
B The approved question is whether the applicant’s claim for compensatory damages should have been struck out on the basis that his injuries were not an ordinary consequence of the consumption of Roaccutane.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
19 May 2020
___________________________________________________
A The appeal will be dismissed one month from the date of this judgment unless the appellant makes an application under s 135 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 together with an application to this Court for a stay of this proceeding pending completion of that process.
B There is no order as to costs.
31 March 2021
___________________________________________________
A This Court’s decision in Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Ltd [2021] NZSC 30 is stayed until midday on 6 December 2021, unless the stay is extended in this Court on the application of Mr Austin.
B Any party may seek an order lapsing the stay at any stage.
C Costs are reserved.
16 June 2021
___________________________________________________
A The stay ordered in Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Ltd [2021] NZSC 62 is lifted.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.
25 September 2024
Date of hearing
10 September 2020
Judges
William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan, Ellen France, Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 September 2020 (PDF, 225 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 30 (PDF, 281 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Recall judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
TUV v The Chief of New Zealand Defence Force
Case number
SC 14/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (TUV v Chief of New Zealand Defence Force [2020] NZCA 12).
B The approved ground is:
(i) Does the test in O’Connor v Hart [1985] 1 NZLR 159 (PC) (that a contract is not voidable for mental incapacity unless the other contracting party has actual or constructive knowledge of the incapacity, or equitable fraud is established) apply in the employment jurisdiction (in particular, to a settlement agreement that has been certified under s 149 of the Employment Relations Act 2000)?
(ii) If not, what is the relevant test and should the settlement agreement have been set aside in this case on the grounds of mental incapacity?
15 May 2020
___________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The Courts below were correct not to set aside the settlement agreement in this case on the grounds of mental incapacity.
C There is no order as to costs.
3 June 2022
B The approved ground is:
(i) Does the test in O’Connor v Hart [1985] 1 NZLR 159 (PC) (that a contract is not voidable for mental incapacity unless the other contracting party has actual or constructive knowledge of the incapacity, or equitable fraud is established) apply in the employment jurisdiction (in particular, to a settlement agreement that has been certified under s 149 of the Employment Relations Act 2000)?
(ii) If not, what is the relevant test and should the settlement agreement have been set aside in this case on the grounds of mental incapacity?
15 May 2020
___________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The Courts below were correct not to set aside the settlement agreement in this case on the grounds of mental incapacity.
C There is no order as to costs.
3 June 2022
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 September 2021 (PDF, 298 KB)
- Hearing date 8 September 2020 (PDF, 712 KB)
Media Releases
- MR 2022 NZSC 69 (PDF, 195 KB)
Employment Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive 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
Page 8 of 117