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
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
Daniel Clinton Fitzgerald v The Queen
Case number
SC 67/2020
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Fitzgerald v R [2020] NZCA 292).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002 does not apply to Mr Fitzgerald.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
D The application to amend the applicant’s notice of application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
3 November 2020
_______________________________________________________
A The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
B The appeal against sentence is allowed. The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for re-sentencing.
7 October 202
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002 does not apply to Mr Fitzgerald.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
D The application to amend the applicant’s notice of application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
3 November 2020
_______________________________________________________
A The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
B The appeal against sentence is allowed. The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for re-sentencing.
7 October 202
Date of hearing
23 February 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 23 February 2021 (PDF, 536 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 131 (PDF, 197 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Attorney-General v Family First New Zealand
Case number
SC 79/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Family First New Zealand v Attorney General [2020] NZCA 366).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
18 December 2020
_______________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The declaration made by the Court of Appeal that the respondent qualifies for registration under the Charities Act 2005 is set aside.
C There is no order as to costs.
28 June 2022
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
18 December 2020
_______________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The declaration made by the Court of Appeal that the respondent qualifies for registration under the Charities Act 2005 is set aside.
C There is no order as to costs.
28 June 2022
Date of hearing
24 June 2021
- 25 June 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 24 June 2021 (PDF, 819 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 24 June 25 June 2021 (PDF, 428 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 80 (PDF, 320 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
M v Attorney General (in respect of the Ministry of Health), Waitemata District Health Board and Capital and Coast District Health Board
Case number
SC 82/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (M (CA677/2017) v Attorney-General [2020] NZCA 311).
B The approved question is:
Was the applicant detained unlawfully after 20 December 2008 because the direction of the Attorney-General under s 31(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 that he be detained as a care recipient under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 was not issued until 14 January 2009, and, if so, for how long?
C In all other respects the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
16 December 2020
The application for reconsideration of the approved question on which leave was given in this Court’s judgment of 16 December 2020 (M (SC 82/2020) v Attorney-General [2020] NZSC 145) is dismissed.
23 March 2021
____________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B A declaration is made that the appellant was detained unlawfully from 21 December 2008 until 14 January 2009.
17 September 2021
B The approved question is:
Was the applicant detained unlawfully after 20 December 2008 because the direction of the Attorney-General under s 31(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 that he be detained as a care recipient under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 was not issued until 14 January 2009, and, if so, for how long?
C In all other respects the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
16 December 2020
The application for reconsideration of the approved question on which leave was given in this Court’s judgment of 16 December 2020 (M (SC 82/2020) v Attorney-General [2020] NZSC 145) is dismissed.
23 March 2021
____________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B A declaration is made that the appellant was detained unlawfully from 21 December 2008 until 14 January 2009.
17 September 2021
Date of hearing
27 April 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 April 2021 (PDF, 372 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 118 (PDF, 195 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Substantive judgment
Case name
Robert Noe and Atrap Incorporated v Ratzapper Australasia Limited
Case number
SC 3/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Arbitration Act 1996, sch 1, art 36 – Whether the applicant was “otherwise unable to present” his case – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against enforcement of the arbitral award.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
27 March 2019
B The applicants must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
27 March 2019
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
Brook Valley Community Group Incorporated v Brook Waimarama Sanctuary Trust, Minister for the Environment and Nelson City Council
Case number
SC 7/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Resource Management Act 1991, ss 13, 15 and 360(1)(h) – Whether the discharge of brodifacoum was unlawful – Whether the exempting regulations made under s 360(1)(h) of the Resource Management Act were unlawful – Whether the reduction in the costs award in the High Court was sufficient to reflect the public interest in the case – 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 $4,500 to the respondents (to be divided equally among them, unless they agree otherwise) as well as the respondents’ usual disbursements.
21 May 2019
B The applicant must pay costs of $4,500 to the respondents (to be divided equally among them, unless they agree otherwise) as well as the respondents’ usual disbursements.
21 May 2019
Transcripts
- Hearing date 2 May 2019 (PDF, 113 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Talley's Group Limited v Worksafe New Zealand
Case number
SC 11/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 379 – Use of prosecution summary of facts – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not dismissing the defective charging documents – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not considering the prosecution’s actions amounted to an abuse of process.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
5 April 2019
5 April 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
James Hardie Industries Plc, James Hardie NZ Holdings & RCI Holdings Pty LImited v Karen Louise White, Waitakere Group Limited, Metlifecare Pinseong Limited, Forest Lake Gardens Limited, Vision (Dannemora) LImited (Name changed to Metlifecare Dannemora
Case number
SC 12/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that there is a serious issue to be tried as to whether the applicant owed a duty of care to those affected by the actions or omissions of its subsidiaries – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that there is a serious issue to be tried as to whether the applicant breached the Fair Trading Act 1986 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that there is a serious issue to be tried as to whether the applicant was a “manufacturer” of goods in breach of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicants’ appeal against a decision of the High Court not to grant summary judgment – (cross-appeal) Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to set aside a decision of the High Court partially upholding a protest to jurisdiction.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants are to pay to the respondents costs of $2,500.
16 April 2019
B The applicants are to pay to the respondents costs of $2,500.
16 April 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited v Financial Markets Authority
Case number
SC 13/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Financial Market Authority’s disclosure of confidential documents obtained from ANZ to third parties was for a permitted purpose under s 59(3) under the Financial Markets Authority Act 2011.
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal in SC 13/2019 and SC 21/2019 are dismissed.
B Costs of $3,500 are awarded to the respondent.
12 April 2019
B Costs of $3,500 are awarded to the respondent.
12 April 2019
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 9 of 117