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
Dermot Gregory Nottingham, Phillip Nottingham and Earle McKinney v The real Estate Agents Authority and Martin Russell Honey
Case number
SC 119/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay the respondents one set of costs of $2,500.
21 December 2021
B The applicants must pay the respondents one set of costs of $2,500.
21 December 2021
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Dermot Gregory Nottingham and Robert Earle McKinney
Case number
SC 126/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
3 November 2021
3 November 2021
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Keanu Head, James Logie Wright, Samuel Gregory, Rebecca Langford, Ashleigh Crichton, Tamara Joan Evans, Dylan Crook and Wendy Kain v Chief Executive of the Inland Revenue Department and Madison Recruitment Limited
Case number
SC 131/2021
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 granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C The applicants must pay each respondent costs of $2,500.
2 March 2022
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C The applicants must pay each respondent costs of $2,500.
2 March 2022
Employment Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
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
Robert Lee as Trustee of the Estate of JG Lee v Gergory Lee, Gregory Lee and Jane Lois Lee as trustees of The Leeroy Family Trust
Case number
SC 81/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in requiring the appellant to pay security for costs under rule 5.45 of the High Court Rules 2016.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
8 November 2019
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
8 November 2019
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
Dermot Gregory Nottingham v Maltese Cat Limited, Clyde Alexander Maclean and Elizabeth May Currie
Case number
SC 139/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay one set of costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
17 April 2020
B The applicant must pay one set of costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
17 April 2020
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Gregory David Waters v The Queen
Case number
SC 26/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the trial Judge’s failure to sum up the evidence caused a miscarriage of justice – Whether the trial Judge’ s failure to direct the jury under s 32 of the Evidence Act caused prejudice –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed
5 June 2018
5 June 2018
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GREGORY DAVID WATERS v R [2018] NZSC 49 [5 June 2018] (PDF, 194 KB)
Case name
Dermont Gregory Nottingham v Auckland District Court, Hemi Taka, Martin Honey and Stephanie Honey
Case number
SC 73/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Criminal Procedure Act 2011 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the decisions of the High Court.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay the respondents costs of $2,500. 5 November 2018
B The applicant is to pay the respondents costs of $2,500. 5 November 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 3 of 9