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.
3 July 2026
Case information summary (as at 3 July 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 88 KB)
Case information summary (as at 3 July 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 127 KB)
All years
Case name
George Tama Nicholls v Mark Steven Nicholls, Airini Pirihiria Tukerangi, Delace William James, Kahutoroa Mataia Tukerangi, Viv Tama Nicholls, Anita Mari Norman and Sarah Jane Nicholls as trustees of the Ahu Whenua Trust known as The W T Nicholls Trust
Case number
SC 76/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
19 February 2021
B There is no order as to costs.
19 February 2021
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
James Charles Stringer v Colin Graeme Craig, Helen Ruth Craig, Angela Maria Storr, Kevin Eric Stitt and Stephen Dylan Taylor
Case number
SC 96/2020
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 applicant must pay the first respondent costs of $2,500.
16 February 2021
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay the first respondent costs of $2,500.
16 February 2021
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
ESR Group (NZ) Limited v Ian James Burden, PGT-Reclaimed (International) Limited and Plantation Grown Timbers (Vietnam) Limited
Case number
SC 105/2020
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 the three respondents one set of costs of $2,500.
11 March 2021
B The applicant must pay the three respondents one set of costs of $2,500.
11 March 2021
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Ian James Burden, PGT-Reclaimed (International) Limited and Plantation Grown Timbers (Vietnam) Limited v ESR Group (NZ) Limited
Case number
SC 106/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal - application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A Notice of Abandonment having been filed the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
8 April 2021
8 April 2021
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Videos
- SC 96/2023 Ian James Burden and Ors v ESR Group (NZ) Limited (Recorded, 26 April 2024)
Case name
Dion James Hunt and Ada Sharon Pue v The Queen
Case number
SC 112/2020
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B 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 trial. Publication in law report or law digest is permitted.
01 March 2021
B 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 trial. Publication in law report or law digest is permitted.
01 March 2021
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
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
Brandon James Roche v The Queen
Case number
SC 18/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether a member of the jury appeared biased – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted to the applicants (Rolleston v R [2018] NZCA 611).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeals.
21 March 2019
____________________
A The application to cross-examine the foreperson is dismissed.
B The appeals are dismissed.
C Existing suppression orders in respect of the minutes issued in relation to this matter remain in place but are varied to continue until further order of this Court.
19 November 2019
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeals.
21 March 2019
____________________
A The application to cross-examine the foreperson is dismissed.
B The appeals are dismissed.
C Existing suppression orders in respect of the minutes issued in relation to this matter remain in place but are varied to continue until further order of this Court.
19 November 2019
Date of hearing
13 November 2019
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 June 2019 SC 17/SC 18 (PDF, 197 KB)
- Hearing date 13 November 2019 (PDF, 126 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 129 (PDF, 65 KB)
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme Court - order made
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Additional document
Additional document
Case name
127 Hobson Street Limited and Sunil Govind Parbhu v Honey Bees Preschool Limited and Jason James
Case number
SC 40/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Penalty clause – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the indemnity clause did not offend the prohibition against penalties.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (127 Hobson Street Ltd v Honey Bees Preschool Ltd [2019] NZCA 122).
B The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal to that Court and, in particular, whether the Court was correct to conclude that the indemnity clause did not offend the prohibition against penalties.
27 June 2019
____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements to the respondents.
5 June 2020
B The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal to that Court and, in particular, whether the Court was correct to conclude that the indemnity clause did not offend the prohibition against penalties.
27 June 2019
____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements to the respondents.
5 June 2020
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 53 (PDF, 205 KB)
Substantive judgment
[2020] NZSC 53 (PDF, 209 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Hearing - Judges
Winkelmann CJ, O'Regan, Ellen France,Williams and Arnold JJ
Transcript:
Case name
Lewis Eru Craig v The Queen
Case number
SC 59/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the interests of the victim were taken into account in sentencing (s 7(1)(c) of the Sentencing Act 2002) – Whether the defendant had a reasonable expectation he would not be imprisoned before he pleaded guilty – Whether the final sentence imposed was manifestly excessive – Whether there was a miscarriage of justice
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 26 September 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Peter James Brooks V The Queen
Case number
SC 74/2019
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed
8 October 2019
8 October 2019
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 6 of 15