Supreme Court case information

Civil Appeal

A Leave to appeal is granted (Rasier Operations BV v E Tū Inc [2024] NZCA 403).
B The approved question is whether the four Uber drivers are employees in terms of s 6 of the Employment Relations Act 2000.
19 December 2024
______________________________________________________

A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondents one set of costs of $50,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
17 November 2025

Civil Appeal

A Leave to appeal is granted (Fitzgerald v Attorney-General of New Zealand [2024] NZCA 419).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
18 December 2024

Criminal Appeal — Application for leave to refer a question of law

A We grant leave to the Solicitor-General to refer the following questions of law (arising from Nikoloff v R [2024] NZCA 318) to this Court under s 317 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011:
Was the defect in the leave given on behalf of the Attorney-General able to be remedied or rectified by the instrument of ratification?
Was the trial at which Mr Nikoloff was convicted a nullity?
B We appoint Mr S J Shamy as counsel to assist the Court on the appeal under s 318(3)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
27 November 2024
________________________________________________
We answer the questions of law as follows:
(a) Was the defect in the leave given on behalf of the Attorney-General able to be remedied or rectified by the instrument of ratification?
No.
(b) Was the trial at which Mr Nikoloff was convicted a nullity?
Yes.
18 September 2025

Criminal Appeal

A The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
B Leave to appeal is granted in part (Jury v R [2024] NZCA 320).
C The approved questions are:
(a) whether the High Court erred by admitting the hearsay statements of Rex Maney in evidence, and if so, whether the error occasioned a miscarriage of justice; and
(b) whether the trial Judge’s failure to give a reliability direction under s 122 of the Evidence Act 2006 with respect to those statements occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
D The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
17 March 2025

Criminal Appeal

A  Leave to appeal is granted (R v Bailey [2024] NZCA 552).
B  The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
5 March 2025 
__________________________________________________________

A The appeal is allowed.

B The application under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 is remitted to the District Court for rehearing.   
30 March 2026

Civil Appeal 

A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Pascoe v Minister for Land Information [2024] NZCA 557).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that negotiations prior to the compulsory acquisition of land for essential works, under s 18 of the Public Works Act 1981, may be undertaken by an accredited contractor rather than by the Respondent personally (or an official of Toitū Te Whenua | Land Information New Zealand with delegated authority by the Respondent).
C Counsel to assist the Court will be appointed by the Registrar.                          
19 May 2025

___________________________________________________________
A The application of counsel assisting the Court for leave to adduce further evidence is granted.
B The Court answers the question for which leave was granted in the following way: the negotiations function under s 18(1)(d) of the Public Works Act 1981 may be performed by an accredited contractor, rather than the Minister personally or the Minister’s delegate within Toitū Te Whenua | Land Information New Zealand (LINZ), provided the accredited contractor holds delegated authority to perform that function.
C The Court finds that LINZ officials delegated the negotiations function outside the Public Service in this case but did not follow the necessary statutory processes.  The appellants did not refuse to negotiate, for purposes of s 18(2), by refusing to deal with the accredited contractor.
D The appeal is allowed accordingly.  The proceeding is remitted to the High Court to determine what relief, if any, is appropriate.
E The respondent must pay the appellants one set of costs of $3,000 plus usual disbursements. 
18 December 2025

Civil Appeal 

A    Kea Investments Ltd’s application for leave to appeal is granted (Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] NZCA 609, [2024] 3 NZLR 901).
B    The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to discharge the permanent anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions awarded to Kea Investments Ltd in the High Court.
C    Counsel to assist the Court will be appointed by the Registrar.
D    The applications to adduce further evidence are dismissed.
E    The application to extend the stay in Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] NZCA 686, (2024) 26 PRNZ 667 is granted pending determination of the appeal. 
 4 July 2025
_______________________________________
A The application for adjournment is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.                                                                                
30 September 2025
_______________________________________

A The appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] NZCA 609, [2024] 3 NZLR 901 is allowed.
B The orders made by the High Court in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd (in interim liq) [2023] NZHC 3260 at [156(a)(i) - (iv)], and in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd (in interim liq) [2023] NZHC 3532 at [7], are reinstated.
C Costs are reserved. 
10 November 2025
_______________________________________________________

A The application by the appellant to adduce updating evidence is granted.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The orders made by the High Court in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd (in interim liq) [2023] NZHC 3260 at [156(a)(i)]–[156(a)(iv)], and in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd (in interim liq) [2023] NZHC 3532 at [7], are reinstated.
D The first, second, fourth and fifth respondents must pay the appellant costs of $250,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
E The first respondent must pay the liquidators of the second respondent costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
F The confidential version of the affidavit of Martin Craig Smith filed in support of the appellant’s costs application shall not be disclosed to the Respondents or persons searching the Court file.
G The application for stay of enforcement is dismissed.   
31 July 2026

Civil Appeal

A Subject to C, the applications for leave to appeal are granted (Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa v Bay of Plenty Regional Council [2022] NZCA 598).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeals.
C The application for leave to appeal on costs is dismissed (Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa v Bay of Plenty Regional Council [2022] NZCA 598).
D An extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted (Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa v Bay of Plenty Regional Council [2020] NZHC 3388).
E The application for leave to appeal is granted (Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa v Bay of Plenty Regional Council [2020] NZHC 3388).
F The approved question is whether the High Court erred in upholding the Environment Court’s decision in relation to the negative tikanga effects.
17 April 2023
______________________________
A Sustainable Otakiri Inc’s appeal is dismissed.
B Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Awa’s appeal is dismissed.
C Costs are reserved.
12 November 2025