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.
4 September 2026
Case information summary (as at 4 September 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 116 KB)
Case information summary (as at 4 September 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 132 KB)
All years
Case name
Blue Reach Services Limited and Blue Reach Wireless Limited v Spark New Zealand Trading Limited
Case number
SC 24/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to uphold a decision of the High Court striking out the applicants’ claim on the basis it could not succeed by virtue of s 106 of the Commerce Act 1986.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $4,500 plus usual disbursements.
28 June 2019
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $4,500 plus usual disbursements.
28 June 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Transcript
O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Case name
FTG Securities Limited v Bank of New Zealand, Stephen John Tubbs, Colin Anthony Gower and Robert Bruce Walker
Case number
SC 27/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether a prohibition on assignment of a deed of priority and subordination without the consent of the other party is enforceable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to make declarations as to the interpretation of the deed of priority and subordination.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $4,500 to the respondents (to be shared equally between the first and third respondents unless they agree otherwise) plus usual disbursements.
26 August 2019
B The applicant must pay costs of $4,500 to the respondents (to be shared equally between the first and third respondents unless they agree otherwise) plus usual disbursements.
26 August 2019
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Transcript
Winkelmann CJ, O'Regan and Williams JJ
Case name
Vivien Judith Madsen-Ries and Henry David Levin as liquidators of Debut Homes Limited and Debut Homes Limited (in liquidation) v Leonard Wayne Cooper and Leonard Wayne Cooper and Tracey Cooper as trustees of the L & T Cooper Family Trust
Case number
SC 29/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s 136 of the Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in considering the Respondent’s actions as a director under ss 131 and 135 of the Companies Act 1993.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Debut Homes Ltd (in liq) v Cooper [2019] NZCA 39)
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
21 June 2019
___________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The High Court orders outlined at [4(a)], (b) and (c) of this Court’s judgment are restored.
C The respondents must pay the appellants costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements. Costs in the Courts below are to be determined in accordance with this judgment.
24 September 2020
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
21 June 2019
___________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The High Court orders outlined at [4(a)], (b) and (c) of this Court’s judgment are restored.
C The respondents must pay the appellants costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements. Costs in the Courts below are to be determined in accordance with this judgment.
24 September 2020
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 100 (PDF, 74 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Transcript
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
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
Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis v The King
Case number
SC 49/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether there was a miscarriage of justice arising from risks of contamination of or improperly obtained complainant evidence - Whether there was a miscarriage of justice arising from lack of expert evidence on the reliability of children complainants’ evidence – Whether there was a miscarriage of justice due to unreliable expert evidence being led at trial.
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 granted.
C The approved ground of appeal is whether a miscarriage of justice occurred in this case.
31 July 2019
_____________________________________________________
The appeal is to continue despite the death of the appellant.
1 September 2020
_____________________________________________________
A The applications to adduce further evidence are granted.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The convictions of the appellant are quashed.
7 October 2022
B The application for leave to appeal is granted.
C The approved ground of appeal is whether a miscarriage of justice occurred in this case.
31 July 2019
_____________________________________________________
The appeal is to continue despite the death of the appellant.
1 September 2020
_____________________________________________________
A The applications to adduce further evidence are granted.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The convictions of the appellant are quashed.
7 October 2022
Date of hearing
04 October 2021
- 15 October 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Williams and Arnold JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 14 November 2019 (PDF, 246 KB)
- Hearing date 25 June 2020 Tikanga hearing (PDF, 308 KB)
- Hearing date 11 November 2020 (PDF, 146 KB)
- Hearing date 25 March 2021 (PDF, 151 KB)
- Hearing date 12 - 14 October 2021 (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 14 November 2019 (PDF, 338 KB)
- Hearing date 25 June 2020 Tikanga hearing (PDF, 156 KB)
- Hearing date 25 March 2021 (PDF, 431 KB)
- Hearing date 4 October 2021 (onwards) (PDF, 235 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 83 (PDF, 61 KB)
- MR [2020] NZSC 89 (PDF, 66 KB)
- MR [2021] NZSC 63 (PDF, 279 KB)
- MR [2021] NZSC 77 (PDF, 279 KB)
- MR [2022] NZSC 114 (PDF, 293 KB)
- MR [2022] NZSC 115 (PDF, 339 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Substantive judgment
Videos
- Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis v R SC 49/2019 - 7 October 2022 (Recorded, 7 October 2022)
Case name
Synlait Milk Limited v New Zealand Industrial Park Limited and Ye Qing
Case number
SC 50/2019
Summary
Civil – Property Law Act 2007, s 317 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the appeal and declining to modify covenants burdening land owned by the appellant.
Result
A By consent, an order is made substituting Synlait Milk Ltd for Stonehill Trustee Ltd as applicant subject to the conditions set out in the joint memorandum of counsel dated 6 September 2019.
B Leave to appeal is granted to Synlait Milk Ltd as applicant (New Zealand Industrial Park Ltd v Stonehill Trustee Ltd [2019] NZCA 147).
C The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to reverse the decision of the High Court (Stonehill Trustee Ltd v New Zealand Industrial Park Ltd [2018] NZHC 2938).
D The application by Synlait Milk Ltd to adduce further evidence will be determined at or after the hearing of the appeal.
E Leave is granted for the respondents to file an affidavit or affidavits responding to the evidence that Synlait Milk Ltd seeks to adduce. Such affidavit or affidavits must be filed on or before 15 November 2019.
29 October 2019
______________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B There is no order as to costs.
22 December 2020
B Leave to appeal is granted to Synlait Milk Ltd as applicant (New Zealand Industrial Park Ltd v Stonehill Trustee Ltd [2019] NZCA 147).
C The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to reverse the decision of the High Court (Stonehill Trustee Ltd v New Zealand Industrial Park Ltd [2018] NZHC 2938).
D The application by Synlait Milk Ltd to adduce further evidence will be determined at or after the hearing of the appeal.
E Leave is granted for the respondents to file an affidavit or affidavits responding to the evidence that Synlait Milk Ltd seeks to adduce. Such affidavit or affidavits must be filed on or before 15 November 2019.
29 October 2019
______________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B There is no order as to costs.
22 December 2020
Transcripts
- Hearing date 3 - 4 June 2020 (PDF, 621 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 157 (PDF, 535 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook and O'Regan JJ
Case name
ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited v Bushline Trustees Limited, Stephen Daniel Coomey as trustee of Bushline Trust One, and Sharon Louise Coomey as trustee of Bushline Trust Two
Case number
SC 64/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contract law – Interest rate swaps – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the bank made a particular representation despite a factual finding in the High Court to the contrary – Whether the Court erred in holding that various representations made by the bank were undertakings forming part of the contract between the parties – Whether the Court erred in holding that the bank breached its undertaking to monitor and advise Bushline – Whether the Court erred in holding that it was not fair and reasonable, per s 4 of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979, for various disclaimer clauses to preclude liability in relation to various representations and undertakings – Whether the Court erred in holding that various exclusion clauses do not preclude liability in relation to various representations and undertakings – Whether the Court erred in holding that two of Bushline’ s misrepresentation and breach of contract claims were not time barred under the Limitations Act 1950.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Bushline Trustees Ltd v ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd [2019] NZCA 245).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal from the judgment of the High Court (Bushline Trustees Ltd v ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd [2017] NZHC 2520, [2018] NZCCLR 19). 15 October 2019
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B We make no award of costs in this Court.
C We reserve leave for any party to apply for an order dealing with costs in the Courts below. Any such application should be made within 20 working days of the date of this judgment.
24 July 2020
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal from the judgment of the High Court (Bushline Trustees Ltd v ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd [2017] NZHC 2520, [2018] NZCCLR 19). 15 October 2019
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B We make no award of costs in this Court.
C We reserve leave for any party to apply for an order dealing with costs in the Courts below. Any such application should be made within 20 working days of the date of this judgment.
24 July 2020
Transcripts
- Hearing transcript 12 March 2020 SC 64 2019 (PDF, 373 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 71 (PDF, 135 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
[2020] NZSC 71 (PDF, 221 KB)
Date of Hearing
12 March 2020
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Williams JJ
Case name
Timothy John Jackson v The Queen
Case number
SC 66/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the applicant can bring a second appeal against conviction – Whether the absence of a trial transcript deprives the applicant of his right to appeal against conviction or made the applicant’ s conviction unsafe or unsatisfactory
District Court decision
Not publicly available
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
FMV v TZB
Case number
SC 72/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Jurisdiction – Employment Relations Act 2000, s 161(1)(r) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Employment Relations Authority had exclusive jurisdiction over the applicant’s claim that her employer breached various duties of care in relation to her employment – Whether the Court erred in upholding the High Court’s order granting permanent name suppression.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (FMV v TZB [2019] NZCA 282).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
8 October 2019
________________________________________________
A The High Court’s suppression order is amended to suppress only the identities of the parties and to remain in force so long as the suppression order made by the Employment Relations Authority remains in force.
B The appeal is otherwise dismissed.
C Costs are reserved.
20 August 2021
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
8 October 2019
________________________________________________
A The High Court’s suppression order is amended to suppress only the identities of the parties and to remain in force so long as the suppression order made by the Employment Relations Authority remains in force.
B The appeal is otherwise dismissed.
C Costs are reserved.
20 August 2021
Transcripts
- Hearing transcript 17 March 2020 SC 72 2019 (PDF, 509 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 102 (PDF, 195 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
FMV v TZB [2019] NZSC 108 [8 October 2019] (PDF, 32 KB)
Substantive judgment
FMV v TZB [2021] NZSC 102 [20 August 2021] (PDF, 392 KB)
Supreme court decision
Hearing date
17 March 2020
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Williams JJ
Case name
Sealegs International Limited v Yun Zhang, Orion Limited and Orion Marine Limited, Smuggler Marine Limited, Darren Leybourne, Vladan Zubcic, David Pringle and Stryda Marine Limited
Case number
SC 96/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to “functional operability” or “functional constraints” in determining whether industrially applied artistic works were protected by copyright law.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $4,500 plus usual disbursements to the respondents collectively.
13 December 2019
B The applicant must pay costs of $4,500 plus usual disbursements to the respondents collectively.
13 December 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Transcript
Page 5 of 33