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.
17 July 2026
Case information summary (as at 17 July 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 17 July 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 128 KB)
All years
Case name
Brett David Grinder v Attorney-General and New Zealand Parole Board
Case number
SC 147/2023
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Attorney-General v Grinder [2023] NZCA 596).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and in particular the proper approach to the imposition, variation or discharge of special conditions when a person subject to preventive detention is granted release on parole.
6 May 2024
________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeal is set aside. The finding of the High Court that the issue for the Board on any reconsideration of the appellant’s conditions is as set out in the decision of Gwyn J at [130(a)–(b)] is reinstated.
B The respondents must pay the appellant one set of costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements, provided that the amount does not exceed the amount paid by the Legal Services Commissioner for the appellant to bring this appeal. We allow for second counsel. If the amount paid by the Legal Services Commissioner is less than $30,000 plus usual disbursements, the respondents must pay the appellant one set of costs equal to that lesser amount.
18 November 2025
Date of hearing
22 October 2024
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Ellen France, Williams, Kós & Miller JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 22 October 2024 Appellant submissions (PDF, 427 KB)
- Hearing date 22 October 2024 First Respondent submissions (PDF, 1 MB)
- Hearing date 22 October 2024 Second Respondent submissions (PDF, 342 KB)
- Hearing date 22 October 2024 Intervener Criminal Bar Association submissions (PDF, 242 KB)
- Hearing date 22 October 2024 Intervener The Law Association submissions (PDF, 580 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing date 22 October 2024 Transcript (PDF, 717 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 22 October 2024 Case Synopsis (PDF, 323 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2025] NZSC 165 (PDF, 296 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Videos
- Brett David Grinder v Attorney-General and New Zealand parole Board (Recorded, 22 October 2024)
Case name
Kaine Van Hemert v The King
Case number
SC 38/2022
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
A The applications for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal (R v Van Hemert [2021] NZCA 261) [the Court of Appeal judgment] and the decision of the High Court (R v Van Hemert [2021] NZHC 2877) resentencing Mr Van Hemert [the resentencing judgment] are granted.
B Leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment and the resentencing judgment is granted.
C The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the presumption in favour of life imprisonment in s 102 of the Sentencing Act 2002 was not displaced given the circumstances of the offence and of the applicant.
3 August 2022
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal against sentence is allowed.
B The minimum period of imprisonment of 11 years and six months is quashed and a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years is substituted.
31 August 2023
B Leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment and the resentencing judgment is granted.
C The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the presumption in favour of life imprisonment in s 102 of the Sentencing Act 2002 was not displaced given the circumstances of the offence and of the applicant.
3 August 2022
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal against sentence is allowed.
B The minimum period of imprisonment of 11 years and six months is quashed and a minimum period of imprisonment of 10 years is substituted.
31 August 2023
Date of hearing
18 November 2022
Judges
Glazebrook, O’Regan, Ellen France, Williams and Kós JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 18 November 2022 Appellants submissions (PDF, 478 KB)
- Hearing date 18 November 2022 Respondents submissions (PDF, 501 KB)
- Hearing date 18 November 2022 Intervener Criminal Bar Association submissions (PDF, 445 KB)
- Hearing date 18 November 2022 Intervener Defence Lawyers Association submissions (PDF, 208 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing date 18 November 2022 Transcript (PDF, 586 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 18 November Van Hemert v The King (PDF, 472 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2023] NZSC 116 (PDF, 307 KB)
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
KAINE VAN HEMERT v R [2022] NZSC 94 [3 August 2022] (PDF, 191 KB)
Substantive judgment
KAINE VAN HEMERT v R [2023] NZSC 116 [31 August 2023] (PDF, 471 KB)
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
Case name
Eight Mile Style, LLC & Martin Affiliated, LLC v New Zealand National Party and Greg Hamilton
Case number
SC 15/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Copyright Act 1994, s 121– User principle – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of damages principles.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay costs of $4,500 plus usual disbursements to the respondents collectively.
14 May 2019
B The applicants must pay costs of $4,500 plus usual disbursements to the respondents collectively.
14 May 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Transcript
Case name
Brooke Christie Rolleston v The Queen
Case number
SC 17/2019
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
Additional document
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Additional document
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
The Queen v Maurice William Reti and Logan Aaron Wood
Case number
SC 23/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Reti v R [2019] NZCA 17).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the evidence obtained pursuant to the production order of 4 August 2016 and pursuant to the execution of the search warrant on 1 November 2016 was inadmissible at the trial.
C 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 permitted.
4 April 2019
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A The 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 permitted.
5 March 2020
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the evidence obtained pursuant to the production order of 4 August 2016 and pursuant to the execution of the search warrant on 1 November 2016 was inadmissible at the trial.
C 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 permitted.
4 April 2019
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A The 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 permitted.
5 March 2020
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave granted
R v MAURICE WILLIAM RETI [2019] NZSC 36 [4 April 2019] (PDF, 182 KB)
Substantive judgment
Date of hearing
23 July 2019
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
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
Page 4 of 32