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
Paul Andrew Snowden v The Commissioner of Police
Case number
SC 153/2021
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 dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
8 March 2022
B There is no order as to costs.
8 March 2022
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Auckland Council v C P Group Limited, Millennium & Copthorne Hotels New Zealand Limited, MLC Scenic Limited and T & T Clarry's Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 158/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (C P Group Ltd v Auckland Council [2021] NZCA 587).
B The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
30 March 2022
_________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeal is set aside. The decision of the High Court dismissing the respondents’ application for judicial review is reinstated.
B The respondents must pay the appellant one set of costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
C The award of costs and disbursements made in favour of the respondents in the Court of Appeal is quashed. That Court should redetermine costs in light of this Court’s judgment allowing the appeal.
D Costs in the High Court are to be determined by that Court in the light of this Court’s judgment allowing the appeal.
E Leave is reserved to the parties to apply for consequential orders if required.
12 May 2023
B The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
30 March 2022
_________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeal is set aside. The decision of the High Court dismissing the respondents’ application for judicial review is reinstated.
B The respondents must pay the appellant one set of costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
C The award of costs and disbursements made in favour of the respondents in the Court of Appeal is quashed. That Court should redetermine costs in light of this Court’s judgment allowing the appeal.
D Costs in the High Court are to be determined by that Court in the light of this Court’s judgment allowing the appeal.
E Leave is reserved to the parties to apply for consequential orders if required.
12 May 2023
Date of hearing
20 July 2022
- 21 July 2022
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O’Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 20 July 2022 and 21 July 2022 Appellant Submissions (PDF, 851 KB)
- Hearing date 20 July and 21 July 2022 Appellants Outline of Oral Argument (PDF, 85 KB)
- Hearing date 20 July 2022 and 21 July 2022 Appellant Chronology (PDF, 228 KB)
- Hearing date 20 July 2022 21 July 2022 1st 3rd Respondent Submissions (PDF, 744 KB)
- Hearing date 20 July 2022 and 21 July 222 2nd 4th Respondent Submissions (PDF, 433 KB)
- Hearing date 20 July 2022 21 July 2022 Intervener submissions (PDF, 173 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing 20 July 2022 (PDF, 927 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 20 and 21 July 2022 (PDF, 495 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2023] NZSC 53 (PDF, 251 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Videos
- Auckland City Council v C P Group Limited SC 158/2021 - 21 July 2022 (Recorded, 21 July 2022)
- Auckland City Council v C P Group Limited SC 158/2021 - 20 July 2022 (Recorded, 20 July 2022)
Case name
Leslie Norman Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Limited
Case number
SC 5/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Roche Products (New Zealand) Ltd v Austin [2019] NZCA 660).
B The approved question is whether the applicant’s claim for compensatory damages should have been struck out on the basis that his injuries were not an ordinary consequence of the consumption of Roaccutane.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
19 May 2020
___________________________________________________
A The appeal will be dismissed one month from the date of this judgment unless the appellant makes an application under s 135 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 together with an application to this Court for a stay of this proceeding pending completion of that process.
B There is no order as to costs.
31 March 2021
___________________________________________________
A This Court’s decision in Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Ltd [2021] NZSC 30 is stayed until midday on 6 December 2021, unless the stay is extended in this Court on the application of Mr Austin.
B Any party may seek an order lapsing the stay at any stage.
C Costs are reserved.
16 June 2021
___________________________________________________
A The stay ordered in Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Ltd [2021] NZSC 62 is lifted.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.
25 September 2024
B The approved question is whether the applicant’s claim for compensatory damages should have been struck out on the basis that his injuries were not an ordinary consequence of the consumption of Roaccutane.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
19 May 2020
___________________________________________________
A The appeal will be dismissed one month from the date of this judgment unless the appellant makes an application under s 135 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 together with an application to this Court for a stay of this proceeding pending completion of that process.
B There is no order as to costs.
31 March 2021
___________________________________________________
A This Court’s decision in Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Ltd [2021] NZSC 30 is stayed until midday on 6 December 2021, unless the stay is extended in this Court on the application of Mr Austin.
B Any party may seek an order lapsing the stay at any stage.
C Costs are reserved.
16 June 2021
___________________________________________________
A The stay ordered in Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Ltd [2021] NZSC 62 is lifted.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.
25 September 2024
Date of hearing
10 September 2020
Judges
William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan, Ellen France, Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 September 2020 (PDF, 225 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 30 (PDF, 281 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Recall judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Rosalie May Yozin v New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Limited, M B Yozin and N H Yozin-Smith
Case number
SC 12/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for an extension of time is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $1,500 to each of the second and third respondents.
8 July 2020
B The applicant must pay costs of $1,500 to each of the second and third respondents.
8 July 2020
High Court decision
Court of Appeal 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
Kiwi Party of New Zealand v The Attorney General
Case number
SC 27/2020
Summary
Civil appeal - application for leave to bring appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
6 July 2020
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
6 July 2020
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Trans-Tasman Resources Limited v The Taranaki-Whanganui Conservation Board and Ors
Case number
SC 28/2020
Summary
Civil appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Trans-Tasman Resources Ltd v Taranaki Whanganui Conservation Board [2020] NZCA 86).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
17 July 2020
____________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Leave is reserved to a party to apply to the High Court for directions if necessary.
C Costs are reserved.
30 September 2021
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
17 July 2020
____________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Leave is reserved to a party to apply to the High Court for directions if necessary.
C Costs are reserved.
30 September 2021
Date of hearing
17 November 2020
- 19 November 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 17-19 November 2020 (PDF, 1.3 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 127 (PDF, 193 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Bathurst Resources Limited & Buller Coal Limited v L&M Coal Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 29/2020
Summary
Civil appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Bathurst Resources Ltd v L&M Coal Holdings Ltd [2020] NZCA 113).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
27 July 2020
________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed. The judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside and judgment is entered for the appellants.
B The application to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
C The respondent must pay the appellants costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for second counsel.
D Costs should be re-determined in the Courts below in light of this judgment.
14 July 2021
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
27 July 2020
________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed. The judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal are set aside and judgment is entered for the appellants.
B The application to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
C The respondent must pay the appellants costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for second counsel.
D Costs should be re-determined in the Courts below in light of this judgment.
14 July 2021
Date of hearing
08 October 2020
- 09 October 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O’Regan, Ellen France, Williams JJ
Transcripts
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 85 (PDF, 289 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Peter William Mawhinney v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 32/2020
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 respondent costs of $2,500.
11 August 2020
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
11 August 2020
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Commissioner of Inland Revenue v The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints Trust Board and Paul Ross Coward
Case number
SC 38/2020
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 costs of $4,500 plus usual disbursements.
30 September 2020
B The applicant must pay costs of $4,500 plus usual disbursements.
30 September 2020
Date of hearing
15 September 2020
Judges
O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 15 September 2020 (PDF, 255 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 38 of 110