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
ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited v Financial Markets Authority
Case number
SC 21/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its redactions of two published judgments pending determination of the Applicant’s substantive appeal to the Supreme Court.
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
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
International Consolidated Business Pty Limited v S C Johnson & Son Inc
Case number
SC 32/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the respondent’s application to trademark of the word ZIPLOC to proceed to registration – Whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted s 68(2) of the Trade Marks Act 2002.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal (International Consolidated Business Pty Ltd v S C Johnson & Son Inc [2019] NZCA 61) is granted to the extent set out in B. It is otherwise dismissed.
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted s 68(2) of the Trade Marks Act 2002.
9 July 2019
__________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $10,000 plus usual disbursements.
15 October 2020
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted s 68(2) of the Trade Marks Act 2002.
9 July 2019
__________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $10,000 plus usual disbursements.
15 October 2020
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 February 2020 (PDF, 362 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 110 (PDF, 261 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Hearing date
20 February 2020
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O’Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Case name
Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chatfield & Co Limited and Chatfield & Co
Case number
SC 34/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Tax Administration Act 1994, s 17 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the decision of the High Court that notices issued by the Commissioner requiring the respondent company to furnish certain information were unlawful.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
7 August 2019
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
7 August 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Michael Edwin Kooiman v F M Custodians Limited
Case number
SC 36/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the managing director of the fund manager had authority to commence proceedings on behalf of the respondent.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
19 July 2019
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
19 July 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Vipassana Foundation Charitable Trust Board v Auckland Council, Raymond Myles O'Brien and Victoria Mei Sien Pichler and Auckland Shooting Club Incorporated
Case number
SC 37/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the respondent Council properly considered the noise effects of the proposed activity when issuing a certificate of compliance under s 139 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (even though the Court of Appeal set aside that certificate).
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
12 July 2019
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
12 July 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
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
New Zealand Law Society v John Llewellyn Stanley
Case number
SC 41/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining whether the Applicant was a fit and proper person to be admitted as a barrister and solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand, particularly in relation to the Applicant’s prior convictions.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Stanley v The New Zealand Law Society [2019] NZCA 119).
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal against the High Court judgment (Stanley v New Zealand Law Society [2018] NZHC 1154) and to make an order for Mr Stanley’s admission.
13 November 2019
___________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
17 August 2020
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal against the High Court judgment (Stanley v New Zealand Law Society [2018] NZHC 1154) and to make an order for Mr Stanley’s admission.
13 November 2019
___________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
17 August 2020
Transcripts
- Hearing date 25 September 2019 (PDF, 172 KB)
- Hearing date 23 April 2020 (PDF, 336 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 83 (PDF, 132 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
[2020] NZSC 83 (PDF, 550 KB)
Page 43 of 110