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.
31 July 2026
Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 131 KB)
All years
Case name
Minister of Justice of New Zealand and Attorney General of New Zealand v Kyung Yup Kim
Case number
SC 57/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in quashing and remitting the Minister of Justice’s decision to surrender the respondent for extradition to the People’s Republic of China – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding there is a preliminary question of whether diplomatic assurances as to criminal justice rights should be accepted given the general human rights situation in a receiving state – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting the legal test to determine whether the respondent’ s fair trial rights would be upheld.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision is granted (Kim v Minister of Justice of New Zealand [2019] NZCA 209). The respondent’s application for leave to cross-appeal is also granted.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to quash and remit the Minister of Justice’ s decision to surrender the respondent under s 30 of the Extradition Act 1999.
20 September 2019
_______________________
A The appeal is adjourned until 30 July 2021.
B A report is to be filed by the parties on or before 30 July 2021 outlining the matters set out at [443], [455]–[457] and [463].
C The cross-appeal is dismissed.
4 June 2021
____________________________________
A The application for leave to adduce the expert reports annexed to the parties’ joint report dated 3 December 2021 is granted.
B The appeal is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeal is set aside.
C The Minister of Justice’s decision of 19 September 2016 to surrender the respondent under s 30 of the Extradition Act 1999 is reinstated.
D Costs are reserved.
13 April 2022
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to quash and remit the Minister of Justice’ s decision to surrender the respondent under s 30 of the Extradition Act 1999.
20 September 2019
_______________________
A The appeal is adjourned until 30 July 2021.
B A report is to be filed by the parties on or before 30 July 2021 outlining the matters set out at [443], [455]–[457] and [463].
C The cross-appeal is dismissed.
4 June 2021
____________________________________
A The application for leave to adduce the expert reports annexed to the parties’ joint report dated 3 December 2021 is granted.
B The appeal is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeal is set aside.
C The Minister of Justice’s decision of 19 September 2016 to surrender the respondent under s 30 of the Extradition Act 1999 is reinstated.
D Costs are reserved.
13 April 2022
Date of hearing
04 February 2022
Judges
Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France, Arnold and French JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 4 December 2019 (PDF, 230 KB)
- Hearing date 25 February 2020 SC 57_2019 (PDF, 720 KB)
- Hearing date 4 February 2022 (PDF, 440 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing on 4 December 2019 (PDF, 160 KB)
- Hearing on 25 February 2020 (PDF, 158 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 57 (PDF, 312 KB)
- MR [2022] NZSC 44 (PDF, 294 KB)
High Court decision
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme Court - order made
Supreme Court - order made
Additional document
Substantive judgment
Case name
Frederick Hill v Maori Trustee
Case number
SC 63/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 37(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in striking out the applicant’s appeal for non-payment of costs.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
19 August 2019
19 August 2019
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
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
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
GP96 Limited v PVG Securites Trustee Limited and F M Custodians Limited
Case number
SC 78/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the appellant’s lease had been terminated – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining priority between provisions of the mortgage and the lease
Result
A An extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted in respect of both applications.
B The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
C GP96 Ltd must pay costs of $2,500 to each of the respondents.
7 November 2019
B The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
C GP96 Ltd must pay costs of $2,500 to each of the respondents.
7 November 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
GP96 Limited v F M Custodians Limited
Case number
SC 79/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the appellant’s lease had been terminated – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining priority between provisions of the mortgage and the lease, on standard form documents
Result
A An extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted in respect of both applications.
B The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
C GP96 Ltd must pay costs of $2,500 to each of the respondents.
7 November 2019
B The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
C GP96 Ltd must pay costs of $2,500 to each of the respondents.
7 November 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Robert Lee as Trustee of the Estate of JG Lee v Gergory Lee, Gregory Lee and Jane Lois Lee as trustees of The Leeroy Family Trust
Case number
SC 81/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in requiring the appellant to pay security for costs under rule 5.45 of the High Court Rules 2016.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
8 November 2019
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
8 November 2019
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Farisha Farina Dean v Associate Minister of Immigration
Case number
SC 82/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Immigration Act 2009, ss 61 and 172 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the decision of the respondent not to cancel the applicant’s liability for deportation and grant her a visa was not unreasonable.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
4 November 2019
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
4 November 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Harry Memelink and Lynx Trustees Limited as Trustees of Link Trust (No 1) and Harry Memelink v Collins and May Law
Case number
SC 87/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overturning a High Court judgment that the respondent law firm was negligent in a conveying transaction.
Result
A The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The first applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500. Given the position at [2], we make no costs award against the second applicant.
11 October 2019
B The first applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500. Given the position at [2], we make no costs award against the second applicant.
11 October 2019
Court of Appeal decision
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Riki Scott Steen Walls v Ulsterman Holdings Limited (in liquidation) and Vivien Madsen-Ries and Henry David Levin as liquidators of Ulsterman Holdings Limited (in liquidation)
Case number
SC 88/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – High Court Rules 2016 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that neither the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 nor the principles of natural justice were engaged in interpreting r 15.9(2) of the High Court Rules 2016 in the applicant’s circumstances.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondents.
15 November 2019
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the second respondents.
15 November 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 45 of 110