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.
28 November 2025
Case information summary 2025 (as at 28 November 2025) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary 2025 (as at 28 November 2025) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 120 KB)
All years
Case name
Abdullah Robert Boyd v Australian Federal Police, New South Wales Legal Aid, New Zealand Defence Force, New Zealand Police, Attorney-General, Office of the Inspectorate, Canterbury Intelligence Team and Ministry of Health
Case number
SC 40/2024
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 granted.
B The application for leave to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
C The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
D There is no order as to costs.
30 July 2024
B The application for leave to adduce further evidence is dismissed.
C The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
D There is no order as to costs.
30 July 2024
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Francisc Catalin Deliu v Mark Harborow and Nick Flanagan
Case number
SC 41/2024
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 respondents costs of $2,500.
5 August 2024
B The applicant must pay the respondents costs of $2,500.
5 August 2024
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Christine Fleming v Attorney-General and Justin James Coote
Case number
SC 42/2024
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal by Ms Fleming is granted in part to the extent described below (Attorney-General v Fleming [2024] NZCA 92).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct:
(i) to determine that Ms Fleming was not “engaged, employed or contracted” by the Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora as a “homeworker” under s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000; and
(ii) as to the test for “work” when work is conducted by homeworkers who work overnight in their home.
C The application for leave to appeal by Mr Humphreys is granted (Attorney-General v Fleming [2024] NZCA 92).
D The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to determine that Mr Humphreys was not “engaged, employed or contracted” by the Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora as a “homeworker” under s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 for the period from August 2020 onwards when in receipt of funding under the Individualised Funding scheme.
E Counsel in both appeals are asked to address the matters set out at [1]–[2] below.
4 October 2024
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct:
(i) to determine that Ms Fleming was not “engaged, employed or contracted” by the Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora as a “homeworker” under s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000; and
(ii) as to the test for “work” when work is conducted by homeworkers who work overnight in their home.
C The application for leave to appeal by Mr Humphreys is granted (Attorney-General v Fleming [2024] NZCA 92).
D The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to determine that Mr Humphreys was not “engaged, employed or contracted” by the Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora as a “homeworker” under s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 for the period from August 2020 onwards when in receipt of funding under the Individualised Funding scheme.
E Counsel in both appeals are asked to address the matters set out at [1]–[2] below.
4 October 2024
Date of hearing
29 April 2025
- 30 April 2025
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Ellen France, Williams, Kós and Miller JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 29 30 April 2025 Appellant submissions (PDF, 2.6 MB)
- Hearing date 29 30 April 2025 First respondent submissions (PDF, 561 KB)
- Hearing date 29 30 April 2025 Second respondent submissions (PDF, 965 KB)
- Hearing date 29 30 April 2025 Intervener submissions (HRC) (PDF, 301 KB)
- Hearing date 29 30 April 2025 Intervener submissions (ADL) (PDF, 450 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing date 29 30 April 2025 Transcript (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 29 30 April 2025 Case Synopsis (PDF, 487 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Videos
Case name
Cuong Van Do v The King
Case number
SC 43/2024
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B We make an order prohibiting publication of this judgment or any part of the proceedings to date (including the results) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the retrial ordered in [2024] NZCA 97. Publication in a law report or law digest is permitted.
26 July 2024
B We make an order prohibiting publication of this judgment or any part of the proceedings to date (including the results) in news media or on the internet or other publicly available database until final disposition of the retrial ordered in [2024] NZCA 97. Publication in a law report or law digest is permitted.
26 July 2024
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CUONG VAN DO v R [2024] NZSC 80 [26 July 2024] (PDF, 223 KB)
Case name
Peter Humphreys v Attorney-General
Case number
SC 44/2024
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal by Ms Fleming is granted in part to the extent described below (Attorney-General v Fleming [2024] NZCA 92).
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct:
(i) to determine that Ms Fleming was not “engaged, employed or contracted” by the Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora as a “homeworker” under s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000; and
(ii) as to the test for “work” when work is conducted by homeworkers who work overnight in their home.
C The application for leave to appeal by Mr Humphreys is granted (Attorney-General v Fleming [2024] NZCA 92).
D The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to determine that Mr Humphreys was not “engaged, employed or contracted” by the Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora as a “homeworker” under s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 for the period from August 2020 onwards when in receipt of funding under the Individualised Funding scheme.
E Counsel in both appeals are asked to address the matters set out at [1]–[2] below.
4 October 2024
B The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was correct:
(i) to determine that Ms Fleming was not “engaged, employed or contracted” by the Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora as a “homeworker” under s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000; and
(ii) as to the test for “work” when work is conducted by homeworkers who work overnight in their home.
C The application for leave to appeal by Mr Humphreys is granted (Attorney-General v Fleming [2024] NZCA 92).
D The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to determine that Mr Humphreys was not “engaged, employed or contracted” by the Ministry of Health | Manatū Hauora as a “homeworker” under s 5 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 for the period from August 2020 onwards when in receipt of funding under the Individualised Funding scheme.
E Counsel in both appeals are asked to address the matters set out at [1]–[2] below.
4 October 2024
Date of hearing
29 April 2025
- 30 April 2025
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Ellen France, Williams, Kós and Miller JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 29 30 April 2025 Appellant submissions (PDF, 5.7 MB)
- Hearing date 29 30 April 2025 First respondent submissions (PDF, 1010 KB)
- Hearing date 29 30 April 2025 Second respondent submissions (PDF, 965 KB)
- Hearing date 29 30 April 2025 Intervener submissions (HRC) (PDF, 301 KB)
- Hearing date 29 30 April 2025 Intervener submissions (ADL) (PDF, 450 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing date 29 30 April 2025 Transcript (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 29 30 April 2025 Case Synopsis (PDF, 487 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Videos
Case name
John Ross v Patrick Kannemeyer and Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Case number
SC 45/2024
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 $2,500 to each of the first and second respondents.
1 August 2024
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to each of the first and second respondents.
1 August 2024
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Kevin Moore v Māori Land Court and Sheldon Ngatai, Georgina Te Otiana Johansen, Roselle Taylor, Bridget Taylor and Vincent George Brown as trustees of Waitara East Section 81B (Rohutu) Trust
Case number
SC 46/2024
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The application for a stay of enforcement of the injunction pending determination of the appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.
12 September 2024
B The application for a stay of enforcement of the injunction pending determination of the appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.
12 September 2024
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Body Corporate 207624 v Grimshaw & Co
Case number
SC 47/2024
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.
1 August 2024
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
1 August 2024
High Court decision
High Court decision
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Tristan Lee Tamati v The King
Case number
SC 48/2024
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Tamati v R [2024] NZCA 113).
B The approved questions are as follows:
(a) whether errors by trial counsel may have occasioned a miscarriage of justice; and
(b) whether in the circumstances a reliability warning was required.
2 August 2024
________________________________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
03 July 2025
Date of hearing
25 February 2025
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, Williams, Kós and Miller JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 25 February 2025 Appellant submissions (PDF, 2.6 MB)
- Hearing date 25 February 2025 Respondent submissions (PDF, 571 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing date 25 February 2025 Transcript (PDF, 402 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 25 February 2025 Case Synopsis (PDF, 474 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2025] NZSC 70 (PDF, 286 KB)
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
TAMATI v R [2024] NZSC 91 [2 August 2024] (PDF, 135 KB)
Substantive judgment
TAMATI v R [2025] NZSC 70 [3 July 2025] (PDF, 287 KB)
Videos
- SC 48/2024 Tristan Lee Tamati v The King (Recorded, 25 February 2025)
Case name
Louise Buchanan, Keith Marshall and Alistair Donald as trustees of the Buchanan Marshall Family Trust v Tasman District Council
Case number
SC 49/2024
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Tasman District Council v Louise Buchanan, Keith Marshall and Alistair Donald as Trustees of the Buchanan Marshall Family Trust [2024] NZCA 133).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that there was no duty of care owed by the respondent to the appellants while carrying out and making statements in relation to pool inspections under the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.
20 August 2024
____________________________
A notice of abandonment having been filed, the appeal is abandoned.
06 March 2025
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that there was no duty of care owed by the respondent to the appellants while carrying out and making statements in relation to pool inspections under the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act 1987.
20 August 2024
____________________________
A notice of abandonment having been filed, the appeal is abandoned.
06 March 2025
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 11_12 March 2025 (PDF, 369 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Page 22 of 269