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.

3 July 2026

Case information summary (as at 3 July 2026) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 88 KB)
Case information summary (as at 3 July 2026)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 127 KB) 

All years

Case name
Owen Williams v The Queen
Case number
SC 122/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B 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 retrial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
14 February 2020
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
OWEN WILLIAMS v R [2020] NZSC 5 [14 February 2020] (PDF, 40 KB)
Summary
Case name
SHAY O’ CARROLL v the Queen
Case number
SC 129/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against a decision of the High Court – Whether s 155 of the Cook Islands Act 1915 (NZ) provides a jurisdictional bar to the imposition of a sentence of home detention
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Carroll v R [2019] NZCA 657).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
C Bail is extended on the same conditions until the determination of the appeal.
5 March 2020
________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment is quashed and a sentence of 10 months’ home detention is substituted. The sentence is subject to the conditions listed at [55] of the judgment.
14 September 2020
Date of hearing
11 June 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
Media Releases
High Court decision
R v O’CARROLL [2019] NZHC 2035 [19 August 2019]
Court of Appeal decision
SHAY O’CARROLL v R [2019] NZCA 657 [17 December 2019
Leave judgment - leave granted
SHAY O’ CARROLL v R [2020] NZSC 15 [5 March 2020] (PDF, 31 KB)
Substantive judgment
SHAY O’CARROLL v R [2020] NZSC 92 (PDF, 104 KB)
Case name
William George Graham Cameron Cleary v Ewart & Ewart
Case number
SC 9/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s dismissal of the applicant’s claim against his lawyer for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.                           
12 April 2018
High Court decision
CLEARY v EWART & EWART [2017] NZHC 39 [27 January 2017]
Court of Appeal decision
CLEARY v EWART & EWART [2017] NZCA 620 [20 December 2017]
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CLEARY v EWART & EWART [2018] NZSC 28 [12 April 2018] (PDF, 206 KB)
Case name
John William Ross v The Queen
Case number
SC 14/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of s 122 of the Evidence Act 2006.
Result
A The application for an extension of time is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
30 April 2018
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
ROSS v R [2017] NZCA 587 [12 December 2017] 
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JOHN WILLIAM ROSS v R [2018] NZSC 38 [30 April 2018] (PDF, 229 KB)
Case name
Colin Graeme Craig v Jordan Henry Williams
Case number
SC 21/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Defamation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting aside the decision of the High Court to order a full retrial – (cross-appeal) Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’ s order setting aside the jury’s verdict on damages.
Result
A Leave to appeal and leave to cross appeal is granted (Williams v Craig [2018] NZCA 31).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the appeal to that Court in part and dismissing the cross appeal to that Court.                                          
4 July 2018 
_________________
A The appeal is allowed.  The orders of the Court of Appeal entering judgment for the respondent on liability and directing a retrial of the respondent’s claim for damages are set aside.  An order for a general retrial on liability and damages is substituted.
B The cross-appeal is dismissed.
C The respondent must pay the appellant costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements. We allow for second counsel.
D The costs award made in the Court of Appeal is set aside.  If costs in that Court cannot be agreed they should be set by the Court of Appeal in light of this judgment.  Any costs issues arising in the High Court shall be considered by the High Court in light of this judgment.
11 April 2019
Transcripts
Media Releases
High Court decision
WILLIAMS v CRAIG [2017] NZHC 724 [12 April 2017]
Court of Appeal decision
WILLIAMS v CRAIG [2018] NZCA 31 [5 March 2018]
Leave judgment - leave granted
COLIN GRAEME CRAIG v JORDAN HENRY WILLIAMS [2018] NZSC 61 [4 July 2018] (PDF, 179 KB)
Substantive judgment
COLIN GRAEME CRAIG v JORDAN HENRY WILLIAMS [2019] NZSC 38 [11 April 2019] (PDF, 392 KB)
Recall judgment
COLIN GRAEME CRAIG v JORDAN HENRY WILLIAMS [2019] NZSC 60 [25 June 2019] (PDF, 275 KB)
Additional document
Application for a stay of the costs orders dismissed 17 July 2019 (PDF, 35 KB)
Case name
Desmond William Cook v Housing New Zealand Corporation
Case number
SC 27/2018
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no award of costs.    
8 May 2018
High Court decision
COOK v HOUSING NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION [2017] NZHC 2405 [3 October 2017]
Court of Appeal decision
COOK v HOUSING NEW ZEALAND LTD [2018] NZCA 57 [27 March 2018]
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
DESMOND WILLIAM COOK v HOUSING NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION [2018] NZSC 42 [8 May 2018] (PDF, 207 KB)
Case name
Wayne William Smith v The Queen
Case number
SC 48/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 76 – Juror misconduct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’ s application for an order to appoint a special counsel.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
21 August 2018
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Smith v R [2018] NZCA 158 [18 May 2018]
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
WAYNE WILLIAM SMITH v R [2018] NZSC 77 [21 August 2018] (PDF, 41 KB)
Case name
Lemuel Misa v The Queen
Case number
SC 93/2018
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction on the basis that there was no miscarriage of justice – Whether the jury was properly directed at trial.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Misa v R [2018] NZCA 293).
B The approved question is whether there was a miscarriage of justice at the applicant’s trial.
17 April 2019
_______________________
The appeal is dismissed.
2 December 2019
Date of hearing
11 July 2019
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, Ellen France, Williams and Arnold JJ
Media Releases
Court of Appeal decision
MISA v R [2018] NZCA 293 [6 August 2018]
Leave judgment - leave granted
LEMUEL MISA v R [2019] NZSC 42 [17 April 2019] (PDF, 33 KB)
Substantive judgment
LEMUEL MISA v R [2019] NZSC 134 [2 December 2019] (PDF, 162 KB)
Case name
Lodge Real Estate Limited, Monarch Real Estate Limited, Brian King and Jeremy O'Rourke v Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 116/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Commerce Act 1986, s 30 – Whether there must be a moral obligation for the purposes of price fixing – Whether there was an agreement to vendor fund – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the respondent’s appeal against the High Court’s decision.
Result
A An extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal is granted.
B Leave to appeal is granted (Commerce Commission v Lodge Real Estate Ltd [2018] NZCA 523) on the question whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the respondent’s appeal to that Court except as set out at C below.
C To the extent the application for leave seeks to argue that the respondent had not adequately pleaded and to appeal from the dismissal of the applicants’ cross appeal the application is dismissed.
19 March 2019
___________________

A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay costs of $35,000 plus usual disbursements to the respondent.
2 April 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
Media Releases
High Court decision
COMMERCE COMMISSION v LODGE REAL ESTATE LTD & ORS [2017] NZHC 1497 [2 November 2017]
Court of Appeal decision
COMMERCE COMMISSION v LODGE REAL ESTATE LIMITED [2018] NZCA 523 [23 November 2018]
Leave judgment - leave granted
LODGE REAL ESTATE LIMITED v COMMERCE COMMISSION [2019] NZSC 28 [19 March 201 (PDF, 244 KB)
Substantive judgment
LODGE REAL ESTATE LIMITED v COMMERCE COMMISSION [2020] NZSC 25 [2 April 2020] (PDF, 318 KB)
Case name
Anna Elizabeth Osborne and Sonya Lynne Rockhouse v Worksafe New Zealand and District Court at Wellington
Case number
SC 23/2017
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the first respondent had not exercised its prosecutorial discretion unlawfully or unreasonably – Whether the dismissal of charges by the second respondent was ultra vires because the Judge hearing the matter had earlier recused herself from the proceedings.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Osborne v Worksafe New Zealand [2017] NZCA 11).
B Subject to the qualification discussed at [1], the approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal to that Court.
19 June 2017
_______________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B A declaration is made that the decision of WorkSafe New Zealand to offer no evidence in the prosecution of Peter William Whittall was unlawful.
C Costs are reserved.  The parties may file memoranda by 31 January 2018 if an order for costs is sought.    
23 November 2017
Transcripts
Media Releases
High Court decision
OSBORNE & OR v WORKSAFE NZ & OR [2015] NZHC 2991 [27 November 2015]
Court of Appeal decision
OSBORNE & ROCKHOUSE v WORKSAFE NEW ZEALAND [2017] NZCA 11 [16 February 2017]
Leave judgment - leave granted
OSBORNE AND ROCKHOUSE v WORKSAFE NEW ZEALAND [2017] NZSC 90 [19 June 2017] (PDF, 115 KB)
Substantive judgment
ANNA ELIZABETH OSBORNE AND SONYA LYNNE ROCKHOUSE v WORKSAFE NEW ZEALAND [2017] NZSC 175 [23 November 2017] (PDF, 421 KB)
Page 15 of 20