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
Port Otago Limited v Environmental Defence Society Incorporated, Otago Regional Council, Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated and Marlborough District Council
Case number
SC 6/2022
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Port Otago Ltd v Environmental Defence Society Inc [2021] NZCA 638).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
17 March 2022
______________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The order remitting the matter to the Environment Court is set aside.
C The Otago Regional Council is directed to consult the parties and any other persons it considers appropriate on a redrafted policy 4.3.7(d)–(e) in the proposed Otago Regional Policy Statement either:
(a) along the lines in paragraph [87] of this judgment or to similar effect; or
(b) otherwise to give appropriate effect to the policies of the NZCPS and their inter-relationships.
D Costs are reserved.
24 August 2023
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
17 March 2022
______________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The order remitting the matter to the Environment Court is set aside.
C The Otago Regional Council is directed to consult the parties and any other persons it considers appropriate on a redrafted policy 4.3.7(d)–(e) in the proposed Otago Regional Policy Statement either:
(a) along the lines in paragraph [87] of this judgment or to similar effect; or
(b) otherwise to give appropriate effect to the policies of the NZCPS and their inter-relationships.
D Costs are reserved.
24 August 2023
Date of hearing
11 May 2022
- 12 May 2022
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 Appellant Port Otago submissions (PDF, 7.5 MB)
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 Appellant Port Otago oral outline (PDF, 747 KB)
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 First Respondent EDS submissions (PDF, 861 KB)
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 Second Respondent ORC submissions (PDF, 335 KB)
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 Second Respondent ORC oral outline (PDF, 693 KB)
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 Third Respondent FB submissions (PDF, 855 KB)
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 Fourth Respondent MDC submissions (PDF, 998 KB)
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 Interested Party FB submissions (PDF, 671 KB)
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 Interested Party NZTA submissions (PDF, 997 KB)
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 Interested Party NZTA oral outline (PDF, 1 MB)
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 Interested Party Auckland Council submissions (PDF, 9.2 MB)
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 Interested Party Mana Whenua Parties submissions (PDF, 815 KB)
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 Interested Party Mana Whenua Parties oral outline (PDF, 650 KB)
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 Interested Party Ngati Whatua Orakei submissions (PDF, 695 KB)
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 Interested Party Ngati Whatua Orakei oral outline (PDF, 705 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing 11 and 12 May 2022 (PDF, 867 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 11 and 12 May 2022 (PDF, 198 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2023] NZSC 112 (PDF, 326 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Robert Roper v Mariya Ann Taylor and Attorney-General
Case number
SC 16/2022
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Taylor v Roper [2020] NZCA 268 reissued 16 December 2021 and Taylor v Roper [2021] NZCA 691).
B Leave to the First Respondent to cross appeal is granted.
17 May 2022
______________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed. We uphold the conclusion of the High Court Judge dismissing the claim by Ms Taylor for compensatory damages in relation to false imprisonment.
B The cross appeal is dismissed.
C Costs are reserved.
12 May 2023
______________________________________________
A There are no costs orders in this Court.
B Costs in the Courts below are to be dealt with by those Courts.
4 July 2023
B Leave to the First Respondent to cross appeal is granted.
17 May 2022
______________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed. We uphold the conclusion of the High Court Judge dismissing the claim by Ms Taylor for compensatory damages in relation to false imprisonment.
B The cross appeal is dismissed.
C Costs are reserved.
12 May 2023
______________________________________________
A There are no costs orders in this Court.
B Costs in the Courts below are to be dealt with by those Courts.
4 July 2023
Date of hearing
05 October 2022
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Williams and William Young JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 5 October 2022 Appellant submissions A G (PDF, 538 KB)
- Hearing date 5 October 2022 Attorney General submissions on cross appeal (PDF, 293 KB)
- Hearing date 5 October 2022 Appellants Submissions Roper (PDF, 280 KB)
- Hearing date 5 October 2022 Cross Appellants Submissions in opposition to the Submissions of the Attorney General (PDF, 121 KB)
- Hearing date 5 October 2022 Cross Appellants Submissions Opposing Submissions of Roper (PDF, 111 KB)
- Hearing date 5 October 2022 First Respondent Cross Appellant Outline of Oral Argument (PDF, 679 KB)
- Hearing date 5 October 2022 Attorney General Outline of Oral Argument (PDF, 804 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 October 2022 (PDF, 405 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 5 October - 6 October 2022 (PDF, 688 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2023] NZSC 49 (PDF, 250 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Attorney-General v Mariya Ann Taylor and Robert Roper
Case number
SC 23/2022
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Taylor v Roper [2020] NZCA 268 reissued 16 December 2021 and Taylor v Roper [2021] NZCA 691).
B Leave to the First Respondent to cross appeal is granted.
17 May 2022
________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed. We uphold the conclusion of the High Court Judge dismissing the claim by Ms Taylor for compensatory damages in relation to false imprisonment.
B The cross appeal is dismissed.
C Costs are reserved.
12 May 2023
________________________________________________________
A There are no costs orders in this Court.
B Costs in the Courts below are to be dealt with by those Courts.
4 July 2023
B Leave to the First Respondent to cross appeal is granted.
17 May 2022
________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed. We uphold the conclusion of the High Court Judge dismissing the claim by Ms Taylor for compensatory damages in relation to false imprisonment.
B The cross appeal is dismissed.
C Costs are reserved.
12 May 2023
________________________________________________________
A There are no costs orders in this Court.
B Costs in the Courts below are to be dealt with by those Courts.
4 July 2023
Date of hearing
05 October 2022
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Williams and William Young JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 5 October 2022 Appellant submissions A G (PDF, 538 KB)
- Hearing date 5 October 2022 Attorney General submissions on cross appeal (PDF, 293 KB)
- Hearing date 5 October 2022 Appellants Submissions Roper (PDF, 280 KB)
- Hearing date 5 October 2022 Cross Appellants Submissions in opposition to the Submissions of the Attorney General (PDF, 121 KB)
- Hearing date 5 October 2022 Cross Appellants Submissions Opposing Submissions of Roper (PDF, 111 KB)
- Hearing date 5 October 2022 First Respondent Cross Appellant Outline of Oral Argument (PDF, 679 KB)
- Hearing date 5 October 2022 Attorney General Outline of Oral Argument (PDF, 804 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 October 2022 (PDF, 405 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 5 October - 6 October 2022 (PDF, 688 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2023] NZSC 49 (PDF, 250 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Steven Richard Young v Attorney-General
Case number
SC 98/2022
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Young v Attorney-General [2022] NZCA 391).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
14 December 2022
__________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
30 October 2023
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
14 December 2022
__________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
30 October 2023
Date of hearing
14 March 2023
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing 14 March 2023 Appellant submissions (PDF, 1.5 MB)
- Hearing 14 March 2023 Appellant oral outline (PDF, 711 KB)
- Hearing 14 March 2023 Respondent submissions (PDF, 3.7 MB)
Transcripts
Media Releases
- MR [2023] NZSC 142 (PDF, 288 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Jinyue Young And Anor v Zie Zhang
Case number
SC 134/2022
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 28 March 2018 (Ying v Zhang [2018] NZSC 27) is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.
2 May 2023
B The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 28 March 2018 (Ying v Zhang [2018] NZSC 27) is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.
2 May 2023
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JINYUE YOUNG v ZIE ZHANG [2023] NZSC 44 [2 May 2023] (PDF, 202 KB)
Case name
Donglin Deng v Lu Zheng
Case number
SC 5/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Zheng v Deng [2020] NZCA 614).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to make a declaration that there was a partnership between Mr Zheng and Mr Deng in which they were equal partners and to make orders that were consequential on that finding.
14 May 2021
_________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Mr Deng must pay Mr Zheng costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (including travelling expenses for two counsel), to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
20 June 2022
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to make a declaration that there was a partnership between Mr Zheng and Mr Deng in which they were equal partners and to make orders that were consequential on that finding.
14 May 2021
_________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Mr Deng must pay Mr Zheng costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements (including travelling expenses for two counsel), to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
20 June 2022
Date of hearing
17 August 2021
Judges
William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 17 August 2021 (PDF, 553 KB)
Media Releases
- MR 2022 NZSC 76 (PDF, 334 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
DONGLIN DENG v LU ZHENG [2021] NZSC 43 [14 May 2021] (PDF, 200 KB)
Substantive judgment
DONGLIN DENG v LU ZHENG [2022] NZSC 76 [20 June 2022] (PDF, 503 KB)
Case name
Tourism Holdings Limited v A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Case number
SC 15/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Tourism Holdings Ltd [2021] NZCA 1).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal correctly answered the questions of law submitted for determination by it.
6 May 2021
___________________________________________________________
A We amend the answer given by the Court of Appeal to the first of the questions submitted for determination by that Court so that it reads:
Payments are “a regular part of the employee’s pay” if they are of a kind made regularly when assessed against the standard of a four-week period.
That apart, the appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $15,000 plus usual disbursements.
15 November 2021
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal correctly answered the questions of law submitted for determination by it.
6 May 2021
___________________________________________________________
A We amend the answer given by the Court of Appeal to the first of the questions submitted for determination by that Court so that it reads:
Payments are “a regular part of the employee’s pay” if they are of a kind made regularly when assessed against the standard of a four-week period.
That apart, the appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $15,000 plus usual disbursements.
15 November 2021
Date of hearing
01 July 2021
Judges
William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 1 July 2021 (PDF, 391 KB)
Media Releases
- MR 2021 NZSC 157 (PDF, 250 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated v New Zealand Transport Agency
Case number
SC 25/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal to this Court is granted (Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc v New Zealand Transport Agency [2021] NZHC 390).
B The approved question is whether the High Court was correct to dismiss the appeal against the decision of the Board of Inquiry.
28 May 2021
__________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The matter is remitted to the Board of Inquiry for reconsideration in line with the terms of this judgment.
C Costs are reserved.
11 April 2024
__________________________________________________________
A The respondent must pay the appellant costs of $35,000 plus disbursements, to be fixed by the Registrar. We allow for second counsel.
B The High Court should now determine costs in that Court in light of this Court’s judgment allowing the appeal.
7 November 2024
B The approved question is whether the High Court was correct to dismiss the appeal against the decision of the Board of Inquiry.
28 May 2021
__________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The matter is remitted to the Board of Inquiry for reconsideration in line with the terms of this judgment.
C Costs are reserved.
11 April 2024
__________________________________________________________
A The respondent must pay the appellant costs of $35,000 plus disbursements, to be fixed by the Registrar. We allow for second counsel.
B The High Court should now determine costs in that Court in light of this Court’s judgment allowing the appeal.
7 November 2024
Date of hearing
16 November 2021
- 18 November 2021
Judges
CJ Winkelmann, Young, Glazebrook, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 16 - 18 November 2021 (PDF, 1.5 MB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 16 - 18 November (PDF, 425 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2024] NZSC 26 (PDF, 288 KB)
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme Court - order made
Case name
C v The Queen
Case number
SC 29/2021
Summary
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.
Result
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. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.
Date of hearing
05 November 2021
Judges
William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Case name
Shane Dromgool, Dorothy Dromgool, Alan Darvall Poulton, Jennifer Poulton and Newman Farms Limited v Minister for Land Information
Case number
SC 32/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Minister for Land Information v Dromgool [2021] NZCA 44). The approved question is:
Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its interpretation of the role and obligations of the Minister for Land Information in deciding an application under s 186(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 and, in particular, whether the Minister must be satisfied that the proposed taking is fair, sound and reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the network utility operator or whether it is sufficient that the Minister is satisfied the proposed taking is capable of meeting that test.
B The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
24 June 2021
__________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
22 December 2022
Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its interpretation of the role and obligations of the Minister for Land Information in deciding an application under s 186(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 and, in particular, whether the Minister must be satisfied that the proposed taking is fair, sound and reasonably necessary for achieving the objectives of the network utility operator or whether it is sufficient that the Minister is satisfied the proposed taking is capable of meeting that test.
B The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
24 June 2021
__________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
22 December 2022
Date of hearing
22 March 2022
Judges
Winkelman CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 22 March 2022 (PDF, 588 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 157 (PDF, 202 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 1 of 7