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
Christine Marama Cowan and Te Rahui John Cowan v John Arthur Cowan, Kurt Thomas Gibbons and 170 Queens Drive Limited.
Case number
SC 130/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Cowan v Cowan [2021] NZCA 463).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal to that Court.
20 December 2021
___________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
12 April 2022
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal to that Court.
20 December 2021
___________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
12 April 2022
Date of hearing
15 February 2022
Judges
Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France, Williams, JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 15 December 2021 (PDF, 214 KB)
- Hearing date 15 February 2022 (PDF, 276 KB)
Media Releases
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Woolworths New Zealand Limited v Auckland Council, Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority, Foodstuffs North Island Limited and Medical Officer of Health
Case number
SC 139/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Auckland Council v Woolworths New Zealand Ltd [2021] NZCA 484).
B Leave is granted to the Medical Officer of Health to appear as an interested party at the substantive hearing.
C The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.
13 April 2022
______________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the Auckland Council costs of $35,000.
5 May 2023
B Leave is granted to the Medical Officer of Health to appear as an interested party at the substantive hearing.
C The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.
13 April 2022
______________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the Auckland Council costs of $35,000.
5 May 2023
Date of hearing
13 September 2022
- 14 September 2022
Judges
O'Regan, Ellen France, Williams and William Young JJ; Cooper P
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing 13 and 14 September 2022 Appellant submissions (PDF, 428 KB)
- Hearing 13 and 14 September 2022 First respondent submissions (PDF, 982 KB)
- Hearing Tuesday 13 September and Wednesday 14 September 2022 Interested party submissions (PDF, 1 MB)
- Hearing 13 and 14 September 2022 Joint Chronology (PDF, 200 KB)
- Hearing date Tue 13 Sept and Wed 14 Sept 2022 Woolworths outline of oral argument (PDF, 144 KB)
- Hearing date Tue 13 Sept and Wed 14 Sept 2022 Auckland Council oral outline (PDF, 1011 KB)
Transcripts
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 13 Sept and 14 Sept 2022 (PDF, 300 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2023] NZSC 45 (PDF, 284 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Videos
- Woolworths New Zealand Ltd v Auckland Council SC 139/2021 & SC 140/2021 - 14 September 2022 (Recorded, 14 September 2022)
- Woolworths New Zealand ltd v Auckland Council SC 139/2021 & SC 140/2021- 13 September 2022 (Recorded, 13 September 2022)
Case name
Foodstuffs North Island Limited v Auckland Council, Woolworths New Zealand Limited and Alcohol Regulatory and Licensing Authority
Case number
SC 140/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Auckland Council v Woolworths New Zealand Ltd [2021] NZCA 484).
B Leave is granted to the Medical Officer of Health to appear as an interested party at the substantive hearing.
C The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.
13 April 2022
_____________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the Auckland Council costs of $35,000.
5 May 2023
B Leave is granted to the Medical Officer of Health to appear as an interested party at the substantive hearing.
C The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal and dismiss the cross-appeal.
13 April 2022
_____________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the Auckland Council costs of $35,000.
5 May 2023
Date of hearing
13 September 2022
- 14 September 2022
Judges
O'Regan, Ellen France, Williams and William Young JJ; Cooper P
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing Tuesday 13 Sept Wed 14 Sept 2022 Appellant submissions (PDF, 390 KB)
- Hearing Tue 13 and Wed 14 Sept 2022 First respondent submissions (PDF, 841 KB)
- Hearing Tuesday 13 September and Wednesday 14 September 2022 Interested party submissions (PDF, 1 MB)
- Hearing 13 and 14 September 2022 Joint Chronology (PDF, 200 KB)
- Hearing date Tue 13 Sept and Wed 14 Sept 2022 Woolworths outline of oral argument (PDF, 144 KB)
- Hearing date Tue 13 Sept and Wed 14 Sept 2022 Auckland Council oral outline (PDF, 1011 KB)
Transcripts
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 13 Sept and 14 Sept 2022 (PDF, 300 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2023] NZSC 45 (PDF, 284 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Videos
- Woolworths New Zealand Ltd v Auckland Council SC 139/2021 & SC 140/2021 - 14 September 2022 (Recorded, 14 September 2022)
- Woolworths New Zealand ltd v Auckland Council SC 139/2021 & SC 140/2021- 13 September 2022 (Recorded, 13 September 2022)
Case name
Leslie Norman Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Limited
Case number
SC 5/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Roche Products (New Zealand) Ltd v Austin [2019] NZCA 660).
B The approved question is whether the applicant’s claim for compensatory damages should have been struck out on the basis that his injuries were not an ordinary consequence of the consumption of Roaccutane.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
19 May 2020
___________________________________________________
A The appeal will be dismissed one month from the date of this judgment unless the appellant makes an application under s 135 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 together with an application to this Court for a stay of this proceeding pending completion of that process.
B There is no order as to costs.
31 March 2021
___________________________________________________
A This Court’s decision in Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Ltd [2021] NZSC 30 is stayed until midday on 6 December 2021, unless the stay is extended in this Court on the application of Mr Austin.
B Any party may seek an order lapsing the stay at any stage.
C Costs are reserved.
16 June 2021
___________________________________________________
A The stay ordered in Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Ltd [2021] NZSC 62 is lifted.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.
25 September 2024
B The approved question is whether the applicant’s claim for compensatory damages should have been struck out on the basis that his injuries were not an ordinary consequence of the consumption of Roaccutane.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
19 May 2020
___________________________________________________
A The appeal will be dismissed one month from the date of this judgment unless the appellant makes an application under s 135 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 together with an application to this Court for a stay of this proceeding pending completion of that process.
B There is no order as to costs.
31 March 2021
___________________________________________________
A This Court’s decision in Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Ltd [2021] NZSC 30 is stayed until midday on 6 December 2021, unless the stay is extended in this Court on the application of Mr Austin.
B Any party may seek an order lapsing the stay at any stage.
C Costs are reserved.
16 June 2021
___________________________________________________
A The stay ordered in Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Ltd [2021] NZSC 62 is lifted.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.
25 September 2024
Date of hearing
10 September 2020
Judges
William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan, Ellen France, Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 September 2020 (PDF, 225 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 30 (PDF, 281 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Recall judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Trans-Tasman Resources Limited v The Taranaki-Whanganui Conservation Board and Ors
Case number
SC 28/2020
Summary
Civil appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Trans-Tasman Resources Ltd v Taranaki Whanganui Conservation Board [2020] NZCA 86).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
17 July 2020
____________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Leave is reserved to a party to apply to the High Court for directions if necessary.
C Costs are reserved.
30 September 2021
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
17 July 2020
____________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Leave is reserved to a party to apply to the High Court for directions if necessary.
C Costs are reserved.
30 September 2021
Date of hearing
17 November 2020
- 19 November 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 17-19 November 2020 (PDF, 1.3 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 127 (PDF, 193 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
William Allan Berkland v The King
Case number
SC 40/2020
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Berkland v R [2020] NZCA 150)
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal's decision was correct.
17 November 2020
___________________________________________________________
A Mr Berkland’s appeal in SC 40/2020 is allowed. His sentence of 12 years and nine months’ imprisonment, together with a 50 per cent MPI, is quashed, and a sentence of eight years and eight months’ imprisonment is substituted.
B Mr Harding’s appeal in SC 64/2020 is allowed. His sentence of 28 and a half years is quashed, and a new sentence of 21 years is substituted. There is no adjustment to the MPI.
7 December 2022
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal's decision was correct.
17 November 2020
___________________________________________________________
A Mr Berkland’s appeal in SC 40/2020 is allowed. His sentence of 12 years and nine months’ imprisonment, together with a 50 per cent MPI, is quashed, and a sentence of eight years and eight months’ imprisonment is substituted.
B Mr Harding’s appeal in SC 64/2020 is allowed. His sentence of 28 and a half years is quashed, and a new sentence of 21 years is substituted. There is no adjustment to the MPI.
7 December 2022
Date of hearing
23 March 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 23 - 24 March 2021 (PDF, 799 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 23 March 2021 (PDF, 288 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 143 (PDF, 261 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Brownie Joseph Harding v The King
Case number
SC 64/2020
Summary
Criminal 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 appeal against conviction is dismissed (Harding v R [2019] NZCA 259).
C The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted (Harding v R [2020] NZCA 217). The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against sentence.
D The Registrar is to set down the appeal against sentence to be heard together with the appeal against sentence in Berkland v R [2020] NZSC 125.
17 November 2020
________________________________________________________________
A Mr Berkland’s appeal in SC 40/2020 is allowed. His sentence of 12 years and nine months’ imprisonment, together with a 50 per cent MPI, is quashed, and a sentence of eight years and eight months’ imprisonment is substituted.
B Mr Harding’s appeal in SC 64/2020 is allowed. His sentence of 28 and a half years is quashed, and a new sentence of 21 years is substituted. There is no adjustment to the MPI.
7 December 2022
B The application for leave to appeal against conviction is dismissed (Harding v R [2019] NZCA 259).
C The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted (Harding v R [2020] NZCA 217). The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against sentence.
D The Registrar is to set down the appeal against sentence to be heard together with the appeal against sentence in Berkland v R [2020] NZSC 125.
17 November 2020
________________________________________________________________
A Mr Berkland’s appeal in SC 40/2020 is allowed. His sentence of 12 years and nine months’ imprisonment, together with a 50 per cent MPI, is quashed, and a sentence of eight years and eight months’ imprisonment is substituted.
B Mr Harding’s appeal in SC 64/2020 is allowed. His sentence of 28 and a half years is quashed, and a new sentence of 21 years is substituted. There is no adjustment to the MPI.
7 December 2022
Date of hearing
23 March 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 23 - 24 March 2021 (PDF, 799 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 23 March 2021 (PDF, 288 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 143 (PDF, 261 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Daniel Clinton Fitzgerald v The Queen
Case number
SC 67/2020
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Fitzgerald v R [2020] NZCA 292).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002 does not apply to Mr Fitzgerald.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
D The application to amend the applicant’s notice of application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
3 November 2020
_______________________________________________________
A The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
B The appeal against sentence is allowed. The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for re-sentencing.
7 October 202
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002 does not apply to Mr Fitzgerald.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
D The application to amend the applicant’s notice of application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
3 November 2020
_______________________________________________________
A The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
B The appeal against sentence is allowed. The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for re-sentencing.
7 October 202
Date of hearing
23 February 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 23 February 2021 (PDF, 536 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 131 (PDF, 197 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Attorney-General v Family First New Zealand
Case number
SC 79/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Family First New Zealand v Attorney General [2020] NZCA 366).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
18 December 2020
_______________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The declaration made by the Court of Appeal that the respondent qualifies for registration under the Charities Act 2005 is set aside.
C There is no order as to costs.
28 June 2022
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
18 December 2020
_______________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The declaration made by the Court of Appeal that the respondent qualifies for registration under the Charities Act 2005 is set aside.
C There is no order as to costs.
28 June 2022
Date of hearing
24 June 2021
- 25 June 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 24 June 2021 (PDF, 819 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 24 June 25 June 2021 (PDF, 428 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 80 (PDF, 320 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Frucor Suntory New Zealand Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 81/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal (SC 81/2020) against the Court of Appeal’s decision is granted (Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Frucor Suntory New Zealand Limited [2020] NZCA 383).
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
C The application for leave to appeal (SC 92/2020) against the Court of Appeal’s decision is granted (Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Frucor Suntory New Zealand Limited [2020] NZCA 383).
D The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that shortfall penalties do not apply.
18 December 2020
________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed with the result that the appellant’s challenge to shortfall penalties is dismissed.
C The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $45,000 plus usual disbursements.
30 September 2022
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
C The application for leave to appeal (SC 92/2020) against the Court of Appeal’s decision is granted (Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Frucor Suntory New Zealand Limited [2020] NZCA 383).
D The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that shortfall penalties do not apply.
18 December 2020
________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed with the result that the appellant’s challenge to shortfall penalties is dismissed.
C The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $45,000 plus usual disbursements.
30 September 2022
Date of hearing
08 June 2021
- 10 June 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 - 10 June 2021 (PDF, 1 MB)
Case Synopses
- Case Synopsis Frucor Suntory (PDF, 410 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 113 (PDF, 195 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 3 of 7