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
M v Attorney General (in respect of the Ministry of Health), Waitemata District Health Board and Capital and Coast District Health Board
Case number
SC 82/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (M (CA677/2017) v Attorney-General [2020] NZCA 311).
B The approved question is:
Was the applicant detained unlawfully after 20 December 2008 because the direction of the Attorney-General under s 31(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 that he be detained as a care recipient under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 was not issued until 14 January 2009, and, if so, for how long?
C In all other respects the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
16 December 2020
The application for reconsideration of the approved question on which leave was given in this Court’s judgment of 16 December 2020 (M (SC 82/2020) v Attorney-General [2020] NZSC 145) is dismissed.
23 March 2021
____________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B A declaration is made that the appellant was detained unlawfully from 21 December 2008 until 14 January 2009.
17 September 2021
B The approved question is:
Was the applicant detained unlawfully after 20 December 2008 because the direction of the Attorney-General under s 31(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 that he be detained as a care recipient under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 was not issued until 14 January 2009, and, if so, for how long?
C In all other respects the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
16 December 2020
The application for reconsideration of the approved question on which leave was given in this Court’s judgment of 16 December 2020 (M (SC 82/2020) v Attorney-General [2020] NZSC 145) is dismissed.
23 March 2021
____________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B A declaration is made that the appellant was detained unlawfully from 21 December 2008 until 14 January 2009.
17 September 2021
Date of hearing
27 April 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 April 2021 (PDF, 372 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 118 (PDF, 195 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Substantive judgment
Case name
Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Frucor Suntory New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 92/2020
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
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
Case name
H v Minister of Immigration
Case number
SC 104/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (H v The Minister of Immigration [2020] NZCA 562).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
19 March 2021
______________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed on the basis set out at [32]–[33].
B Costs are reserved.
23 December 2021
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
19 March 2021
______________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed on the basis set out at [32]–[33].
B Costs are reserved.
23 December 2021
Date of hearing
20 July 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan and Arnold JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 12 March 2021 (PDF, 168 KB)
- Hearing date 20 July 2021 (PDF, 437 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 192 (PDF, 391 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Matthew John Young v The Queen
Case number
SC 16/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
6 December 2019
6 December 2019
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Dermot Gregory Nottingham v The Queen
Case number
SC 83/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Harassment Act 1997, s 8(1) – Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 211(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction and sentence.
Result
A The application for an extension of time is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
12 December 2019
_______________
A The judgment of 12 December 2019 (Nottingham v R [2019] NZSC 144) is recalled and leave to appeal is granted in relation to the appeal against sentence.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to impose the maximum period of home detention in circumstances where the offender had already served a period of home detention in relation to the offending.
20 March 2020
----------------------------------------------
A The appeal against sentence is allowed. The sentence of 12 months’ home detention imposed by the Court of Appeal is varied by replacing that sentence with a sentence of eight and a half months’ home detention with a start date of 30 July 2019.
B Having served more than 12 months’ home detention, Mr Nottingham has served that part of his sentence. The standard and special post-detention conditions imposed by the Court of Appeal remain in place for the remainder of the 12 month and six month post detention periods respectively.
C The remaining period of community work to be served by Mr Nottingham is remitted.
31 July 2020
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
12 December 2019
_______________
A The judgment of 12 December 2019 (Nottingham v R [2019] NZSC 144) is recalled and leave to appeal is granted in relation to the appeal against sentence.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to impose the maximum period of home detention in circumstances where the offender had already served a period of home detention in relation to the offending.
20 March 2020
----------------------------------------------
A The appeal against sentence is allowed. The sentence of 12 months’ home detention imposed by the Court of Appeal is varied by replacing that sentence with a sentence of eight and a half months’ home detention with a start date of 30 July 2019.
B Having served more than 12 months’ home detention, Mr Nottingham has served that part of his sentence. The standard and special post-detention conditions imposed by the Court of Appeal remain in place for the remainder of the 12 month and six month post detention periods respectively.
C The remaining period of community work to be served by Mr Nottingham is remitted.
31 July 2020
Date of hearing
28 May 2020
Judges
William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan , Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 28 May 2020 (PDF, 195 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 74 (PDF, 126 KB)
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Case name
Bryce Brougham v Christine Anne Elizabeth Regan and Mark Jefferey Tuffin as trustees of the Winchester Trust and Racheal Christina Dey
Case number
SC 104/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a standard form loan agreement was a contract of guarantee under s 27 of the Property Law Act 2007 – Whether imposing guarantee obligations on one of two guarantors named in a contract of guarantee is contingent on both named guarantors signing.
Result
A An extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
B Leave to appeal is granted (Regan v Brougham [2019] NZCA 401).
C The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was right to allow the appeal to that Court.
12 December 2019
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The orders made in the Court of Appeal are set aside and judgment is entered for the appellant.
C The respondents must pay the appellant costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
D The award of costs and disbursements in the lower Courts in favour of the first respondents is set aside. Such costs and disbursements should be reassessed by the Court of Appeal in light of this judgment. The award of costs in favour of the second respondent stands.
E The first respondents’ interlocutory application to adduce further evidence is dismissed. 30 October 2020
B Leave to appeal is granted (Regan v Brougham [2019] NZCA 401).
C The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was right to allow the appeal to that Court.
12 December 2019
_________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The orders made in the Court of Appeal are set aside and judgment is entered for the appellant.
C The respondents must pay the appellant costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
D The award of costs and disbursements in the lower Courts in favour of the first respondents is set aside. Such costs and disbursements should be reassessed by the Court of Appeal in light of this judgment. The award of costs in favour of the second respondent stands.
E The first respondents’ interlocutory application to adduce further evidence is dismissed. 30 October 2020
Date of hearing
09 June 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 9 June 2020 (PDF, 409 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 118 (PDF, 189 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Savvy Vineyards 4334 Limited and Savvy Vineyards 3552 Limited v Weta Estate Limited and Tirosh Estate Limited
Case number
SC 114/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the long-term supply contracts, particularly in respect of pre-contractual negotiations and post-contractual conduct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining the elective right to purchase grapes under the contract.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted on the question (Weta Estate Ltd v Savvy Vineyards 4334 Ltd [2019] NZCA 437) whether the Court of Appeal was correct as to:
(a) the effect on the parties’ legal positions of the two earlier judgments, referred to in [4] below, dealing with whether the contract had been terminated; and
(b) the interpretation of cl 2.2 and cl 2.4.
B The application is otherwise dismissed.
12 December 2019
___________________
A The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside. The respondents are liable to the appellants on the first and second causes of action in the first amended statement of claim.
B An order directing an inquiry into damages is made in relation to the first cause of action.
C The declaration and the order directing an inquiry into damages made by the High Court in relation to the second cause of action are restored.
D The first and second respondents must pay the first and second appellants one set of costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
E The orders as to costs in the Court of Appeal and the orders as to costs in the High Court as they relate to the High Court’s dismissal of the first cause of action are quashed. Costs should be re-determined in those Courts in light of this judgment.
22 October 2020
(a) the effect on the parties’ legal positions of the two earlier judgments, referred to in [4] below, dealing with whether the contract had been terminated; and
(b) the interpretation of cl 2.2 and cl 2.4.
B The application is otherwise dismissed.
12 December 2019
___________________
A The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside. The respondents are liable to the appellants on the first and second causes of action in the first amended statement of claim.
B An order directing an inquiry into damages is made in relation to the first cause of action.
C The declaration and the order directing an inquiry into damages made by the High Court in relation to the second cause of action are restored.
D The first and second respondents must pay the first and second appellants one set of costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
E The orders as to costs in the Court of Appeal and the orders as to costs in the High Court as they relate to the High Court’s dismissal of the first cause of action are quashed. Costs should be re-determined in those Courts in light of this judgment.
22 October 2020
Date of hearing
26 May 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 May 2020 (PDF, 387 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 115 (PDF, 191 KB)
Substantive judgment
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Quentin Woods v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 115/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sentencing – Special conditions – Residential restrictions – Intensive monitoring – Sentencing Act 2002, s 93(2B) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that s 93(2B) of the Sentencing Act permits imposition of conditions similar to residential restrictions and intensive monitoring – Whether the Court erred in holding that the special conditions imposed on the appellant did not amount to residential restrictions or intensive monitoring.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Woods v New Zealand Police [2019] NZCA 446).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicant’s appeals.
13 February 2020
________________________________
The appeal is allowed.
10 December 2020
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicant’s appeals.
13 February 2020
________________________________
The appeal is allowed.
10 December 2020
Date of hearing
21 May 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Arnold JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 21 May 2020 (PDF, 399 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 141 (PDF, 190 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Lambie Trustee Limited v Prudence Anne Addleman
Case number
SC 118/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted on whether the Court of Appeal was correct to order the applicant to disclose to the respondent any legal opinions and other advice obtained by the trustees of the Lambie Trust and funded by the Trust (Addleman v Lambie Trustee Ltd [2019] NZCA 480, (2019) 5 NZTR 29-016).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to reject the applicant’s claims of legal advice privilege and litigation privilege respectively.
C In all other respects, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
4 March 2020
______________________
A With the clarification that the orders for disclosure made by the Court of Appeal do not extend to legal advice given from June 2015 in connection with this litigation and with leave reserved to Lambie Trustee Ltd to revert to this Court in relation to advice received after 7 November 2014 and before June 2015, the appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
1 June 2021
__________________________________
A Mrs Addleman is to receive out of the Lambie Trust her actual costs in relation to the appeal to this Court plus usual disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary). We allow for second counsel. Mrs Addleman is to provide a schedule of the costs incurred to Lambie Trustee Ltd within 10 working days of the date of delivery of this judgment. Any issue as to the reasonableness of the costs sought is to be determined by the Registrar.
B Lambie Trustee Ltd is not entitled to any indemnity for costs and expenses in connection with the appeal to this Court, including both its own legal fees and any solicitor client costs and disbursements due to Mrs Addleman.
C Lambie Trustee Ltd is to reimburse the Lambie Trust (from funds not sourced from the Trust) the costs awarded by this Court on the appeal.
D The orders of this Court at B and C, above, apply to the award of costs in the Court of Appeal.
E Mrs Addleman is entitled to costs on a 2B basis together with reasonable disbursements in relation to costs in the High Court. Orders B and C, above, apply to the award of costs in that Court.
17 February 2023
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to reject the applicant’s claims of legal advice privilege and litigation privilege respectively.
C In all other respects, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
4 March 2020
______________________
A With the clarification that the orders for disclosure made by the Court of Appeal do not extend to legal advice given from June 2015 in connection with this litigation and with leave reserved to Lambie Trustee Ltd to revert to this Court in relation to advice received after 7 November 2014 and before June 2015, the appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
1 June 2021
__________________________________
A Mrs Addleman is to receive out of the Lambie Trust her actual costs in relation to the appeal to this Court plus usual disbursements (to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary). We allow for second counsel. Mrs Addleman is to provide a schedule of the costs incurred to Lambie Trustee Ltd within 10 working days of the date of delivery of this judgment. Any issue as to the reasonableness of the costs sought is to be determined by the Registrar.
B Lambie Trustee Ltd is not entitled to any indemnity for costs and expenses in connection with the appeal to this Court, including both its own legal fees and any solicitor client costs and disbursements due to Mrs Addleman.
C Lambie Trustee Ltd is to reimburse the Lambie Trust (from funds not sourced from the Trust) the costs awarded by this Court on the appeal.
D The orders of this Court at B and C, above, apply to the award of costs in the Court of Appeal.
E Mrs Addleman is entitled to costs on a 2B basis together with reasonable disbursements in relation to costs in the High Court. Orders B and C, above, apply to the award of costs in that Court.
17 February 2023
Date of hearing
02 December 2020
Judges
William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 2 December 2020 (PDF, 492 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 54 (PDF, 401 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Summary
Case name
Jinyue Young and Hsiang-Fen Ying v Zie Zhang
Case number
SC 4/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal to set aside the consent order – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appellant’s appeal against finding of contempt.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B No order as to costs. 28 March 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 4 of 7