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.

23 December 2024

Case information summary 2024 (as at 23 December 2024) –  Cases where leave granted (126 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 23 December 2024)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 116 KB)

All years

Case name
The Queen v K
Case number
SC 10/2019
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 trial. 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 of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
10 May 2019
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Date of Hearing, judges

27 March 2019

Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ

Case name
Talley's Group Limited v Worksafe New Zealand
Case number
SC 11/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 379 – Use of prosecution summary of facts – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not dismissing the defective charging documents – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not considering the prosecution’s actions amounted to an abuse of process.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
5 April 2019
Case name
James Hardie Industries Plc, James Hardie NZ Holdings & RCI Holdings Pty LImited v Karen Louise White, Waitakere Group Limited, Metlifecare Pinseong Limited, Forest Lake Gardens Limited, Vision (Dannemora) LImited (Name changed to Metlifecare Dannemora
Case number
SC 12/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that there is a serious issue to be tried as to whether the applicant owed a duty of care to those affected by the actions or omissions of its subsidiaries – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that there is a serious issue to be tried as to whether the applicant breached the Fair Trading Act 1986 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that there is a serious issue to be tried as to whether the applicant was a “manufacturer” of goods in breach of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicants’ appeal against a decision of the High Court not to grant summary judgment – (cross-appeal) Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to set aside a decision of the High Court partially upholding a protest to jurisdiction.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants are to pay to the respondents costs of $2,500.
16 April 2019
Case name
ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited v Financial Markets Authority
Case number
SC 13/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Financial Market Authority’s disclosure of confidential documents obtained from ANZ to third parties was for a permitted purpose under s 59(3) under the Financial Markets Authority Act 2011.
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal in SC 13/2019 and SC  21/2019 are dismissed.  
B Costs of $3,500 are awarded to the respondent.
12 April 2019
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Case name
M(SC 14/2019) The Queen
Case number
SC 14/2019
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 trial. 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 of trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
28 February 2019
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Case name
Eight Mile Style, LLC & Martin Affiliated, LLC v New Zealand National Party and Greg Hamilton
Case number
SC 15/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Copyright Act 1994, s 121– User principle – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of damages principles.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay costs of $4,500 plus usual disbursements to the respondents collectively.
14 May 2019
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
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Brooke Christie Rolleston v The Queen
Case number
SC 17/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether a member of the jury appeared biased – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted to the applicants (Rolleston v R [2018] NZCA 611).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeals.
21 March 2019
_________________________
A  The application to cross-examine the foreperson is dismissed.
B  The appeals are dismissed.
C  Existing suppression orders in respect of the minutes issued in relation to this matter remain in place but are varied to continue until further order of this Court.                                                                                                                             
19 November 2019
Date of hearing
13 November 2019
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Media Releases
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme Court - order made
Case name
Brandon James Roche v The Queen
Case number
SC 18/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether a member of the jury appeared biased – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted to the applicants (Rolleston v R [2018] NZCA 611).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeals.
21 March 2019
____________________
A  The application to cross-examine the foreperson is dismissed.
B  The appeals are dismissed.
C  Existing suppression orders in respect of the minutes issued in relation to this matter remain in place but are varied to continue until further order of this Court.
19 November 2019
Date of hearing
13 November 2019
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Media Releases
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme Court - order made
Case name
Robert John Solomon Grace v The Queen
Case number
SC 19/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction and sentence.
Result
A An extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
12 June 2019
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Court of Appeal decision
High Court / District Court judgment
Not publicly available