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
Paora Tahau v The Queen
Case number
SC 20/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the conviction verdict of the jury was not unreasonable nor inconsistent with its acquittal verdicts.
Result
A An extension of time to appeal is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
3 May 2019
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
3 May 2019
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
PAORA TAHAU v R [2019] NZSC 44 [3 May 2019] (PDF, 36 KB)
Case name
ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited v Financial Markets Authority
Case number
SC 21/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its redactions of two published judgments pending determination of the Applicant’s substantive appeal to the Supreme Court.
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
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
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
AN(SC 22/2019) v Prime Minister
Case number
SC 22/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the applicant’ s application for a writ of habeas corpus.
Result
The application for an extension of time to file an application fort leave to appeal is dismissed.
11 March 2019
11 March 2019
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Case name
The Queen v Maurice William Reti and Logan Aaron Wood
Case number
SC 23/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Reti v R [2019] NZCA 17).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the evidence obtained pursuant to the production order of 4 August 2016 and pursuant to the execution of the search warrant on 1 November 2016 was inadmissible at the trial.
C 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.
4 April 2019
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B We make an 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.
5 March 2020
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the evidence obtained pursuant to the production order of 4 August 2016 and pursuant to the execution of the search warrant on 1 November 2016 was inadmissible at the trial.
C 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.
4 April 2019
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B We make an 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.
5 March 2020
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave granted
R v MAURICE WILLIAM RETI [2019] NZSC 36 [4 April 2019] (PDF, 182 KB)
Substantive judgment
Date of hearing
23 July 2019
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Case name
Blue Reach Services Limited and Blue Reach Wireless Limited v Spark New Zealand Trading Limited
Case number
SC 24/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to uphold a decision of the High Court striking out the applicants’ claim on the basis it could not succeed by virtue of s 106 of the Commerce Act 1986.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $4,500 plus usual disbursements.
28 June 2019
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $4,500 plus usual disbursements.
28 June 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Transcript
O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Case name
David Noel Roigard v The Queen
Case number
SC 25/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in relation to evidential matters (namely jury directions and prejudice in relation to cellmate confession evidence) – Whether the Court of Appeal wrongly determined aggravating factors in determining a minimum period of imprisonment.
Result
A Leave to appeal against conviction is granted to the extent described below (Roigard v R [2019] NZCA 8).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the admissibility of the proposed evidence of the witnesses F and W.
C Leave to appeal against sentence is declined.
27 June 2019
__________________________________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
14 September 2020
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the admissibility of the proposed evidence of the witnesses F and W.
C Leave to appeal against sentence is declined.
27 June 2019
__________________________________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
14 September 2020
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 94 (PDF, 76 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
DAVID NOEL ROIGARD v R [2019] NZSC 63 [27 June 2019] (PDF, 232 KB)
Substantive judgment
Hearing - Judges
3 October 2019
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France, and Williams JJ
Case synopsis
Case name
D(SC 26/2018) v The Queen
Case number
SC 26/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the appellant’s call to a mental health line should have been admitted at trial – Whether the appellant should have been permitted to lead evidence under Evidence Act 2006, s 44(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
10 July 2019
10 July 2019
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
D (SC 26/2019) v R [2019] NZSC 72 [10 July 2019] (PDF, 50 KB)
Case name
FTG Securities Limited v Bank of New Zealand, Stephen John Tubbs, Colin Anthony Gower and Robert Bruce Walker
Case number
SC 27/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether a prohibition on assignment of a deed of priority and subordination without the consent of the other party is enforceable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to make declarations as to the interpretation of the deed of priority and subordination.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $4,500 to the respondents (to be shared equally between the first and third respondents unless they agree otherwise) plus usual disbursements.
26 August 2019
B The applicant must pay costs of $4,500 to the respondents (to be shared equally between the first and third respondents unless they agree otherwise) plus usual disbursements.
26 August 2019
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Transcript
Winkelmann CJ, O'Regan and Williams JJ
Case name
Eugene John De Marco v The Queen
Case number
SC 28/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Application for leave to bring a pre-trial 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 trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
3 May 2019
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 trial. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
3 May 2019
District Court decision
Not publicly available
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
EUGENE JOHN DE MARCO v R [2019] NZSC 43 [3 May 2019] (PDF, 38 KB)
Case name
Vivien Judith Madsen-Ries and Henry David Levin as liquidators of Debut Homes Limited and Debut Homes Limited (in liquidation) v Leonard Wayne Cooper and Leonard Wayne Cooper and Tracey Cooper as trustees of the L & T Cooper Family Trust
Case number
SC 29/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s 136 of the Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in considering the Respondent’s actions as a director under ss 131 and 135 of the Companies Act 1993.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Debut Homes Ltd (in liq) v Cooper [2019] NZCA 39)
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
21 June 2019
___________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The High Court orders outlined at [4(a)], (b) and (c) of this Court’s judgment are restored.
C The respondents must pay the appellants costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements. Costs in the Courts below are to be determined in accordance with this judgment.
24 September 2020
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
21 June 2019
___________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The High Court orders outlined at [4(a)], (b) and (c) of this Court’s judgment are restored.
C The respondents must pay the appellants costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements. Costs in the Courts below are to be determined in accordance with this judgment.
24 September 2020
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 100 (PDF, 74 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Transcript
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Page 71 of 252