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
Bruce Alexander McKay v The Queen
Case number
SC 92/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 220 – Party to offence – Failure to give adequate reasons for verdict – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against conviction.
Result
The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
9 December 2019
9 December 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Lance David Morrison v The Queen
Case number
SC 93/2019 SC 94/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s quantum appeal for costs under s 5 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Act 1967
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
9 December 2019
B There is no order as to costs.
9 December 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Nicholas Paul Alfred Reekie v Complainant A & B
Case number
SC 95/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to grant the applicant an extension of time.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed
B There is no order as to costs
18 November 2019
______________________________
A The application for recall is allowed only to make the corrections identified at [6] in [2019] NZSC 154.
B The judgment of this Court of 18 November 2019 (Reekie v Claimants A & B [2019] NZSC 127) is reissued with these corrections.
23 December 2019
_________________________________________
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
Reissued 23 December 2019
B There is no order as to costs
18 November 2019
______________________________
A The application for recall is allowed only to make the corrections identified at [6] in [2019] NZSC 154.
B The judgment of this Court of 18 November 2019 (Reekie v Claimants A & B [2019] NZSC 127) is reissued with these corrections.
23 December 2019
_________________________________________
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
Reissued 23 December 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Recall judgment
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Sealegs International Limited v Yun Zhang, Orion Limited and Orion Marine Limited, Smuggler Marine Limited, Darren Leybourne, Vladan Zubcic, David Pringle and Stryda Marine Limited
Case number
SC 96/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to “functional operability” or “functional constraints” in determining whether industrially applied artistic works were protected by copyright law.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $4,500 plus usual disbursements to the respondents collectively.
13 December 2019
B The applicant must pay costs of $4,500 plus usual disbursements to the respondents collectively.
13 December 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Transcript
Case name
Peter Richard Prescott v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 97/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application for an extension of time to appeal.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
22 November 2019
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 22 November 2019 (Prescott v New Zealand Police [2019] NZSC 133) is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
5 March 2021
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
22 November 2019
A The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 22 November 2019 (Prescott v New Zealand Police [2019] NZSC 133) is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
5 March 2021
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Malcolm Rabson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Supreme Court of New Zealand
Case number
SC 98/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court erred in striking out the applicant’s proceeding.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The Supreme Court of New Zealand is removed as a proposed party from this proceeding.
C Mr Rabson is to pay costs of $250 to the Crown Law Office.
18 November 2019
B The Supreme Court of New Zealand is removed as a proposed party from this proceeding.
C Mr Rabson is to pay costs of $250 to the Crown Law Office.
18 November 2019
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Calim Ioan v Scott Technology NZ Limited
Case number
SC 99/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal correctly applied s 67B of the Employment Relations Act 2000 in relation to the termination of the applicant’s employment – Whether the applicant was unjustifiably dismissed based on the notice period.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
19 November 2019
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
19 November 2019
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Rangitira Developments Limited v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated
Case number
SC 100/2019
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc v Rangitira Developments Ltd [2018] NZCA 445, [2019] NZRMA 233).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was in error in setting aside the declarations made at [86] of the judgment of the High Court (Rangitira Developments Ltd v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Ltd [2018] NZHC 146, (2018) 20 ELRNZ 312).
C There is no order as to costs.
5 November 2019
_________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
15 July 2020
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was in error in setting aside the declarations made at [86] of the judgment of the High Court (Rangitira Developments Ltd v Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Ltd [2018] NZHC 146, (2018) 20 ELRNZ 312).
C There is no order as to costs.
5 November 2019
_________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
15 July 2020
Transcripts
- Hearing date 19 May 2020 (PDF, 450 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 66 (PDF, 125 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
[2020] NZSC 66 (PDF, 150 KB)
Summary
Date of hearing
19 May 2020
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ
Case name
R v Legal Services Commissioner
Case number
SC 101/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Legal Services Act 2011, s 7 – Whether the High Court erred in finding that an “administrative tribunal or judicial authority” does not include the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
6 December 2019
B There is no order as to costs.
6 December 2019
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Not publicly available
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
Page 78 of 252