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.
24 June 2024
Case information summary 2024 (as at 21 June 2024) – Cases where leave granted (121 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 21 June 2024) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 125 KB)
All years
Case name
M (SC 13/2023) v The King
Case number
SC 13/2023
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal by E is granted (LF (CA596/2022) v R and E (CA671/2022) v R [2022] NZCA 656). The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss E’s appeal in so far as it sought suppression of LF’s name under ss 200(1) and 200(2)(f) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.
B The application for an extension of time by LF to appeal direct to this Court, against the High Court’s judgment ([LF] v R [2022] NZHC 2547) is granted. Leave to appeal is granted. The approved question is whether the High Court was correct to decline to grant LF permanent name suppression.
C We make an interim order prohibiting publication of LF’s name, address, occupation or identifying particulars pending the determination of the appeals by the Supreme Court.
D We make an order prohibiting publication of this judgment until 2 pm on 25 May 2023.
23 May 2023
__________________________________________________________
A The application by the appellant LF to adduce evidence updating the position in terms of social media and other coverage relating to LF’s case is granted.
B M’s appeal is dismissed.
C LF’s appeal is dismissed.
D Order prohibiting publication of LF’s name, address, occupation or identifying particulars until 5.00 pm on 14 June 2024 or on earlier order of the Court quashing or varying this order.
E Order prohibiting publication of the media release; of the minutes; and of this judgment or any information therein until the judgment is delivered at 4.00 pm on 23 April 2024.
F Order prohibiting publication of any reference to mental health issues beyond those made in the judgment which is made publicly available.
G Order redacting part of the excerpt set out at [74] of the judgment which is made publicly available.
H Order made that the files for these appeals are not to be searched without the leave of a Judge of this Court.
23 April 2024
___________________________________
NOTE: INTERIM ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF LF’S NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS HAS BEEN EXTENDED UNTIL 5.00 PM 31 MARCH 2025 OR ON EARLIER ORDER OF THE COURT QUASHING OR VARYING THIS ORDER.
B The application for an extension of time by LF to appeal direct to this Court, against the High Court’s judgment ([LF] v R [2022] NZHC 2547) is granted. Leave to appeal is granted. The approved question is whether the High Court was correct to decline to grant LF permanent name suppression.
C We make an interim order prohibiting publication of LF’s name, address, occupation or identifying particulars pending the determination of the appeals by the Supreme Court.
D We make an order prohibiting publication of this judgment until 2 pm on 25 May 2023.
23 May 2023
__________________________________________________________
A The application by the appellant LF to adduce evidence updating the position in terms of social media and other coverage relating to LF’s case is granted.
B M’s appeal is dismissed.
C LF’s appeal is dismissed.
D Order prohibiting publication of LF’s name, address, occupation or identifying particulars until 5.00 pm on 14 June 2024 or on earlier order of the Court quashing or varying this order.
E Order prohibiting publication of the media release; of the minutes; and of this judgment or any information therein until the judgment is delivered at 4.00 pm on 23 April 2024.
F Order prohibiting publication of any reference to mental health issues beyond those made in the judgment which is made publicly available.
G Order redacting part of the excerpt set out at [74] of the judgment which is made publicly available.
H Order made that the files for these appeals are not to be searched without the leave of a Judge of this Court.
23 April 2024
___________________________________
NOTE: INTERIM ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF LF’S NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS HAS BEEN EXTENDED UNTIL 5.00 PM 31 MARCH 2025 OR ON EARLIER ORDER OF THE COURT QUASHING OR VARYING THIS ORDER.
Date of hearing
19 October 2023
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O’Regan, Ellen France and Kós JJ
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 19 October 2023 Case Synopsis (PDF, 450 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2024] NZSC 29 (PDF, 307 KB)
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave granted
E (SC 13/2023) v R [2023] NZSC 61 [23 May 2023] (PDF, 195 KB)
Substantive judgment
M (SC 13/2023) v R [2024] NZSC 29 [23 April 2024] (PDF, 373 KB)
Case name
LF (SC 14/2023) v The King
Case number
SC 14/2023
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal by E is granted (LF (CA596/2022) v R and E (CA671/2022) v R [2022] NZCA 656). The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss E’s appeal in so far as it sought suppression of LF’s name under ss 200(1) and 200(2)(f) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.
B The application for an extension of time by LF to appeal direct to this Court, against the High Court’s judgment ([LF] v R [2022] NZHC 2547) is granted. Leave to appeal is granted. The approved question is whether the High Court was correct to decline to grant LF permanent name suppression.
C We make an interim order prohibiting publication of LF’s name, address, occupation or identifying particulars pending the determination of the appeals by the Supreme Court.
D We make an order prohibiting publication of this judgment until 2 pm on 25 May 2023.
23 May 2023
_________________________________________________________
A The application by the appellant LF to adduce evidence updating the position in terms of social media and other coverage relating to LF’s case is granted.
B M’s appeal is dismissed.
C LF’s appeal is dismissed.
D Order prohibiting publication of LF’s name, address, occupation or identifying particulars until 5.00 pm on 14 June 2024 or on earlier order of the Court quashing or varying this order.
E Order prohibiting publication of the media release; of the minutes; and of this judgment or any information therein until the judgment is delivered at 4.00 pm on 23 April 2024.
F Order prohibiting publication of any reference to mental health issues beyond those made in the judgment which is made publicly available.
G Order redacting part of the excerpt set out at [74] of the judgment which is made publicly available.
H Order made that the files for these appeals are not to be searched without the leave of a Judge of this Court.
23 April 2024
_________________________________________
NOTE: INTERIM ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF LF’S NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS HAS BEEN EXTENDED UNTIL 5.00 PM 31 MARCH 2025 OR ON EARLIER ORDER OF THE COURT QUASHING OR VARYING THIS ORDER.
B The application for an extension of time by LF to appeal direct to this Court, against the High Court’s judgment ([LF] v R [2022] NZHC 2547) is granted. Leave to appeal is granted. The approved question is whether the High Court was correct to decline to grant LF permanent name suppression.
C We make an interim order prohibiting publication of LF’s name, address, occupation or identifying particulars pending the determination of the appeals by the Supreme Court.
D We make an order prohibiting publication of this judgment until 2 pm on 25 May 2023.
23 May 2023
_________________________________________________________
A The application by the appellant LF to adduce evidence updating the position in terms of social media and other coverage relating to LF’s case is granted.
B M’s appeal is dismissed.
C LF’s appeal is dismissed.
D Order prohibiting publication of LF’s name, address, occupation or identifying particulars until 5.00 pm on 14 June 2024 or on earlier order of the Court quashing or varying this order.
E Order prohibiting publication of the media release; of the minutes; and of this judgment or any information therein until the judgment is delivered at 4.00 pm on 23 April 2024.
F Order prohibiting publication of any reference to mental health issues beyond those made in the judgment which is made publicly available.
G Order redacting part of the excerpt set out at [74] of the judgment which is made publicly available.
H Order made that the files for these appeals are not to be searched without the leave of a Judge of this Court.
23 April 2024
_________________________________________
NOTE: INTERIM ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF LF’S NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS HAS BEEN EXTENDED UNTIL 5.00 PM 31 MARCH 2025 OR ON EARLIER ORDER OF THE COURT QUASHING OR VARYING THIS ORDER.
Date of hearing
19 October 2023
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O’Regan, Ellen France and Kós JJ
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 19 October 2023 Case Synopsis (PDF, 450 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2024] NZSC 29 (PDF, 307 KB)
District Court decision
Not publicly available
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave granted
E (SC 13/2023) v R [2023] NZSC 61 [23 May 2023 (PDF, 195 KB)
Substantive judgment
M (SC 13/2023) v R [2024] NZSC 29 [23 April 2024] (PDF, 373 KB)
Case name
Jane Alison Farish v The King
Case number
SC 90/2023
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
A Leave is granted in part (Dallison v R [2023] NZCA 282).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to make the order sought by the applicant under s 205(2)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
D We make an order prohibiting publication of the applicant’s name, address, occupation and identifying particulars and of the information to which the application under s 205(2)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 relates until final resolution of the appeal to this Court.
30 October 2023
_______________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B We make an order prohibiting publication of this judgment, the media release and the minutes, and any information therein, until the judgment is delivered at 2.00 pm on 11 June 2024.
C We make an order prohibiting publication of certain evidence and submissions contained in this judgment pursuant to s 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. See paragraph [82].
D We make an order redacting parts of the judgment that is made publicly available.
E We make an order that the files for this appeal are not to be searched without the leave of a Judge of this Court.
11 June 2024
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to make the order sought by the applicant under s 205(2)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
D We make an order prohibiting publication of the applicant’s name, address, occupation and identifying particulars and of the information to which the application under s 205(2)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 relates until final resolution of the appeal to this Court.
30 October 2023
_______________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B We make an order prohibiting publication of this judgment, the media release and the minutes, and any information therein, until the judgment is delivered at 2.00 pm on 11 June 2024.
C We make an order prohibiting publication of certain evidence and submissions contained in this judgment pursuant to s 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. See paragraph [82].
D We make an order redacting parts of the judgment that is made publicly available.
E We make an order that the files for this appeal are not to be searched without the leave of a Judge of this Court.
11 June 2024
Date of hearing
28 February 2024
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, Ellen France, Williams and Miller JJ
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 28 February 2024 SC 90/2023 (PDF, 475 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2024] NZSC 65 (PDF, 333 KB)
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave granted
F (SC 90/2023) v R [2023] NZSC 143 [30 October 2023] (PDF, 166 KB)
Substantive judgment
JANE ALISON FARISH v R [2024] NZSC 65 [11 June 2024] (PDF, 316 KB)
Case name
R (SC 64/2022) v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 64/2022
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (R (CA586/2021) v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2022] NZCA 225).
B The approved question is how does the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 affect the exercise of the court’s discretion to renew an Extended Supervision Order when the individual concerned is also subject to a Compulsory Care Order?
11 April 2023
_________________________________________________________
The application for recusal is dismissed.
26 April 2023
_________________________________________________________
A The application by the respondent to adduce further evidence is granted.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for reconsideration in light of this judgment and any further evidence adduced in that Court. Pending the High Court’s decision on review under s 107RA(5) of the Parole Act, the appellant remains subject to the extended supervision order.
7 May 2024
B The approved question is how does the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 affect the exercise of the court’s discretion to renew an Extended Supervision Order when the individual concerned is also subject to a Compulsory Care Order?
11 April 2023
_________________________________________________________
The application for recusal is dismissed.
26 April 2023
_________________________________________________________
A The application by the respondent to adduce further evidence is granted.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The proceeding is remitted to the High Court for reconsideration in light of this judgment and any further evidence adduced in that Court. Pending the High Court’s decision on review under s 107RA(5) of the Parole Act, the appellant remains subject to the extended supervision order.
7 May 2024
Date of hearing
08 August 2023
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Williams and Kós JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 8 August 2023 Appellants Submissions (PDF, 349 KB)
- Hearing date 8 August 2023 Respondents Submissions (PDF, 548 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 August 2023 (PDF, 481 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 8 August 2023 (PDF, 489 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2024] NZSC 47 (PDF, 291 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Videos
- R v Chief Executive of the Dept of Corrections (SC 64/2022) (Recorded, 8 August 2023)
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
D v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 31/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
The judgment of this Court of 21 June 2019 ([2019] NZSC 58) is
recalled and reissued with the applicant’s name anonymised.
9 February 2021
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A The application for leave to appeal against an order that the applicant be placed on the Child Sex Offender Register is granted ([2019] NZCA 30).
B The approved question is whether and, if so, how the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 has to be taken into account in decisions under s 9 of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016.
21 June 2019
Reissued 9 February 2021
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A The application to adduce further evidence is granted.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The registration order made by the District Court under s 9(1) of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016 is quashed.
9 February 2021
recalled and reissued with the applicant’s name anonymised.
9 February 2021
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A The application for leave to appeal against an order that the applicant be placed on the Child Sex Offender Register is granted ([2019] NZCA 30).
B The approved question is whether and, if so, how the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 has to be taken into account in decisions under s 9 of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016.
21 June 2019
Reissued 9 February 2021
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A The application to adduce further evidence is granted.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The registration order made by the District Court under s 9(1) of the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Government Agency Registration) Act 2016 is quashed.
9 February 2021
Transcripts
- Hearing date 30 October 2019 (PDF, 416 KB)
Media Releases
- MR 2021 NZSC 2 (PDF, 197 KB)
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Additional document
Case name
Synlait Milk Limited v New Zealand Industrial Park Limited and Ye Qing
Case number
SC 50/2019
Summary
Civil – Property Law Act 2007, s 317 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the appeal and declining to modify covenants burdening land owned by the appellant.
Result
A By consent, an order is made substituting Synlait Milk Ltd for Stonehill Trustee Ltd as applicant subject to the conditions set out in the joint memorandum of counsel dated 6 September 2019.
B Leave to appeal is granted to Synlait Milk Ltd as applicant (New Zealand Industrial Park Ltd v Stonehill Trustee Ltd [2019] NZCA 147).
C The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to reverse the decision of the High Court (Stonehill Trustee Ltd v New Zealand Industrial Park Ltd [2018] NZHC 2938).
D The application by Synlait Milk Ltd to adduce further evidence will be determined at or after the hearing of the appeal.
E Leave is granted for the respondents to file an affidavit or affidavits responding to the evidence that Synlait Milk Ltd seeks to adduce. Such affidavit or affidavits must be filed on or before 15 November 2019.
29 October 2019
______________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B There is no order as to costs.
22 December 2020
B Leave to appeal is granted to Synlait Milk Ltd as applicant (New Zealand Industrial Park Ltd v Stonehill Trustee Ltd [2019] NZCA 147).
C The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to reverse the decision of the High Court (Stonehill Trustee Ltd v New Zealand Industrial Park Ltd [2018] NZHC 2938).
D The application by Synlait Milk Ltd to adduce further evidence will be determined at or after the hearing of the appeal.
E Leave is granted for the respondents to file an affidavit or affidavits responding to the evidence that Synlait Milk Ltd seeks to adduce. Such affidavit or affidavits must be filed on or before 15 November 2019.
29 October 2019
______________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B There is no order as to costs.
22 December 2020
Transcripts
- Hearing date 3 - 4 June 2020 (PDF, 621 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 157 (PDF, 535 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook and O'Regan JJ
Case name
R v The Queen
Case number
SC 67/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 43 – Propensity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction.
Result
A Notice of Abandonment having been filed the application for leave to appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
12 December 2019
12 December 2019
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
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
Harjit Dheil v The Queen
Case number
SC 106/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Evidence Act 2006, ss 22A and 122 – Whether a recorded conversation should have been admitted at trial – Whether the recorded conversation was hearsay evidence – Whether the trial Judge should have given a direction in relation to the hearsay evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal.
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
HARJIT DHEIL v R [2019] NZSC 153 [20 December 2019] (PDF, 46 KB)
Page 1 of 23