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
Melco Property Holdings (NZ) Limited v Anthony John Hall
Case number
SC 64/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Melco Property Holdings (NZ) 2012 Ltd v Hall [2021] NZCA 184).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
3 September 2021
________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to adduce new evidence (the email chain) is dismissed.
B The appeal is allowed. The decisions of the Court of Appeal and High Court refusing to sustain the caveat are set aside.
C Order made that caveat No. 11659182.1 lodged by Melco on 16 January 2020 over the title to the property at 5 Parliament Street, Lower Hutt (WN13A/124), not lapse.
D Costs are reserved.
06 May 2022
__________________________________________
A The respondent must pay the appellant costs in this Court of $22,500 plus usual disbursements.
B The costs award made in the Court of Appeal is quashed. The appellant is awarded costs in that Court on a band A basis together with usual disbursements.
C The appellant is awarded costs in the High Court on a 2B basis together with reasonable disbursements, to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
24 August 2022
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
3 September 2021
________________________________________________________
A The application for leave to adduce new evidence (the email chain) is dismissed.
B The appeal is allowed. The decisions of the Court of Appeal and High Court refusing to sustain the caveat are set aside.
C Order made that caveat No. 11659182.1 lodged by Melco on 16 January 2020 over the title to the property at 5 Parliament Street, Lower Hutt (WN13A/124), not lapse.
D Costs are reserved.
06 May 2022
__________________________________________
A The respondent must pay the appellant costs in this Court of $22,500 plus usual disbursements.
B The costs award made in the Court of Appeal is quashed. The appellant is awarded costs in that Court on a band A basis together with usual disbursements.
C The appellant is awarded costs in the High Court on a 2B basis together with reasonable disbursements, to be fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
24 August 2022
Date of hearing
23 February 2022
Judges
William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France, Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 23 February 2022 (PDF, 253 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 60 (PDF, 232 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Case name
Gill Pizza Limited, Sandeep Singh, Jatinder Singh, Mandeep Singh and Malotia Limited v A Labour Inspector (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment)
Case number
SC 67/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (A Labour Inspector (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment) v Gill Pizza Ltd [2021] NZCA 192).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the Employment Court erred in finding that, if a defendant asserts there is no employment relationship, the Labour Inspector must first seek a declaration of employment status from the Employment Court under s 6(5) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 before commencing or continuing a proceeding under s 228(1) of that Act.
12 August 2021
__________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $15,000 plus usual disbursements.
21 December 2021
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the Employment Court erred in finding that, if a defendant asserts there is no employment relationship, the Labour Inspector must first seek a declaration of employment status from the Employment Court under s 6(5) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 before commencing or continuing a proceeding under s 228(1) of that Act.
12 August 2021
__________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay the respondent costs of $15,000 plus usual disbursements.
21 December 2021
Date of hearing
04 November 2021
Judges
Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan , Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 4 November 2021 (PDF, 257 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 184 (PDF, 292 KB)
Employment Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
P (SC 84/2021) v The Queen
Case number
SC 84/2021
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.
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Case name
Wairarapa Moana Ki Pouākani Incorporation v Mercury NZ Limited and The Waitangi Tribunal and Ors
Case number
SC 93/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The applications for extensions of time to apply for leave to appeal in SC 93/2021 and SC 127/2021 are granted.
B Leave to appeal in SC 93/2021 and SC 127/2021 is granted (Mercury NZ Ltd v The Waitangi Tribunal [2021] NZHC 654).
C The approved question in each appeal is whether the High Court’s decision was correct.
11 October 2021
_________________________________________________________
A We extend time for the first respondent to apply for leave to cross-appeal in SC 93/2021.
B We grant leave to the first respondent in SC 93/2021 to cross-appeal.
C The approved question is whether the High Court’s decision on the first respondent’s claim in that Court was correct.
15 December 2021
________________________________________________________
A The appeal by Wairarapa Moana ki Pouākani Inc in SC 93/2021 is allowed in part. The High Court’s ruling that the Waitangi Tribunal has no power to recommend resumption in favour of a claimant without mana whenua is set aside. The appeal is otherwise dismissed.
B The appeal by Ryshell Griggs and Mark Chamberlain in SC 127/2021 and the cross-appeal by Mercury NZ Limited in SC 93/2021 are dismissed.
C Issues as to costs may be dealt with by memoranda if they are not otherwise agreed. Memoranda will be no longer than five pages and must be filed and served within 20 working days.
7 December 2022
B Leave to appeal in SC 93/2021 and SC 127/2021 is granted (Mercury NZ Ltd v The Waitangi Tribunal [2021] NZHC 654).
C The approved question in each appeal is whether the High Court’s decision was correct.
11 October 2021
_________________________________________________________
A We extend time for the first respondent to apply for leave to cross-appeal in SC 93/2021.
B We grant leave to the first respondent in SC 93/2021 to cross-appeal.
C The approved question is whether the High Court’s decision on the first respondent’s claim in that Court was correct.
15 December 2021
________________________________________________________
A The appeal by Wairarapa Moana ki Pouākani Inc in SC 93/2021 is allowed in part. The High Court’s ruling that the Waitangi Tribunal has no power to recommend resumption in favour of a claimant without mana whenua is set aside. The appeal is otherwise dismissed.
B The appeal by Ryshell Griggs and Mark Chamberlain in SC 127/2021 and the cross-appeal by Mercury NZ Limited in SC 93/2021 are dismissed.
C Issues as to costs may be dealt with by memoranda if they are not otherwise agreed. Memoranda will be no longer than five pages and must be filed and served within 20 working days.
7 December 2022
Date of hearing
09 February 2022
- 10 February 2022
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 1 October 2021 (PDF, 310 KB)
- Hearing date 9 - 10 February 2022 (PDF, 1 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 142 (PDF, 276 KB)
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Christopher Ryan v Health and Disability Commissioner
Case number
SC 98/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Ryan v The Health and Disability Commissioner [2021] NZCA 347).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to uphold the finding of liability under s 72 of the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994.
2 November 2021
________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
28 April 2023
________________________________________________
The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
26 June 2023
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to uphold the finding of liability under s 72 of the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994.
2 November 2021
________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
28 April 2023
________________________________________________
The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
26 June 2023
Date of hearing
24 March 2022
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing 24 March 2022 (PDF, 433 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2023] NZSC 42 (PDF, 286 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Cheyman Lee Mitchell v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 116/2021
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Mitchell v New Zealand Police [2021] NZCA 417).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
14 December 2021
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
11 August 2023
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
14 December 2021
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
11 August 2023
Date of hearing
10 May 2022
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, O’Regan, Ellen France, Williams and Kós JJ
Submissions from counsel
- Hearing date 10 May 2022 Appellant submissions (PDF, 633 KB)
- Hearing date 10 May 2022 Respondent submissions (PDF, 434 KB)
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 May 2022 (PDF, 389 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2023] NZSC 104 (PDF, 287 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
H (SC 118/2021) v The Queen
Case number
SC 118/2021
Summary
Civil / Criminal Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT OR ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF RETRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Case name
K (SC 122/2021) V The Queen
Case number
SC 122/2021
Summary
ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT OR ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF RETRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED
Result
ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT OR ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF RETRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Case name
C (SC 124/2021) v The Queen
Case number
SC 124/2021
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.
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Case name
Ryshell Griggs and Mark Phillip Chamberlain on Behalf of Ngāi Tūmapūhia-ā-Rangi Hapū v Waitangi Tribunal and Ors
Case number
SC 127/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The applications for extensions of time to apply for leave to appeal in SC 93/2021 and SC 127/2021 are granted.
B Leave to appeal in SC 93/2021 and SC 127/2021 is granted (Mercury NZ Ltd v The Waitangi Tribunal [2021] NZHC 654).
C The approved question in each appeal is whether the High Court’s decision was correct.
11 October 2021
_______________________________________________________
A The appeal by Wairarapa Moana ki Pouākani Inc in SC 93/2021 is allowed in part. The High Court’s ruling that the Waitangi Tribunal has no power to recommend resumption in favour of a claimant without mana whenua is set aside. The appeal is otherwise dismissed.
B The appeal by Ryshell Griggs and Mark Chamberlain in SC 127/2021 and the cross-appeal by Mercury NZ Limited in SC 93/2021 are dismissed.
C Issues as to costs may be dealt with by memoranda if they are not otherwise agreed. Memoranda will be no longer than five pages and must be filed and served within 20 working days.
7 December 2022
B Leave to appeal in SC 93/2021 and SC 127/2021 is granted (Mercury NZ Ltd v The Waitangi Tribunal [2021] NZHC 654).
C The approved question in each appeal is whether the High Court’s decision was correct.
11 October 2021
_______________________________________________________
A The appeal by Wairarapa Moana ki Pouākani Inc in SC 93/2021 is allowed in part. The High Court’s ruling that the Waitangi Tribunal has no power to recommend resumption in favour of a claimant without mana whenua is set aside. The appeal is otherwise dismissed.
B The appeal by Ryshell Griggs and Mark Chamberlain in SC 127/2021 and the cross-appeal by Mercury NZ Limited in SC 93/2021 are dismissed.
C Issues as to costs may be dealt with by memoranda if they are not otherwise agreed. Memoranda will be no longer than five pages and must be filed and served within 20 working days.
7 December 2022
Date of hearing
09 February 2022
- 10 February 2022
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Williams JJ
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 142 (PDF, 276 KB)
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 15 of 68