Subscribe to the RSS feed Print this page

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.

14 May 2024

Case information summary 2024 (as at 14 May 2024) –  Cases where leave granted (121 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 14 May 2024)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 92 KB)

All years

Case name
Carl David George Butcher  v The Queen
Case number
SC 35/2019
Summary
Not publicly available
Result
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
High/District Court judgment
Not publicly available
Case name
W (SC38/2019) v The Queen
Case number
SC 38/2019
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.
14 September 2020
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
High/District Court judgment
Not Publicly Available
Hearing date - Judges

19 August 2019

Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Case name
127 Hobson Street Limited and Sunil Govind Parbhu v Honey Bees Preschool Limited and Jason James 
Case number
SC 40/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Penalty clause – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the indemnity clause did not offend the prohibition against penalties.
Result
A  Leave to appeal is granted (127 Hobson Street Ltd v Honey Bees Preschool Ltd [2019] NZCA 122).
B  The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicants’ appeal to that Court and, in particular, whether the Court was correct to conclude that the indemnity clause did not offend the prohibition against penalties.
27 June 2019
____________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants must pay costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements to the respondents.
5 June 2020
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
[2020] NZSC 53 (PDF, 209 KB)
High Court decision
HONEY BEES PRESCHOOL LTD v 127 HOBSON STREET LTD [2018] NZHC 32 [31 January 2018]
Court of Appeal decision
127 HOBSON STREET LTD v HONEY BEES PRESCHOOL LTD [2019] NZCA 122 [18 April 2019]
Leave judgment - leave granted
127 HOBSON STREET LIMITED v HONEY BEES PRESCHOOL LIMITED [2019] NZSC 62 [27 June 2019] (PDF, 29 KB)
Substantive judgment
127 HOBSON STREET LIMITED v HONEY BEES PRESCHOOL LIMITED [2020] NZSC 53 [5 June 2020] (PDF, 209 KB)
Hearing - Judges

Winkelmann CJ,  O'Regan, Ellen France,Williams and Arnold JJ
Transcript:
Hearing date 10 October 2019
Case name
New Zealand Law Society v John Llewellyn Stanley
Case number
SC 41/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining whether the Applicant was a fit and proper person to be admitted as a barrister and solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand, particularly in relation to the Applicant’s prior convictions.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Stanley v The New Zealand Law Society [2019] NZCA 119).
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal against the High Court judgment (Stanley v New Zealand Law Society [2018] NZHC 1154) and to make an order for Mr Stanley’s admission. 
13 November 2019
___________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Costs are reserved.
17 August 2020
Transcripts
Media Releases
High Court decision
STANLEY v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2018] NZHC 1154 [22 May 2018]
Court of Appeal decision
STANLEY v THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2019] NZCA 119 [17 April 2019]
Leave judgment - leave granted
NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY v JOHN LLEWELLYN STANLEY [2019] NZSC 125 [13 November 2019] (PDF, 36 KB)
Substantive judgment
[2020] NZSC 83 (PDF, 550 KB)
Case name
Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis v The King
Case number
SC 49/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether there was a miscarriage of justice arising from risks of contamination of or improperly obtained complainant evidence - Whether there was a miscarriage of justice arising from lack of expert evidence on the reliability of children complainants’ evidence – Whether there was a miscarriage of justice due to unreliable expert evidence being led at trial.
Result
A The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is granted.  
C The approved ground of appeal is whether a miscarriage of justice occurred in this case.  
31 July 2019
_____________________________________________________
The appeal is to continue despite the death of the appellant.
1 September 2020
_____________________________________________________
A The applications to adduce further evidence are granted.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The convictions of the appellant are quashed.
7 October 2022
Date of hearing
04 October 2021 - 15 October 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Williams and Arnold JJ
Transcripts
Case Synopses
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
PETER HUGH MCGREGOR ELLIS v R [2019] NZSC 83 [31 July 2019] (PDF, 220 KB)
Substantive judgment
PETER HUGH MCGREGOR ELLIS v R [2020] NZSC 89 [1 September 2020] (PDF, 70 KB)
Additional document
PETER HUGH MCGREGOR ELLIS v R [2020] NZSC 137 [13 November 2020] Reasons 7 December 2020 (PDF, 202 KB)
Supreme court decision
PETER HUGH MCGREGOR ELLIS v R [2021] NZSC 63 [15 June 2021] (PDF, 113 KB)
Supreme court decision
PETER HUGH MCGREGOR ELLIS v R [2021] NZSC 77 [1 July 2021] (PDF, 260 KB)
Substantive judgment
PETER HUGH MCGREGOR ELLIS v R [2022] NZSC 114 [7 October 2022] (PDF, 1.1 MB)
Substantive judgment
PETER HUGH MCGREGOR ELLIS v R [2022] NZSC 115 [7 October 2022] (PDF, 1 MB)
Videos
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
Transcripts
Media Releases
High Court decision
STONEHILL TRUSTEE LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND INDUSTRIAL PARK LIMITED [2018] NZHC 3436 [20 December 2018]
Court of Appeal decision
NEW ZEALAND INDUSTRIAL PARK LTD v STONEHILL TRUSTEE LTD [2019] NZCA 147 [9 May 2019]
Leave judgment - leave granted
SYNLAIT MILK LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND INDUSTRIAL PARK LIMITED [2019] NZSC 117[29 October 2019] (PDF, 36 KB)
Substantive judgment
SYNLAIT MILK LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND INDUSTRIAL PARK LIMITED [2020] NZSC 157 [22 December 2020] (PDF, 482 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date 21 October 2019

Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook and O'Regan JJ
Case name
Minister of Justice of New Zealand and Attorney General of New Zealand v Kyung Yup Kim
Case number
SC 57/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in quashing and remitting the Minister of Justice’s decision to surrender the respondent for extradition to the People’s Republic of China – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding there is a preliminary question of whether diplomatic assurances as to criminal justice rights should be accepted given the general human rights situation in a receiving state – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in setting the legal test to determine whether the respondent’ s fair trial rights would be upheld.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision is granted (Kim v Minister of Justice of New Zealand [2019] NZCA 209). The respondent’s application for leave to cross-appeal is also granted.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to quash and remit the Minister of Justice’ s decision to surrender the respondent under s 30 of the Extradition Act 1999.
20 September 2019
_______________________
A The appeal is adjourned until 30 July 2021.
B A report is to be filed by the parties on or before 30 July 2021 outlining the matters set out at [443], [455]–[457] and [463].
C The cross-appeal is dismissed.
4 June 2021
____________________________________
A The application for leave to adduce the expert reports annexed to the parties’ joint report dated 3 December 2021 is granted.
B The appeal is allowed. The decision of the Court of Appeal is set aside.
C The Minister of Justice’s decision of 19 September 2016 to surrender the respondent under s 30 of the Extradition Act 1999 is reinstated.
D Costs are reserved.
13 April 2022
Date of hearing
04 February 2022
Judges
Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France, Arnold and French JJ
Transcripts
Case Synopses
Media Releases
High Court decision
KIM v THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE [2016] NZHC 1490 [1 July 2016]
High Court decision
KIM v THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE [2017] NZHC 2109 [31 August 2017]
Court of Appeal decision
KIM v MINISTER OF JUSTICE OF NEW ZEALAND [2019] NZCA 209 [11 June 2019]
Leave judgment - leave granted
Minister of Justice and Attorney General v Kyung Yup Kim [2019] NZSC 100 20 September 2019 (PDF, 32 KB)
Supreme Court - order made
MINISTER OF JUSTICE v KYUNG YUP KIM [2019] NZSC 142 [10 December 2019] (PDF, 35 KB)
Supreme Court - order made
MINISTER OF JUSTICE v KYUNG YUP KIM [2020] NZSC 18 [12 March 2020] (PDF, 117 KB)
Additional document
MINISTER OF JUSTICE v KYUNG YUP KIM [2021] NZSC 57 [4 June 2021] (PDF, 970 KB)
Substantive judgment
MINISTER OF JUSTICE v KYUNG YUP KIM [2022] NZSC 44 [13 April 2022] (PDF, 367 KB)
Case name
S and M v Vector Limited, Auckland District Court and H
Case number
SC 58/2019
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 remains in force. 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 remains in force. Publication in law report or law digest permitted.
21 September 2020
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Case name
ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited v Bushline Trustees Limited, Stephen Daniel Coomey as trustee of Bushline Trust One, and Sharon Louise Coomey as trustee of Bushline Trust Two
Case number
SC 64/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contract law – Interest rate swaps – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the bank made a particular representation despite a factual finding in the High Court to the contrary – Whether the Court erred in holding that various representations made by the bank were undertakings forming part of the contract between the parties – Whether the Court erred in holding that the bank breached its undertaking to monitor and advise Bushline – Whether the Court erred in holding that it was not fair and reasonable, per s 4 of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979, for various disclaimer clauses to preclude liability in relation to various representations and undertakings – Whether the Court erred in holding that various exclusion clauses do not preclude liability in relation to various representations and undertakings – Whether the Court erred in holding that two of Bushline’ s misrepresentation and breach of contract claims were not time barred under the Limitations Act 1950.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Bushline Trustees Ltd v ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd [2019] NZCA 245).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal from the judgment of the High Court (Bushline Trustees Ltd v ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd [2017] NZHC 2520, [2018] NZCCLR 19). 15 October 2019
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B We make no award of costs in this Court.
C We reserve leave for any party to apply for an order dealing with costs in the Courts below. Any such application should be made within 20 working days of the date of this judgment.
24 July 2020
Transcripts
Media Releases
High Court decision
BUSHLINE TRUSTEES LTD v ANZ BANK NZ LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2520 [16 October 2017]
Court of Appeal decision
BUSHLINE TRUSTEES LIMITED v ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2019] NZCA 245 [24 June 2019]
Leave judgment - leave granted
ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v BUSHLINE TRUSTEES LIMITED AND STEPHEN DANIEL COOMEY AS TRUSTEES OF BUSHLINE TRUST ONE, [2019] NZSC 115 [15 October 2019] (PDF, 32 KB)
Substantive judgment
[2020] NZSC 71 (PDF, 221 KB)
Date of Hearing

12 March 2020

Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Williams JJ
Case name
FMV v TZB
Case number
SC 72/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Jurisdiction – Employment Relations Act 2000, s 161(1)(r) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Employment Relations Authority had exclusive jurisdiction over the applicant’s claim that her employer breached various duties of care in relation to her employment – Whether the Court erred in upholding the High Court’s order granting permanent name suppression.
Result
A  The application for leave to appeal is granted (FMV v TZB [2019] NZCA 282).  
B  The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal.
8 October 2019
________________________________________________
A The High Court’s suppression order is amended to suppress only the identities of the parties and to remain in force so long as the suppression order made by the Employment Relations Authority remains in force.
B The appeal is otherwise dismissed.
C Costs are reserved.
20 August 2021
Transcripts
Media Releases
High Court decision
FMV v TZB [2018] NZHC 1131 [21 May 2018]
Court of Appeal decision
FMV v TZB [2019] NZCA 282 [4 July 2019]
Leave judgment - leave granted
FMV v TZB [2019] NZSC 108 [8 October 2019] (PDF, 32 KB)
Substantive judgment
FMV v TZB [2021] NZSC 102 [20 August 2021] (PDF, 392 KB)
Supreme court decision
Cost decision: FMV v TZB [2021] NZSC 145 [2 November 2021] (PDF, 45 KB)
Hearing date

17 March 2020

Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Williams JJ
Page 19 of 67