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
The Queen v K
Case number
SC 10/2019
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.
10 May 2019
10 May 2019
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Date of Hearing, judges
27 March 2019
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ
Case name
M(SC 14/2019) The Queen
Case number
SC 14/2019
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.
28 February 2019
28 February 2019
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Case name
Brooke Christie Rolleston v The Queen
Case number
SC 17/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether a member of the jury appeared biased – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted to the applicants (Rolleston v R [2018] NZCA 611).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeals.
21 March 2019
_________________________
A The application to cross-examine the foreperson is dismissed.
B The appeals are dismissed.
C Existing suppression orders in respect of the minutes issued in relation to this matter remain in place but are varied to continue until further order of this Court.
19 November 2019
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeals.
21 March 2019
_________________________
A The application to cross-examine the foreperson is dismissed.
B The appeals are dismissed.
C Existing suppression orders in respect of the minutes issued in relation to this matter remain in place but are varied to continue until further order of this Court.
19 November 2019
Date of hearing
13 November 2019
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 June 2019 (PDF, 197 KB)
- Hearing date 13 November 2019 (PDF, 126 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 129 (PDF, 65 KB)
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme Court - order made
Additional document
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Additional document
Case name
Brandon James Roche v The Queen
Case number
SC 18/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether a member of the jury appeared biased – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted to the applicants (Rolleston v R [2018] NZCA 611).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeals.
21 March 2019
____________________
A The application to cross-examine the foreperson is dismissed.
B The appeals are dismissed.
C Existing suppression orders in respect of the minutes issued in relation to this matter remain in place but are varied to continue until further order of this Court.
19 November 2019
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the conviction appeals.
21 March 2019
____________________
A The application to cross-examine the foreperson is dismissed.
B The appeals are dismissed.
C Existing suppression orders in respect of the minutes issued in relation to this matter remain in place but are varied to continue until further order of this Court.
19 November 2019
Date of hearing
13 November 2019
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 June 2019 (PDF, 197 KB)
- Hearing date 13 November 2019 (PDF, 126 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2019] NZSC 129 (PDF, 65 KB)
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme Court - order made
Substantive judgment
Additional document
Additional document
Additional document
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
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
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
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
International Consolidated Business Pty Limited v S C Johnson & Son Inc
Case number
SC 32/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the respondent’s application to trademark of the word ZIPLOC to proceed to registration – Whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted s 68(2) of the Trade Marks Act 2002.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal (International Consolidated Business Pty Ltd v S C Johnson & Son Inc [2019] NZCA 61) is granted to the extent set out in B. It is otherwise dismissed.
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted s 68(2) of the Trade Marks Act 2002.
9 July 2019
__________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $10,000 plus usual disbursements.
15 October 2020
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal correctly interpreted s 68(2) of the Trade Marks Act 2002.
9 July 2019
__________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $10,000 plus usual disbursements.
15 October 2020
Transcripts
- Hearing date 20 February 2020 (PDF, 362 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 110 (PDF, 261 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Hearing date
20 February 2020
Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O’Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
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
Page 19 of 68