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.
8 November 2024
Case information summary 2024 (as at 8 November 2024) – Cases where leave granted (126 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 8 November 2024) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 116 KB)
2019
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)
Case name
Port Otago Limited v Environmental Defence Society Incorporated , Otago Regional Council, Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated and Marlborough District Council
Case number
SC 107/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,000 plus usual disbursements to each of the first, second and third respondents.
22 April 2020
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,000 plus usual disbursements to each of the first, second and third respondents.
22 April 2020
Transcripts
- Hearing date 18 March 2020 (PDF, 217 KB)
Additional document
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Adam Raphael Greenbaum v Southern Cross Hospitals Limited
Case number
SC 108/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Evidence – Confidential information – Evidence Act 2006, s 69 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’ decision dismissing appellant’s application for non-party discovery against the respondent.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
13 December 2019
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
13 December 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Allan David McLean v The Public Trust
Case number
SC 110/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of cl 5 of the deceased’s will
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay one set of costs of $2,500 to be divided equally between the respondent and Mr Flaus as trustee for the estate of Mrs Ruth McLean.
6 December 2019
B The applicant must pay one set of costs of $2,500 to be divided equally between the respondent and Mr Flaus as trustee for the estate of Mrs Ruth McLean.
6 December 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
J (SC111/2019) v The Queen
Case number
SC 111/2019
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 this 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.
19 November 2019
19 November 2019
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
High/District Court judgment
not publicly available
Case name
Zen PULEMOANA v The Queen
Case number
SC 112/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether a juror should have been discharged – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction.
Result
A An extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is granted.
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
19 November 2019
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
19 November 2019
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ZEN PULEMOANA v R [2019] NZSC 131 [19 November 2019] (PDF, 41 KB)
High Court decision
Case name
Geoffrey Brian Kenny v Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Case number
SC 113/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
19 December 2019
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
19 December 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Savvy Vineyards 4334 Limited and Savvy Vineyards 3552 Limited v Weta Estate Limited and Tirosh Estate Limited
Case number
SC 114/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the long-term supply contracts, particularly in respect of pre-contractual negotiations and post-contractual conduct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining the elective right to purchase grapes under the contract.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted on the question (Weta Estate Ltd v Savvy Vineyards 4334 Ltd [2019] NZCA 437) whether the Court of Appeal was correct as to:
(a) the effect on the parties’ legal positions of the two earlier judgments, referred to in [4] below, dealing with whether the contract had been terminated; and
(b) the interpretation of cl 2.2 and cl 2.4.
B The application is otherwise dismissed.
12 December 2019
___________________
A The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside. The respondents are liable to the appellants on the first and second causes of action in the first amended statement of claim.
B An order directing an inquiry into damages is made in relation to the first cause of action.
C The declaration and the order directing an inquiry into damages made by the High Court in relation to the second cause of action are restored.
D The first and second respondents must pay the first and second appellants one set of costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
E The orders as to costs in the Court of Appeal and the orders as to costs in the High Court as they relate to the High Court’s dismissal of the first cause of action are quashed. Costs should be re-determined in those Courts in light of this judgment.
22 October 2020
(a) the effect on the parties’ legal positions of the two earlier judgments, referred to in [4] below, dealing with whether the contract had been terminated; and
(b) the interpretation of cl 2.2 and cl 2.4.
B The application is otherwise dismissed.
12 December 2019
___________________
A The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside. The respondents are liable to the appellants on the first and second causes of action in the first amended statement of claim.
B An order directing an inquiry into damages is made in relation to the first cause of action.
C The declaration and the order directing an inquiry into damages made by the High Court in relation to the second cause of action are restored.
D The first and second respondents must pay the first and second appellants one set of costs of $25,000 plus usual disbursements.
E The orders as to costs in the Court of Appeal and the orders as to costs in the High Court as they relate to the High Court’s dismissal of the first cause of action are quashed. Costs should be re-determined in those Courts in light of this judgment.
22 October 2020
Date of hearing
26 May 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 26 May 2020 (PDF, 387 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 115 (PDF, 191 KB)
Substantive judgment
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Case name
Quentin Woods v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 115/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Sentencing – Special conditions – Residential restrictions – Intensive monitoring – Sentencing Act 2002, s 93(2B) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that s 93(2B) of the Sentencing Act permits imposition of conditions similar to residential restrictions and intensive monitoring – Whether the Court erred in holding that the special conditions imposed on the appellant did not amount to residential restrictions or intensive monitoring.
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Woods v New Zealand Police [2019] NZCA 446).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicant’s appeals.
13 February 2020
________________________________
The appeal is allowed.
10 December 2020
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the applicant’s appeals.
13 February 2020
________________________________
The appeal is allowed.
10 December 2020
Date of hearing
21 May 2020
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Arnold JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 21 May 2020 (PDF, 399 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2020] NZSC 141 (PDF, 190 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Eric Meserve Houghton v Timothy Ernest Corbett Saunders, Samuel John Magill, John Michael Feeney, Craig Edgeworth Horrocks, Peter David Hunter, Peter Thomas and Joan Withers, and Credit Suisse Private Equity Inc, and Credit Suisse First Boston Asian Me
Case number
SC 117/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the expert evidence as to the quantum of loss is admissible – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the applicant’s appeal against a refusal to strike out the respondent’ s defence under s 63 of the Securities Act 1978 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondents collectively and $2,500 to the second and third respondents collectively.
13 December 2019
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the first respondents collectively and $2,500 to the second and third respondents collectively.
13 December 2019
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Page 11 of 13