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
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
Pavlos Paul Gizelis v The Queen
Case number
SC 33/2019
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal against conviction and sentence for sexual violation and kidnapping – Whether the Court of Appeal should have admitted DNA evidence led at trial – Whether the Applicant was impaired by medication in his ability to make an informed decision to elect to give evidence and whether that meant he did not receive a fair trial.
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
30 August 2019
30 August 2019
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chatfield & Co Limited and Chatfield & Co
Case number
SC 34/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Tax Administration Act 1994, s 17 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the decision of the High Court that notices issued by the Commissioner requiring the respondent company to furnish certain information were unlawful.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
7 August 2019
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
7 August 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
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
Michael Edwin Kooiman v F M Custodians Limited
Case number
SC 36/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the managing director of the fund manager had authority to commence proceedings on behalf of the respondent.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
19 July 2019
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
19 July 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Vipassana Foundation Charitable Trust Board v Auckland Council, Raymond Myles O'Brien and Victoria Mei Sien Pichler and Auckland Shooting Club Incorporated
Case number
SC 37/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the respondent Council properly considered the noise effects of the proposed activity when issuing a certificate of compliance under s 139 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (even though the Court of Appeal set aside that certificate).
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
12 July 2019
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondents.
12 July 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
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
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
The Queen v W (SC39/2019) and H (SC39/2019)
Case number
SC 39/2019
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
14 September 2020
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
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
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
- MR [2020] NZSC 53 (PDF, 205 KB)
Substantive judgment
[2020] NZSC 53 (PDF, 209 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Hearing - Judges
Winkelmann CJ, O'Regan, Ellen France,Williams and Arnold JJ
Transcript:
Page 4 of 13