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)
All years
Case name
Tanya Felicity Dunstan v Attorney General and Manakau District Court
Case number
SC 160/2021
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
14 Feburary 2022
14 Feburary 2022
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
H v The Queen
Case number
SC 1/2020
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.
6 May 2020
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. 23 June 2020
23 June 2020
6 May 2020
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. 23 June 2020
23 June 2020
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Case name
Leslie Norman Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Limited
Case number
SC 5/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (Roche Products (New Zealand) Ltd v Austin [2019] NZCA 660).
B The approved question is whether the applicant’s claim for compensatory damages should have been struck out on the basis that his injuries were not an ordinary consequence of the consumption of Roaccutane.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
19 May 2020
___________________________________________________
A The appeal will be dismissed one month from the date of this judgment unless the appellant makes an application under s 135 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 together with an application to this Court for a stay of this proceeding pending completion of that process.
B There is no order as to costs.
31 March 2021
___________________________________________________
A This Court’s decision in Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Ltd [2021] NZSC 30 is stayed until midday on 6 December 2021, unless the stay is extended in this Court on the application of Mr Austin.
B Any party may seek an order lapsing the stay at any stage.
C Costs are reserved.
16 June 2021
___________________________________________________
A The stay ordered in Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Ltd [2021] NZSC 62 is lifted.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.
25 September 2024
B The approved question is whether the applicant’s claim for compensatory damages should have been struck out on the basis that his injuries were not an ordinary consequence of the consumption of Roaccutane.
C The application for leave to appeal is otherwise dismissed.
19 May 2020
___________________________________________________
A The appeal will be dismissed one month from the date of this judgment unless the appellant makes an application under s 135 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 together with an application to this Court for a stay of this proceeding pending completion of that process.
B There is no order as to costs.
31 March 2021
___________________________________________________
A This Court’s decision in Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Ltd [2021] NZSC 30 is stayed until midday on 6 December 2021, unless the stay is extended in this Court on the application of Mr Austin.
B Any party may seek an order lapsing the stay at any stage.
C Costs are reserved.
16 June 2021
___________________________________________________
A The stay ordered in Austin v Roche Products (New Zealand) Ltd [2021] NZSC 62 is lifted.
B The appeal is dismissed.
C There is no order as to costs.
25 September 2024
Date of hearing
10 September 2020
Judges
William Young, Glazebrook, O’Regan, Ellen France, Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 September 2020 (PDF, 225 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 30 (PDF, 281 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Recall judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Dennis Haunui v The Queen
Case number
SC 6/2020
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (Haunui v R [2019] NZCA 679).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal ought to have allowed the applicant’s appeal to that Court.
30 April 2020
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed. The convictions are quashed.
B We order a retrial.
C 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 retrial. Publication in law report or law digest is permitted.
18 December 2020
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal ought to have allowed the applicant’s appeal to that Court.
30 April 2020
__________________________
A The appeal is allowed. The convictions are quashed.
B We order a retrial.
C 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 retrial. Publication in law report or law digest is permitted.
18 December 2020
Additional document
[2020] NZSC 41 (PDF, 150 KB)
Case name
Rosalie May Yozin v New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Limited, M B Yozin and N H Yozin-Smith
Case number
SC 12/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for an extension of time is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $1,500 to each of the second and third respondents.
8 July 2020
B The applicant must pay costs of $1,500 to each of the second and third respondents.
8 July 2020
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
David Simon Barton v The Queen
Case number
SC 13/2020
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
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 dismissed.
21 August 2020
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
21 August 2020
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Supreme court decision
DAVID SIMON BARTON v R [2020] NZSC 24 [25 March 2020] (PDF, 351 KB)
Supreme court decision
DAVID SIMON BARTON v R [2020] NZSC 30 [7 April 2020] (PDF, 346 KB)
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Recall judgment
DAVID SIMON BARTON v R [2020] NZSC 112 [16 October 2020] (PDF, 167 KB)
Case name
TUV v The Chief of New Zealand Defence Force
Case number
SC 14/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted (TUV v Chief of New Zealand Defence Force [2020] NZCA 12).
B The approved ground is:
(i) Does the test in O’Connor v Hart [1985] 1 NZLR 159 (PC) (that a contract is not voidable for mental incapacity unless the other contracting party has actual or constructive knowledge of the incapacity, or equitable fraud is established) apply in the employment jurisdiction (in particular, to a settlement agreement that has been certified under s 149 of the Employment Relations Act 2000)?
(ii) If not, what is the relevant test and should the settlement agreement have been set aside in this case on the grounds of mental incapacity?
15 May 2020
___________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The Courts below were correct not to set aside the settlement agreement in this case on the grounds of mental incapacity.
C There is no order as to costs.
3 June 2022
B The approved ground is:
(i) Does the test in O’Connor v Hart [1985] 1 NZLR 159 (PC) (that a contract is not voidable for mental incapacity unless the other contracting party has actual or constructive knowledge of the incapacity, or equitable fraud is established) apply in the employment jurisdiction (in particular, to a settlement agreement that has been certified under s 149 of the Employment Relations Act 2000)?
(ii) If not, what is the relevant test and should the settlement agreement have been set aside in this case on the grounds of mental incapacity?
15 May 2020
___________________________________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The Courts below were correct not to set aside the settlement agreement in this case on the grounds of mental incapacity.
C There is no order as to costs.
3 June 2022
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 September 2021 (PDF, 298 KB)
- Hearing date 8 September 2020 (PDF, 712 KB)
Media Releases
- MR 2022 NZSC 69 (PDF, 195 KB)
Employment Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Christopher Martin Bradley v The Queen
Case number
SC 16/2020
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with leave reserved to seek to appeal to this Court if an application for recall to the Court of Appeal is unsuccessful.
17 December 2020
17 December 2020
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
C (SC 17/2020) v The Queen
Case number
SC 17/2020
Summary
Criminal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
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 dismissed.
6 August 2020
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
6 August 2020
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
C (SC 17/2020) v R [2020] NZSC 77 [6 August 2020] (PDF, 182 KB)
Case name
Peniamina Ieremia v The Queen
Case number
SC 19/2020
Summary
Criminal Appeal
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted in part (Ieremia v R [2020] NZCA 17).
B The approved questions are:
(i) whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse leave to adduce the evidence of Mr Wilson and, if so, whether a miscarriage of justice arose as a result of this evidence not being before the jury at the applicant’s trial; and
(ii) whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that evidence of the complainants’ previous convictions was inadmissible at the applicant’s trial, or that, if any of it was admissible, its exclusion did not cause a miscarriage of justice.
3 July 2020
__________________________
A The application to adduce new evidence is granted.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The appellant’s convictions are quashed.
D A retrial is ordered.
E 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 the retrial. Publication in law report or law digest is permitted.
14 December 2020
B The approved questions are:
(i) whether the Court of Appeal was correct to refuse leave to adduce the evidence of Mr Wilson and, if so, whether a miscarriage of justice arose as a result of this evidence not being before the jury at the applicant’s trial; and
(ii) whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that evidence of the complainants’ previous convictions was inadmissible at the applicant’s trial, or that, if any of it was admissible, its exclusion did not cause a miscarriage of justice.
3 July 2020
__________________________
A The application to adduce new evidence is granted.
B The appeal is allowed.
C The appellant’s convictions are quashed.
D A retrial is ordered.
E 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 the retrial. Publication in law report or law digest is permitted.
14 December 2020
Page 57 of 250