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
Clarence John Faloon v The Planning Tribunal at Wellington, The Attorney-General sued on behalf of Palmerston North Joint Venture Airport, The Attorney-General sued on behalf of Minister of Lands, The Clerk of the Executive Council, The High Court of New
Case number
SC 77/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for an extension of time for leave to appeal (Faloon v The Planning Tribunal at Wellington [2020] NZCA 170) is dismissed.
B The application for leave to appeal (Faloon v The Planning Tribunal at Wellington [2020] NZCA 361) is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
16 November 2020
____________________________________________
A The application of 27 November 2020, including the application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 16 November 2020 (Faloon v The Planning Tribunal at Wellington [2020] NZSC 124), is dismissed.
B The application to review the Registrar’s decision of 19 November 2020 is dismissed.
16 December 2020
B The application for leave to appeal (Faloon v The Planning Tribunal at Wellington [2020] NZCA 361) is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
16 November 2020
____________________________________________
A The application of 27 November 2020, including the application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 16 November 2020 (Faloon v The Planning Tribunal at Wellington [2020] NZSC 124), is dismissed.
B The application to review the Registrar’s decision of 19 November 2020 is dismissed.
16 December 2020
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Georgina Rachelle v Air New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 78/2020
Summary
Civil 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.
C The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
20 November 2020
B The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
C The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
20 November 2020
Employment Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Attorney-General v Family First New Zealand
Case number
SC 79/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (Family First New Zealand v Attorney General [2020] NZCA 366).
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
18 December 2020
_______________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The declaration made by the Court of Appeal that the respondent qualifies for registration under the Charities Act 2005 is set aside.
C There is no order as to costs.
28 June 2022
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
18 December 2020
_______________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The declaration made by the Court of Appeal that the respondent qualifies for registration under the Charities Act 2005 is set aside.
C There is no order as to costs.
28 June 2022
Date of hearing
24 June 2021
- 25 June 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 24 June 2021 (PDF, 819 KB)
Case Synopses
- Hearing date 24 June 25 June 2021 (PDF, 428 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 80 (PDF, 320 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Robert John Herd and Rhumba Holdings Limited v Rodney David Haines Kathleen Anne Norman
Case number
SC 80/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay the respondents costs of $2,500.
21 December 2020
B The applicants must pay the respondents costs of $2,500.
21 December 2020
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Frucor Suntory New Zealand Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 81/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal (SC 81/2020) against the Court of Appeal’s decision is granted (Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Frucor Suntory New Zealand Limited [2020] NZCA 383).
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
C The application for leave to appeal (SC 92/2020) against the Court of Appeal’s decision is granted (Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Frucor Suntory New Zealand Limited [2020] NZCA 383).
D The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that shortfall penalties do not apply.
18 December 2020
________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed with the result that the appellant’s challenge to shortfall penalties is dismissed.
C The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $45,000 plus usual disbursements.
30 September 2022
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
C The application for leave to appeal (SC 92/2020) against the Court of Appeal’s decision is granted (Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Frucor Suntory New Zealand Limited [2020] NZCA 383).
D The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that shortfall penalties do not apply.
18 December 2020
________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed with the result that the appellant’s challenge to shortfall penalties is dismissed.
C The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $45,000 plus usual disbursements.
30 September 2022
Date of hearing
08 June 2021
- 10 June 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 - 10 June 2021 (PDF, 1 MB)
Case Synopses
- Case Synopsis Frucor Suntory (PDF, 410 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 113 (PDF, 195 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
M v Attorney General (in respect of the Ministry of Health), Waitemata District Health Board and Capital and Coast District Health Board
Case number
SC 82/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted in part (M (CA677/2017) v Attorney-General [2020] NZCA 311).
B The approved question is:
Was the applicant detained unlawfully after 20 December 2008 because the direction of the Attorney-General under s 31(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 that he be detained as a care recipient under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 was not issued until 14 January 2009, and, if so, for how long?
C In all other respects the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
16 December 2020
The application for reconsideration of the approved question on which leave was given in this Court’s judgment of 16 December 2020 (M (SC 82/2020) v Attorney-General [2020] NZSC 145) is dismissed.
23 March 2021
____________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B A declaration is made that the appellant was detained unlawfully from 21 December 2008 until 14 January 2009.
17 September 2021
B The approved question is:
Was the applicant detained unlawfully after 20 December 2008 because the direction of the Attorney-General under s 31(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 that he be detained as a care recipient under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003 was not issued until 14 January 2009, and, if so, for how long?
C In all other respects the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
16 December 2020
The application for reconsideration of the approved question on which leave was given in this Court’s judgment of 16 December 2020 (M (SC 82/2020) v Attorney-General [2020] NZSC 145) is dismissed.
23 March 2021
____________________________________________________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B A declaration is made that the appellant was detained unlawfully from 21 December 2008 until 14 January 2009.
17 September 2021
Date of hearing
27 April 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, O'Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 27 April 2021 (PDF, 372 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2021] NZSC 118 (PDF, 195 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Additional document
Substantive judgment
Case name
Michael John Denney v The Queen
Case number
SC 83/2020
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
The application for recall of this Court’s judgment of 9 June 2017 (Denney v R [2017] NZSC 85) is dismissed.
22 December 2020
22 December 2020
District Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Christopher Joseph O'Neill v Andrew Bridgman, Tania Ott and Carl Crafar
Case number
SC 84/2020
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 first, second and third respondents one set of costs of $2,500.
18 December 2020
B The applicant must pay the first, second and third respondents one set of costs of $2,500.
18 December 2020
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Xiang Su v The Queen
Case number
SC 85/2020
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is dismissed.
22 December 2020
22 December 2020
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
XIANG SU v R [2020] NZSC 156 [22 December 2020] (PDF, 49 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Case name
Margaret Ann Wootton v Phillip Garry Wootton
Case number
SC 86/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for a stay pending determination of the applicant’s application for leave to appeal to this Court against the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Wootton v Wootton [2020] NZCA 478) is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
29 October 2020
______________________________
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
11 December 2020
B There is no order as to costs.
29 October 2020
______________________________
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
11 December 2020
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Additional document
Appplication for stay pending determination (PDF, 45 KB)
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
WOOTTON v WOOTTON [2020] NZSC 142 [11 December 2020] (PDF, 45 KB)
Page 63 of 250