Legal information, not legal advice. Every jurisdiction page carries its verification status and sources.

🇳🇿 New Zealand · supreme court

Supreme Court of New Zealand

Supreme Court of New Zealand / Te Kōti Mana Nui o Aotearoa

Reviewed· 2026-08-03Wellington

Created by the Supreme Court Act 2003 and sitting from 1 July 2004, it ended appeals from New Zealand to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It cannot invalidate an Act of Parliament — section 4 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 forecloses that — but it has developed a declaratory jurisdiction, recognising in Attorney-General v Taylor that the senior courts may declare legislation inconsistent with protected rights. In Ellis v R (2022) it confirmed that tikanga Māori forms part of the common law of New Zealand.

How the court is constituted

Tier
supreme
Court type
Court of final appeal
Jurisdiction
Final appeals in all civil and criminal matters, by leave only, where the appeal involves a matter of general or public importance, a substantial miscarriage of justice, or a matter of general commercial significance.
Seat
Wellington
Established
2004
Composition
The Chief Justice and not fewer than four other judges; normally sits as a bench of five.
Appointment
Appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Attorney-General, following consultation under the Senior Courts Act 2016.
Caseload
Grants leave in a small proportion of applications each year; the leave filter is the main workload.
Languages
English, Māori

Where an appeal goes next

None. This is the final court.

Filing at this court

Application for leave to appeal
Within 20 working days of the decision appealed from
Leave requirement
Leave is required in every case; there is no appeal as of right

Decisions worth knowing

  • Ellis v R2022

    Tikanga Māori is part of the common law of New Zealand and may be relevant to the exercise of judicial discretion, including whether a criminal appeal continues after the appellant's death.

  • Attorney-General v Taylor2018

    The senior courts have jurisdiction to make a formal declaration that an enactment is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act, without affecting the enactment's validity.

Found something out of date on Supreme Court of New Zealand?

Corrections are reviewed against the primary source before anything changes.

Report a correction