Subscribe to the RSS feed Print this page

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.

24 June 2024

Case information summary 2024 (as at 21 June 2024) –  Cases where leave granted (121 KB)
Case information summary 2024 (as at 21 June 2024)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 125 KB)

All years

Case name
Alesco New Zealand Limited and others v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 33/2013
Summary
Income Tax Acts 1994 and 2004 – Tax Administration Act 1994 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the applicant’s funding transactions were “tax avoidance arrangements” in terms of the Income Tax Acts 1994 and 2004 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the respondent’s tax reassessments of the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the respondent’s reassessments in respect of the applicant were not in excess of the respondent’s powers under the Income Tax Acts 1994 and 2004 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant took an unacceptable tax position in terms of s 141B of the Tax Administration Act 1994 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the applicant liable for penalties under s 141D of the Tax Administration Act 1994 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the respondent was entitled to costs.[2013] NZCA 40  CA 53/2012
Hearing
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.

14 February 2014.
Dates

A Leave to appeal is granted.

B The approved grounds of appeal are whether, in light of the principles laid down by this Court in Ben Nevis Forestry Ventures Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue  and other cases on tax avoidance:

(i) the structure used by the applicants for funding the transactions is a tax avoidance arrangement;

(ii) the Commissioner’s application of shortfall penalties was a proper exercise of the relevant statutory powers;

(iii) the Commissioner’ s reassessments were a proper exercise of the relevant statutory powers.
9 July 2013.
Case name
John Colman v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 34/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Breaches of fair trial rights – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, ss 24–26 – Whether High Court correctly dismissed appeal against District Court decision striking out civil claims – Whether High Court correctly decided some claims constituted a collateral attack on criminal proceedings or were an abuse of process – Whether High Court correctly decided that some claims had no reasonable prospect of success. [2012 NZHC 1343   Civ 2011 488 723 , 724, 726,727
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
17 May 2013.

Applications for recall are dismissed.
11 June 2013.

Further application for recall dismissed.
13 June 2013.
Case name
Barry John Hart and others v ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 35/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Powers of the Official Assignee – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to adjourn the appeal pending an appeal that was filed earlier in the High Court challenging the legal entitlement of the Official Assignee to liquidate the second, third and fourth applicants – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in accepting the Official Assignee’ s argument that it had the function and powers to determine whether the appeal would be prosecuted by the bankrupt applicant[2013] NZCA 94  CA 729/2012
Additional document
HART v ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LTD SC 35/2013 [1 May 2013] (PDF, 77 KB)
Dates

 
Case name
The New Zealand Pork Industry Board v The Director-General of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and another.
Case number
SC 36/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial Review – Biosecurity Act 1993, s 22A – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicant’ s challenge was rightly dismissed – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s 22A so that the decision of the Director-General under s 22A(3) did not involve determining issues in dispute between the party seeking the s 22A review and the Ministry – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s 22A so that none of the issues concerning the adequacy of the Ministry’s consideration of the scientific evidence subject to the Terms of Reference for the Independent Review Panel established under s 22A were an “issue in dispute” under s 22A(3) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Ministry had wrongly understood that a determination under s 22A(3) was in fact necessary, as an earlier decision by the previous Director-General to conduct further work following the Panel’s report was sufficient to meet the requirements of s 22A(3). [2013] NZCA 65  CA 282/2012
Result

The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved grounds of appeal are:
(a) whether the Court of Appeal’ s interpretation of ss 22 and 22A of the Biosecurity Act 1993 was correct;
(b)  whether the Director-General correctly applied the requirements of ss 22 and 22A following the report of the Independent Review Panel.

15 May 2013

____________________________

The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay costs of $25,000 to the first and second respondents collectively, plus reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

20 December 2013
Transcript

Hearing date : 26 June 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Case name
Brooks Homes Limited, My Refund Limited and Stephen Cavell Brooks v NZ Tax Refunds Limited
Case number
SC 37/2013
Summary
Interim injunction – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that, where an appellate court disagrees with a lower court’s finding that there is no serious issue to be tried, the appellate court is then entitled and required to carry out its own assessment of the balance of convenience and the overall justice of the case.[2013] NZCA 90  CA 715/2012
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
The applicants must pay the respondent costs of $2,500 plus
reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.

21 June 2013.
Case name
Ifeanyi Jude Akulue  v The Queen
Case number
SC 38/2013
Summary
Pretrial ruling.[2013] NZCA 84  CA 675/2012
Result

Leave to appeal is granted on the following ground:

Was the Court of Appeal correct in finding the proposed defence evidence to be inadmissible?

8 May 2013

____________________

Appeal dismissed.

19 September 2013
Transcript

Hearing date : 14 August 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Gault JJ.
Case name
Vikram Kumar and Nirupama Kumar, Robert James Selwyn, Michael Donaldson and Patricia Bronwyn Donaldson v Station Properties Limited (in receivership and liquidation)
Case number
SC 39/2013
Summary
Contract interpretation – Essentiality of terms – Whether respondents breached essential terms of the contract – Repudiation of contract – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that the respondents were entitled to cancel the contract with the applicants for repudiation and claim damages.  [2013] NZCA 90  CA 715/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted. The approved question is whether Station Properties Ltd was entitled to cancel the agreements for sale and purchase.
21 August 2013
_____________________
The appeal is allowed. The orders of Toogood J are reinstated.
The respondent must pay costs of $25,000 to the appellants collectively, together with reasonable disbursements.
The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is quashed.  Costs in that Court are to be fixed in light of this judgment.
15 October 2014   
_________________
A  The application for recall is dismissed.
B Costs of $10,000 plus usual disbursements are awarded to the appellants.
C The judgment of this Court of 15 October 2014 (Kumar v Station Properties [2014] NZSC 146) is reissued with the corrections and additions noted in the Appendix to this judgment.
1 April 2015
Substantive judgment
VIKRAM KUMAR AND NIRUPAMA KUMAR v STATION PROPERTIES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION AND IN RECEIVERSHIP) [2015] NZSC 34 [15 October 2014] (PDF, 421 KB)
Recall judgment
VIKRAM KUMAR AND NIRUPAMA KUMAR v STATION PROPERTIES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) [2015] NZSC 33 [1 April 2015] (PDF, 342 KB)
Transcripts

Hearing 12 November 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.

Hearing date recall : 8 December 2014
Case name
MGY v The Queen
Case number
SC 40/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the Court of Appeal, in its pre-trial decision, had incorrectly widened the scope of ss 132, 134 and 2(1B) of the Crimes Act to include the conduct alleged against the applicant.CRI 2011 044 3042
Result
Appeal dismissed.
3 April 2014
Dates

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved ground is: 

Were the admitted facts in the summary of facts capable
in law of constituting offences against ss 132(3) and 134(3)
of the Crimes Act 1961?

2 July 2013.
Hearing
5 December 2013
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Blanchard JJ.
Case name
Bradley Matenga Kahui  v The Queen
Case number
SC 41/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Appeal against sentence – Parole Act 2002 – Whether the sentencing Judge erred in convicting and discharging the applicant instead of imposing a short sentence of imprisonment which would have ordinarily entitled him to credit for time served on remand.[2013] NZCA 124 CA 190/2013
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is: was the sentence imposed in accordance with the Sentencing Act 2002?

14 May 2013.
Hearing
Notice of abandonment being filed, the p\appeal is deemed to be dismissed
16 May 2013.
Case name
Samson Duffy  v The Queen
Case number
SC 42/2013
Summary
Fair trial – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding a pre-trial decision of the District Court Judge to join the charges relating to the two complainants  – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the jury verdicts in respect of the first complainant were reasonable on the basis of the evidence admitted.[2013] NZCA 117  CA 516/2013
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
21 June 2013.
Page 147 of 244