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
S v Airline Limited
Case number
SC 59/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Employment – Application for interim name suppression - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to find errors of law in the Employment Court judgment - Whether the Employment Court erred in declining to grant an interim order for non‑publication of the Applicant’ s name and identifying detailsARC 7/2010    9 March  2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
C V AIR NELSON LIMITED SC 59/2010 [30 August 2010] (PDF, 70 KB)
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The interim order for suppression of the applicant’s name made by the Court of Appeal on 23 June 2010 is to continue in force until 5pm on 7 September 2010. 

30 August 2010.
Case name
A person or persons unknown and Ngai-Tupango-Hapu Inc v Tea Custodians (Bluestone) Ltd
Case number
SC 60/2010
Summary
Civil appeal – order in the High Court for vacant possession of a property against a person or persons unknown who were in unlawful occupation of it – Court of Appeal declined application for stay of the High Court judgment – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its refusal to grant an application for stay.[2010] NZCA 211   CA 280/2010   26 May 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
A PERSON OR PERSONS UNKNOWN And Anor v TEA CUSTODIANS (BLUESTONE) LIMITED SC 60/2010 [25 August 2010] (PDF, 39 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Costs of $2,500 to be paid by the second applicant to the respondent.

25 August 2010.
Case name
Dylan Robert Tuhura v The Queen
Case number
SC 61/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of the proviso to s 385(1) of the Crimes Act 1961; whether the Court of Appeal’ s decision amounts to a miscarriage of justice.[2010] NZCA 246   CA 493/2010    10 June 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TUHURA V R SC 61/2010 [2 November 2010] (PDF, 49 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal  refused.

2 November 2010.
Case name
Ian David Penny and Gary John Hooper v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 62/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Income Tax Act 1994 – Applicant orthopaedic surgeons employed by family companies owned by family trusts – Applicants found by Court of Appeal to have breached general anti-avoidance provision s BG 1 of Income Tax Act as level of remuneration paid by family companies to surgeons not a “commercially realistic salary” in view of family companies’ after-tax profit and therefore artificial/contrived – Whether arrangement had purpose or effect of tax avoidance to benefit from “rate advantage” between personal income tax and company tax rates – Whether “commercially realistic salary” an appropriate concept to apply under the Income Tax Act to a family company – Whether Applicants in fact exercised control over family companies and family trusts as governing director and co-trustee – Whether Court of Appeal correct to consider use of trust capital as advances as evidence of tax avoidance arrangement – Whether Court of Appeal correct to make cost orders different from cost arrangements agreed to by parties.[2010] NZCA 231   CA 201/2009   4 June 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that the appellants had failed to establish that their use of their corporate and family trust structures did not constitute taxable arrangements for the purposes of s BG1 of the Income Tax Act 1994.
2 August 2010
______________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellants must pay the respondent’ s costs in the sum of $25,000 together with his reasonable disbursements in connection with the appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
24 August 2011
Leave judgment - leave granted
PENNY AND HOOPER V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 62/2010 2 August 2010 (PDF, 7 KB)
Judgment appealed from

 
Substantive judgment / Media release

 
Transcript

Hearing date : 27, 28,29 June 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Young JJ.
Case name
Tannadyce Investments Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 63/2010
Summary
Civil – Statutory demand for tax arrears – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that conscious maladministration cannot justify judicial review unless it negated the assessment made by the CIR – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that Tannadyce had the opportunity to invoke the statutory challenge procedure – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to find that the CIR and its officers acted unacceptably in refusing Tannadyce access to documents relating to it.[2010] NZCA 233    CA 703/2008, CA 330/2009   4  June 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal erred in striking out as an abuse of process the remaining ground of the appellant’s judicial review proceeding in which it alleges conscious maladministration by the respondent in denying that it had possession of documents which the appellant alleges it needed in order to be able to file tax returns. 27 August 2010
________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $15,000 plus disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
20 December 2011
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
TANNADYCE INVESTMENTS LIMITED V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 63/2010 27 August 2010 (PDF, 33 KB)
Substantive judgment
TANNADYCE INVESTMENTS LIMITED v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 63/2010 [20 December 2011] (PDF, 282 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 25 August 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Judgment appealed from
Substantive judgment / Media release
Case name
Justin Leigh Harney v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 64/2010
Summary
[2010] NZCA 264   CA 194/2010  1 July  2010
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. The approved grounds are: (i)      Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there was a “good reason” for not following a formal identification procedure pursuant to s 45(1) of the Evidence Act 2006? (ii)           If not, was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the circumstances in which the identification was made produced a reliable identification beyond reasonable doubt pursuant to s 45(2) of the Evidence Act? 13 August 2010 __________________ Appeal allowed. Convictions set aside. No order for a new trial.
16 September 2011
Leave judgment - leave granted
HARNEY V NEW ZEALAND POLICE SC 64/2010 13 August 2010 (PDF, 33 KB)
Substantive judgment / Media release

 
Transcript

Hearing date : 17 August 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Judgment appealed from

 
Case name
D A Constable Syndicate 386 v Auckland District Law Society
Case number
SC 65/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – contractual interpretation – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of an indemnity clause in the Auckland District Law Society’s standard professional indemnity policy, namely whether the word “negligent” should be read as qualifying only the word “act” in the phrase “negligent act, error or omission” .[2010] NZCA 237   CA 565/2008   8 June  2010
Result
Notice of Abandonment being filed, the appeal is deemed to  be dismissed.
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is granted. 

The approved ground of appeal is whether the word “negligent” qualifies the words “error or omission” in the indemnity clause.

8 September 2010.
Case name
Robert Erwood v Janet Maxted and others
Case number
SC 66/2010
Result
The appeal is allowed.
The appeal to the Court of Appeal is reinstated. The proceeding is remitted to the Court of Appeal for hearing.
The costs order in the Court of Appeal is set aside.
18 March 2011
____________________________
The application by the first respondents for recall is dismissed.
15 July 2011
____________________________
Application by the appellant for recall is dismissed.
25 November 2015
Recall judgment
ROBERT ERWOOD v JANET MAXTED AND JANET MAXTED AND ALEXANDER JAMES JEREMY GLASGOW AS TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD ERWOOD [2015] NZSC 181 [25 November 2015] (PDF, 95 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
ERWOOD v MAXTED AND MAXTED GLASGOW AS TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD ERWOOD SC 66/2010 [30 November 2010] (PDF, 33 KB)
Substantive judgment
ROBERT ERWOOD v JANET MAXTED AND ALEXANDER JAMES JEREMY GLASGOW AS TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD ERWOOD SC 66/2010 [18 March 2011] (PDF, 61 KB)
Recall judgment
ERWOOD v MAXTED AND GLASGOW AS TRUSTEES OF THE ESTATE OF EDWARD ERWOOD SC 66/2010 [15 July 2011] (PDF, 40 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 18 March 2011

Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 67/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Habeas Corpus – Contempt of Court – Whether Court of Appeal properly applied Habeas Corpus Act 2001 to contempt order of Supreme Court in Siemer v Solicitor-General [2010] NZSC 54 – Whether Applicant given proper notice of details of breach of injunction – Whether Supreme Court contempt order founded on a proper evidential basis – Whether there now remains a lawful basis for Applicant to be detained – Whether Applicant was properly served with original injunction[2010] NZCA 292  CA 424/2010  7 July 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Siemer v The Chief Executive Of the Department Of Corrections SC 67/2010 [16 July 2010] (PDF, 9 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.        

16 July 2010.
Case name
Tower Insurance Limited v ANZ National Bank Limited and ING (NZ) Limited
Case number
SC 68/2010
Summary
Civil – Disclosure of Information – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that Tower is obliged to deliver information on its insurance policies and client details to the respondents under its terminated agreements with the banks – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that Tower is not prevented by the Privacy Act 1993 and the law of confidentiality from delivering that information – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondents were entitled to pass that information on to Vero Insurance New Zealand Ltd.[2010] NZCA 267  CA 194/2009  25 June  2010
Dates

Notice of abandonment being lodged, the appeal and cross appeal are  deemed to be dismissed. By consent, no order as to costs.

20 September 2010
Page 185 of 244