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
Alan Parekura Torohinga Haronga v Waitangi Tribunal and others
Case number
SC 54/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial Review – Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 – Whether Appellant should be granted urgent Waitangi Tribunal remedies hearing in respect of application for resumption of Crown forest land subject to current settlement negotiations – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that Crown Forests Assets Act 1989 did not substantively alter Waitangi Tribunal’s role in relation to making of binding recommendations in respect of Crown forest land – Whether Court of Appeal failed to take into account that circumstances meant Tribunal did not exercise its discretion and Appellant could never have gained remedies hearing – Whether Court of Appeal failed to take into account right of smaller claimants to seek a remedy under s 8HB of Treaty of Waitangi Act.[2010] NZCA 201 CA 73/2010 19 May 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether in making his decision of 21 October 2009 in Wai 1489 to decline an urgent remedies hearing, the presiding Judge in the Waitangi Tribunal erred in law.
10 August 2010
___________________________
A The appeal is allowed and the determination of Judge Clark is quashed. B The matter is remitted to the Waitangi Tribunal with the direction that it must proceed urgently to hear the claim. C The second respondent must pay the appellant costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. Costs in the Court of Appeal and High Court are to be fixed by those Courts
10 August 2010
___________________________
A The appeal is allowed and the determination of Judge Clark is quashed. B The matter is remitted to the Waitangi Tribunal with the direction that it must proceed urgently to hear the claim. C The second respondent must pay the appellant costs of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. Costs in the Court of Appeal and High Court are to be fixed by those Courts
Transcripts
- Hearing date 11 and 12 October 2010 (PDF, 1.1 MB)
- Hearing date 6 August 2010 (PDF, 306 KB)
Media Releases
- Media release dated 19 May 2011 (PDF, 67 KB)
Substantive judgment
Case name
Avowal Administrative Attorneys Limted and Nikytas Nicholas Petroulias v The District Court at North Shore and The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 55/2010
Summary
Civil – Judicial review - Powers of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to obtain information under the Tax Administration Act 1994 – That the Court of Appeal erred in failing to require that inspection of documents be necessary and relevant before the CIR may access them – That the Court of Appeal erred in finding no scope to interpret “book or document” in s16 of the TAA narrowly – That the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the CIR had an obligation to disclose the information obtained to the Australian Tax Office.[2010] NZCA 183 CA 73/2009 11 May 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Applicants must pay 2nd respondents cost of $3,000 plus disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
16 August 2010.
Case name
Nathan Stanley Gedye v Colin Robert South, Diane Lee South and Richard James Bureel as Trustees of the South Family Trust
Case number
SC 56/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Building Act 1991 – Alleged breach of vendor warranty for compliance with the Act – interpretation of limitation defence in s 91(2) of the Act – the Court of Appeal held the “act or omission on which the proceedings are based” to be the giving of the contractual warranty rather than the building work itself – the 10 year limitation period in s 91(2) therefore did not bar the respondent’s claim – whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding s 91(2) inapplicable[2010] NZCA 207 CA 567/2009 20 May 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
5 October 2010.
Case name
KLB v The Queen
Case number
SC 57/2010
Summary
Whether the Court of Appeal erred in ruling that a statement made by the Applicant to the police was admissible as evidence; whether the statement was extracted by oppression in breach of s 29 of the Evidence Act 2006. [2010] NZCA 222 CA 144/2010 31 May 2010
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
13 July 2010.
Case name
P v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 58/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Duty of Care – Accident Compensation Act 2001 – Appellant alleges mental injury/PTSD as a result of sexual assault and threats/intimidation during employment with Royal New Zealand Navy – Whether ACC bar applies to mental injury suffered as a result of threats and intimidation – Whether damage materially contributed to Appellant’ s mental injury –Whether non-delegable duty of care or fiduciary duty owed to the Appellant – Whether case merits award of exemplary or vindicatory damages – Whether case should be heard without prior appeal to the Court of Appeal in order for Supreme Court to hear case at the same time as another proposed appeal from W & W v Attorney-General [2010] NZCA 139.Civ 2006 485 874 16 June 2010
Dates
Notice of Abandonment being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.
30 June 2010.
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
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
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
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
________________________
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
- MR [2011] NZSC 158 (PDF, 84 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Hearing date : 25 August 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Page 190 of 250