Leave to appeal dismissed
Supreme Court cases where leave to appeal a judgment of a lower court was dismissed or deemed to be dismissed where a notice of abandonment was received.
Updated 28 November 2025
2014
Case name
Peter Gerard Stockman v New Zealand Association of Counsellors Incorporated
Case number
SC 1/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 35(6)(c) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs because the purpose of the appeal was to challenge a rule that unjustly discriminates against the poor and underprivileged and because the “pro forma” respondent need not appear on the appeal and incur any costs for which security is required[2013] NZCA 647 CA 665/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Cost to the respondents $2,500.00
6 May 2014
_________________
Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
14 May 2014
_____________________
2nd application for recall of judgment declined.
17 June 2014
Cost to the respondents $2,500.00
6 May 2014
_________________
Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
14 May 2014
_____________________
2nd application for recall of judgment declined.
17 June 2014
Recall judgment
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Graham Edward McCready v ABC and another
Case number
SC 3/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to dispense with security for costs.[2013] NZCA 646 CA 698/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 together with disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar. 9 June 2014
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 together with disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar. 9 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
KWK v The Queen
Case number
SC 4/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Admissibility of evidence – Improperly obtained evidence – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the availability of other investigatory techniques under s 30(3)(e) of the Evidence Act was a factor favouring admissibility of improperly obtained evidence – Whether s 30(3)(e) requires the person(s) exercising the unlawful search to have knowledge of the other investigatory techniques not involving any breach of rights.[2013] NZCA 616 CA 456/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
6 March 2014
6 March 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
[2013] NZCA 616 not available online
Case name
Glover No 2 Limited v The Glover Trust Limited, Bailey Trustee Services Limited and Auckland West Legal Services Limited, and CIT Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 6/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the partie’s intention to create the bare trust was unmistakeable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trust structure was used to achieve the best result for the beneficiaries of the Glover No 2 Trust – Whether the Court of Appeal erred when it held that the deed of bare trust was not severable from the other bundle of documents executed on the same day due to its status as a “rogue” document – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to consider the argument that it was against public policy to enforce this document.[2013] NZCA 608 CA 194/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Cost to the respondents $2,500.00
7 May 2014
7 May 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Paul Anthony Thompson v The Queen
Case number
SC 7/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a general challenge to the credibility of a witness is sufficient to satisfy a trial counsel’s duty to run a defendant’s alibi defence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial counsel’ s questions did not involve an implicit acceptance of facts.[2013] NZCA 640 CA 110/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
4 April 2014
4 April 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Vinelight Nominees Limited and Weyand Investments Limited v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 10/2014
Summary
Civil appeal - tax avoidance - Tax Administration Act 1994. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding there was an arrangement with a more than incidental purpose or effect of tax avoidance - whether a tax avoidance purpose can be inferred from aspects of a transaction other than those which produce the impugned tax result - whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that resort to sGB1 reconstruction power was unnecessary - whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the time bar in s 108 did not apply to particular approved issuer levy payments.[2013] NZCA 655 CA 35/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
17 June 2014
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
17 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
GFM v JAM
Case number
SC 11/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to approach the appeal as an appeal against the exercise of a discretion in accordance with the test established in May v May – Whether the Court of Appeal mis-stated the primary question and should have asked whether the respondent has shown that the Family Court Judge acted on the wrong principle, failed to take into account some relevant matter or was plainly wrong and whether the High Court Judge had approached the appeal on that basis or had erred in his approach – Whether the Court of Appeal erroneously interfered with finding of the Family Court Judge and failed to defer to the Family Court Judge’s expertise – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to recognise a number of discretions exercised by the Family Court Judge and erred in describing the discretion under s 2G(2) as a fettered discretion – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by putting the focus on equal sharing of relationship property (and at date of hearing values as determined by the Court) rather than on a just division – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to take into account the interests of the children – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in placing the burden of proof on the wife to establish certain key facts – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to s 18C of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in effectively directing sale of the former family home rather than valuing the home at the date of hearing – Whether the Court of Appeal’s approach is unjust to the wife by adopting date of hearing values.[2013] NZCA 660 CA 566/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Cost of $2,500 to the respondent.
2 April 2014
Cost of $2,500 to the respondent.
2 April 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GFM v JAM [2014] NZSC 32 2 April 2014 (PDF, 49 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
CFC v The Queen
Case number
SC 12/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the evidence from a search of the appellants’ property is admissible pursuant to s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006.[2013] NZCA 653 CA 534/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 2 April 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
P C v The Queen
Case number
SC 13/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the evidence from a search of the appellants’ property is admissible pursuant to s 30 of the Evidence Act 2006.[2013] NZCA 653 CA 534/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 2 April 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Sovereign Assurance Company Limited, ASB Bank Limited, Sovereign Services Limited, CBA Asset Finance (NZ) Limited, CBA Funding (NZ) Limited, CBA Dairy Leasing Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 14/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Income Tax Acts 1994 and 2004 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Commissioner’s reassessments of the applicants’ income – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the accrual rules in subpt EH of the Income Tax Act 1994 were of exclusive application in determining the tax treatment of the commission arrangements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the commissions when received and the commission repayments when paid were not assessable income and deductible expenditure respectively – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Commissioner was entitled to an award of costs.[2013] NZCA 652 CA 506/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
10 June 2014
10 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 1 of 12