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.
2 April 2026
Case information summary 2025 (as at 2 April 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary 2025 (as at 2 April 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 122 KB)
All years
Case name
Accent Management Limited, Lexington Resources Limited, and Redcliffe Forestry Ventures Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 44/2007
Summary
Civil – income tax appeals – designated as test cases by Commissioner – all appellants investors in “Trinity” forestry scheme – whether Court of Appeal erred in upholding Commissioner’s assessments – correct approach to application of Peterson v CIR [2006] 3 NZLR 433 – whether appellants’ investment in scheme a tax avoidance arrangement within meaning of ss BB 9 and BG 1 of the Income Tax Act 1994 – whether insurance premiums required to be spread under accruals rules – whether Commissioner’s power to reconstruct arrangements to eliminate improper tax advantage exercised correctly – whether appellants took an abusive tax position – whether application of penalties to the appellants wrong in law and excessive.CA 21/05 11 June 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
9 October 2007
_____________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to the respondent.
19 December 2008
9 October 2007
_____________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to the respondent.
19 December 2008
Media Releases
- MR [2008] NZSC 115 (PDF, 89 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Recall judgment
Supreme court decision
Substantive judgment
Substantive judgment /Media release
Transcript
Hearing date : 8 February 2008
Hearing date : 8 – 10 July 2008
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath , Anderson JJ
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Tumu Te Heuheu v Attorney – General and others
Case number
SC 49/2007
Summary
Civil – Treaty of Waitangi – Crown Forest Assets Act 1989 – Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa Settlement Deed, Part 12 – Settlement Deed aimed to settle historical breaches of Treaty in respect of 11 iwi or hapu affiliated with Te Arawa – Settlement Deed would be made unconditional by proposed legislation – Applicants sought declaration that Settlement Deed was in breach of Crown Forest Assets Act 1989, the agreements predating that Act, and the Crown’s fiduciary duties under the Treaty – High Court and Court of Appeal dismissed the claims. Whether the issues are justiciable – whether the agreement predating the 1989 Act (“the July 1989 Agreement” ) was a political compact and therefore unenforceable – whether Crown conduct is or was inconsistent with the July 1989 Agreement – the nature of the Crown’s fiduciary duty to Mäori under the Treaty and the July 1989 Agreement. CA 241/07; CA 247/07 2 July 2007
Leave judgment - leave granted
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
8 November 2007
______________________
Appeal withdrawn. No orders as to costs.
4 November 2008
Judgment appealed from
Case name
NZ Maori Council and The Federation of Maori Authorities Inc v Attorney-General and others
Case number
SC 50/2007
Summary
Civil – Treaty of Waitangi – Crown Forest Assets Act 1989 – Te Pumautanga o Te Arawa Settlement Deed, Part 12 – Settlement Deed aimed to settle historical breaches of Treaty in respect of 11 iwi or hapu affiliated with Te Arawa – Settlement Deed would be made unconditional by proposed legislation – Applicants sought declaration that Settlement Deed was in breach of Crown Forest Assets Act 1989, the agreements predating that Act, and the Crown’s fiduciary duties under the Treaty – High Court and Court of Appeal dismissed the claims. Whether the issues are justiciable – whether the agreement predating the 1989 Act (“the July 1989 Agreement” ) was a political compact and therefore unenforceable – whether Crown conduct is or was inconsistent with the July 1989 Agreement – the nature of the Crown’s fiduciary duty to Mäori under the Treaty and the July 1989 Agreement. CA 241/07; CA 247/07 2 July 2007
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Grant to intervene
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
8 November 2007
__________________
Appeal withdrawn. No orders as to costs.
4 November 2008
Case name
Alex Kwong Wong v The Queen
Case number
SC 53/2007
Summary
Summary Criminal – appeal against convictions – serious drug offending – whether trial should have proceeded with ten jurors – consistency of guilty verdicts with acquittal of the accused on other counts and acquittal of co-accused – whether Court of Appeal correctly applied R v H [2000] 2 NZLR 581 – whether verdict in relation to one (money laundering) count is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence – applicant seeking leave to raise various other new grounds as evidencing a substantial miscarriage of justice at trial.CA 329/06 6 July 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
24 September 2007
________________________
Appeal allowed, convictions set aside. New trial ordered.
18 April 2008
24 September 2007
________________________
Appeal allowed, convictions set aside. New trial ordered.
18 April 2008
Substantive judgment
ALEX KWONG WONG v R SC 53/2007 [18 April 2008] (PDF, 26 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Application for rehearing or addition of new ground of appeal
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Case name
Mark Raymond Creedy v Commissioner of Police
Case number
SC 57/2007
Summary
Summary Civil appeal – employment law – police officer dismissed after a tribunal established under s 12 of the Police Act 1958 found him guilty of a number of misconduct charges – personal grievance proceedings commenced in Employment Relations Authority – whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that unjustifiable dismissal claim was out of time – whether there are “exceptional circumstances” for the purposes of ss 114(4) and 115 of Employment Relations Act 2000 – application of Wilkins & Field Ltd v Fortune [1998] 2 ERNZ 70 – whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that the actions of the s 12 tribunal could not be attributed to the Commissioner of Police and thus are not open to review in personal grievance proceedings.CA 234/06 24 July 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
19 October 2007
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order for costs.
23 April 2008
19 October 2007
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order for costs.
23 April 2008
Transcripts
- Hearing date 10 March 2008 (PDF, 311 KB)
Media Releases
- mediarelease sc572007 000 (PDF, 78 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Court of Appeal decision
Supreme court decision
Case name
Glenharrow Holdings Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 59/2007
Summary
Civil appeal – avoidance of GST under section 76 of Goods and Services Tax Act 1985 – whether the High Court erred in its findings of fact relating to the value of the mining license purchased by the applicant - whether the High Court erred when it concluded that the purchase price for the mining license was grossly inflated – whether the evidence was such that only one conclusion was reasonably open to the Court – whether a substantial miscarriage of justice occurred as a result of incorrect findings of fact – whether, given the High Court finding that the transaction was a genuine arms length agreement, there was a basis for a finding under section 76 that the transaction defeated the scheme and purposes of the Act– whether an open market value should be used when determining GST obligations where a transaction is genuine and at arms length – whether the Court of Appeal erred by conflating the value of a loan used to purchase an asset with the consideration paid – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to determining the total consideration – whether it was open to the Court of Appeal to make a finding that the loan repayments amounted to an ‘ empty obligation’ – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its application of Peterson v CIR [2006] 3 NZLR 433CA 192/05 15 August 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. 4 October 2007
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment / Media release
Judgment appealed from
Transcript
Hearing date : 8 – 10 July 2008
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath , Anderson JJ
Case name
Campbell Robert Thom v Davys Burton
Case number
SC 62/2007
Summary
Civil appeal – negligence action against firm of solicitors – prenuptial agreement invalidly executed – as a result, property which was separate property under the prenuptial agreement was included in the matrimonial property division – whether the claim is barred by s 4(1) Limitation Act 1950 – whether the doctrine of reasonable discoverability applies, so that the damage was first suffered when the Family Court declined to give effect to the prenuptial agreement.CA 3/06 30 May 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. _________________ Appeal dismissed.
Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
18 August 2008
Costs to respondent $15,000 and reasonable disbursements.
18 August 2008
Leave judgment - leave granted
THOM v DAVYS BURTON SC 62/2007 [13 December 2007] (PDF, 18 KB)
Substantive judgment / Media release
Transcription
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Gisborne District Council v Port Gisborne Limited (now known as Tauwhareparae Farms Ltd) and Ors
Case number
SC 63/2007
Summary
Civil – strike-out – whether lower Courts erred in refusing to strike out cause of action in negligence – respondent company seeking contribution from applicant Council in proceedings against them arising from the Jody F Millennium grounding – whether Court of Appeal conflated negligence and statutory duty causes of action – whether there can be a duty of care to protect someone from loss arising from his or her legal liability for negligence – whether respondent entitled in these circumstances to claim that applicant owed parallel duties of care to other parties including the ship – whether Court of Appeal erred in awarding full costs against the applicant. CA 118/06 10 August 2007
Result
Notice of abandonment being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.
19 January 2008
Case name
Saxmere Company Limited, The Escorial Company Limited, Richard King, Russell Stewart Emmerson and Forest Ramge Limited v Wool Board Disestablishment Company Limited
Case number
SC 64/2007
Summary
Civil – applicants challenged the Wool Board’s decisions allocating funding for wool marketing, seeking judicial review and restitution of levies paid and alleging breach of statutory duty (s 6(6) Wool Act 1997) and negligence – High Court Judge found the Board liable in damages for breach of statutory duty and negligence, in relation to one of their four decisions – Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the respondent and dismissed a cross-appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in its analysis of the Board’ s decisions under s 6(6) of the Act – whether the Court of Appeal took proper account of the context and purpose of the Wool Act – whether the Court of Appeal failed to address the existence of a duty of care independent of s 6(6) – whether the Court of Appeal erred by making material factual findings which differed from the trial Judge and which were contrary to the evidence heard by the trial Judge – whether the High Court Judge erred in limiting his damages to only one of the four decisions, and in denying restitution of levies.CA 222/05 [2007] NZCA 349 15 August 2007 CIV 485 – 2003 – 2724 6 December 2005
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
12 November 2007
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
3 July 2009
__________________________
The judgment of this Court delivered on 3 July 2009 ([2009] NZSC 72) is recalled and the orders made in that judgment are set aside. The appeal is allowed and the proceeding remitted for rehearing in the Court of Appeal. Costs are reserved. Counsel should make written submissions directed to how costs should be borne for the previous hearing in the Court of Appeal and the two hearings in this Court.
27 November 2009
12 November 2007
_________________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs to respondent $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements.
3 July 2009
__________________________
The judgment of this Court delivered on 3 July 2009 ([2009] NZSC 72) is recalled and the orders made in that judgment are set aside. The appeal is allowed and the proceeding remitted for rehearing in the Court of Appeal. Costs are reserved. Counsel should make written submissions directed to how costs should be borne for the previous hearing in the Court of Appeal and the two hearings in this Court.
27 November 2009
Media Releases
- saxmere v wool board press release 3 july 2009 (PDF, 89 KB)
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Substantive judgment / Media release
Special leave judgment
Case name
Westpac Banking Corporation v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue and others
Case number
SC 66/2007
Summary
Civil appeal – disclosure of documents in tax avoidance litigation – Commissioner of Inland Revenue is challenging on grounds of sham and illegitimate tax avoidance several structured financing arrangements entered into by a number of banks – litigation is to proceed against each bank separately – whether, in litigation against each bank, the Commissioner can rely on documents associated with similar transactions entered into by other banks – whether such reliance is prevented by either s 81 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 or the application of public interest immunity. CA 280/06 [2007] NZCA 356 CA 280/0621 August 2007
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
18 October 2007 ________________________ The appeals are dismissed with costs to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar, and to be borne as to 40% each by Westpac and ANZ National and as to 20% by ASB Bank.
18 October 2007 ________________________ The appeals are dismissed with costs to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar, and to be borne as to 40% each by Westpac and ANZ National and as to 20% by ASB Bank.
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment / Media release
Transcript
Judgment appealed from
Page 69 of 78