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.

31 July 2026

Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 87 KB)
Case information summary (as at 31 July 2026)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 131 KB) 

All years

Case name
John Morgan Mackenzie v Legal Services Commissioner
Case number
SC 142/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Legal Aid application – Whether Court of Appeal correctly dismissed the application for special leave to appeal to it from the High Court – Whether application satisfies s 14 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 to justify a direct appeal from the High Court. [2012] NZHC 3089  CIV 2012 485 1299
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
JOHN MORGAN MACKENZIE v LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER [2014] NZSC 23 [20 March 2014] (PDF, 46 KB)
Recall judgment
JOHN MORGAN MACKENZIE v LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER [2014] NZSC 49 [2 May 2014] (PDF, 13 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
20 March 2013.
Case name
Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Redcliffe Forestry Venture Limited and others
Case number
SC 8/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Jurisdiction – High Court Rules, r 5.49 – The respondents sought to set aside a High Court judgment, holding that a forestry investment structure was created for the dominant purpose of tax avoidance and that was upheld by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, on the basis that the Commissioner presented a false case to the Court by failing to disclose that another provision of the Income Tax Act 1994 was applicable – This was raised on appeal before the Supreme Court which refused to hear the argument – Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this proceeding – In the alternative, whether the proceeding should be struck out as an abuse of process.[2011] NZCA  638  CA 152/2010, CA 204/2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved questions are:

(i) whether the Commissioner’s challenge to the claim was appropriately brought under r 5.49; and
(ii) whether the judgment of the High Court should in any event have been upheld.

29 February 2012

_____________________________
Transcript

Hearing date : 19 June 2012

Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Gault JJ.
Case name
Michael Peter Stiassny, Grant Robert Graham, Forestry Corporation of New Zealand Limited (in receivership), Citic New Zealand Limited (in receivership), CNI Forest Nominees Limited and Bank of New Zealand v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 21/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Goods and services tax – Restitution – Recovery of a GST payment paid by the first appellants to the respondent in the mistaken belief that they were personally liable for the debt – Whether secured creditors own the proceedings of sale of assets that are subject to registered fixed charges at the time of sale, if they are sold for less than the secured debts to which the charges relate – Whether the first appellants were entitled to apply the proceeds of sale of the Central North Island Forestry Partnership (CNIFP) assets to the payment of GST amount, in priority to the claims of the secured creditors – Whether the GST payment was “ debtor-initiated” in terms of s 95 of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 (PPSA) – Whether s 95 of the PPSA barred the recovery of the GST payment if it was made under a mistake – Whether the second and third appellants have a cause of action in restitution for the recovery of their mistaken payment – Whether the first appellants have a cause of action in restitution for the recovery of their mistaken payment – Whether the security trustees have a cause of action in restitution for the recovery of the mistaken payment made by the first appellants to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue –  Whether “good faith” is a pre-requisite for a defence of the provision of good consideration to the payer to a claim for the recovery of a payment made under a mistake – Whether the first appellants are entitled to recover GST payment pursuant to their tax challenge cause of action pursuant to the Tax Administration Act 1994.SC 775/2010   [2012] NZCA 93
Result

A  Leave to appeal is granted.

B  The approved grounds are:

(i)  whether the GST payment was a “ debtor-initiated payment” in terms of s 95 of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 so as to confer priority to the Commissioner over any claim to those moneys by any respondent;

(ii)  whether any of the appellants can recover the amount of GST so paid from the Commissioner on the basis that it was paid by the receivers under a mistaken belief that they were personally liable to pay it or on any other basis.

8 May 2012

_____________________________

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellants are to pay the respondent’ s costs in this Court in the sum of $40,000 together with reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

28 November 2012
Transcript

Hearing dates : 27 and 28 September 2012

McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Gault, Blanchard JJ.
Case name
Richard Grant Simpson & Timothy Wilson Downes as receivers of Capital + Merchant Investments Limited (In Receivership) v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 30/2012
Summary
CA 361/2011  [2012] NZCA 126
Dates

We grant leave to appeal.

The approved question is:

Were the applicants required to pay the GST on the sales to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue?

25 July 2012
Hearing
Notice of abandonment being filed, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
23 October 2012.
Case name
John George Russell v Commissioner of Inland  Revenue
Case number
SC 33/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Tax avoidance – Whether the applicant received a fair and impartial hearing – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its analysis of the evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the overall arrangement established and operated by the applicant had the purpose or effect of tax avoidance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant was a person affected by the arrangement and that he obtained a tax advantage – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the assessment made by the Commissioner would not be void even if it included income deemed by virtue of s 99(4) of the Income Tax Act 1976 to be the income of someone else.CA  654/2010  [2012] NZCA128
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay costs of $5,000 to the respondent Commissioner plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
13 August 2012.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner and others
Case number
SC 60/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for Costs – Whether Court of Appeal was correct to uphold decision of Acting-Registrar to decline application to dispense with security for costs.CA  422/2012
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.  Costs $2,500 to the respondent.

1 November  2012.
Case name
Jane Chapman Siemer v Kate Fardell as executrix of the estate of John  Robert Fortesque Fardell
Case number
SC 7/2011
Summary
Civil – Pre-trial security for costs – Appeal against a Court of Appeal decision refusing to dispense with security for costs in an appeal before that Court – Whether the procedure adopted by the Court lacked procedural fairness – Whether the Court properly exercised discretion – Whether the Court’s ruling wrong on the merits – Section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether right to justice at trial court level violated.   [2010] NZCA 586  CA 450/2010   3 December  2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SIEMER v FARDELL SC 7/2011 [31 March 2011] (PDF, 48 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.

31 March 2011.
Case name
David Ingram Rowley and Barrie James Skinner v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 51/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Name Suppression – Interim name suppression order granted in the District Court, but overturned in High Court, with a Court of Appeal majority upholding the High Court’s decision – Whether Court of Appeal majority correctly applied the test for name suppression appeals – Whether Court of Appeal majority was right to uphold the view of the High Court Judge that the possible impact on financing of a defence was an irrelevant consideration – Whether Court of Appeal majority was correct in supporting the High Court Judge’s finding that the District Court Judge had failed to take into account a relevant consideration, namely the interest in clients of the appellants in knowing of the charges faced – Whether Court of Appeal majority was justified in holding that the High Court could make its own evaluation of the factors for and against name suppression if the District Court took into account irrelevant considerations or failed to take into account a relevant consideration.[2011] NZCA 160  CA 112/2011
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ROWLEY and SKINNER v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 51/2011 [7 July 2011] (PDF, 58 KB)
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is declined.
7 July 2011.
Case name
Lewis Gaire Herdman Thompson v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 52/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Tax – The appellant deregistered for GST from 30 November 1999 – Commissioner of Inland Revenue later made tax assessments on the basis that the appellant was not able to deregister at this time because of subsequent land transactions – Whether there were reasonable grounds for the Court of Appeal to make a finding of fact that the appellant would have made taxable supplies greater than $30,000 through these transactions after deregistration – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to set the end of the appellant’s GST period at 31 January 2001 instead of February 2000.  [2011] NZCA 132  CA 580/2009
Result
Appeal dismissed.
Costs of $15,000 plus disbursement to the respondent.
10 May 2012.
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
sc 52 2011 lewis gaire herdman thompson v cir leave judgment (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
sc 52 2011 thompson v cir (PDF, 209 KB)
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is granted on the following grounds:

A When did the appellant become entitled to be de-registered for GST purposes?

B In light of that determination, and the circumstances in which they took place, did the second and third sales of land attract GST?

22 August 2011.
Hearing
1 March 2012.
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Decision reserved.
Case name
John George Russell v The Taxation Review Authority & Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 56/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Bias – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that any apparent bias on the part of Judge Barber in the Taxation Review Authority was “cured” by the effective rehearing held by Justice Wylie in the High Court – Whether the Court of Appeal took into account irrelevant matters or gave insufficient weight to relevant matters or made erroneous factual findings.[2011] NZCA 158  CA 65/2009
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 to the second respondent.
26 August 2011.
Page 11 of 15