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
William Patrick Jeffries v The Privacy Commissioner
Case number
SC 5/2010
Summary
Civil – Litigation privilege – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that unsolicited communication does not attract litigation privilege under s56 of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the word ‘person’ in s91(4) of the Privacy Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to apply s74 of the Evidence Act 2006 to matters before the Privacy Commissioner – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in failing to review the Privacy Commissioner’ s decisions – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not addressing s27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2009] NZCA 567 CA 339/2008 3 December 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. The approved ground is whether unsolicited communications received by the applicant while acting as a barrister are capable of attracting litigation privilege.
31 March 2010
_______________________
The appeal is dismissed. Any claim of privilege must be referred for the determination of the Privacy Commissioner in accordance with this judgment. No order for costs is made.
12 August 2010
31 March 2010
_______________________
The appeal is dismissed. Any claim of privilege must be referred for the determination of the Privacy Commissioner in accordance with this judgment. No order for costs is made.
12 August 2010
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
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
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.
Case name
Aldwyn John Cockburn, Janet Elizabeth Cockburn and Keith Ian Jeffries v C S Development No 2 Limited
Case number
SC 93/2010
Summary
Civil – GST due on sale of commercial property – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the sale of the property did not include the claimed supply of a going concern – Whether the Commissioner of Inland Revenue’s assessment that it was a going concern can only be questioned by challenge proceedings under the Tax Administration Act 1994.[2010] NZCA 373 CA 445/2009 16 August 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
16 November 2010.
Case name
Chesterfields Preschools Limited, D J Hampton, Chesterfields Partnership, Chesterfields Preschools Partnership & Anolbe Enterprises Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 96/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial review appeal – Taxation liabilities – Appellants were partly successful in the first judicial review proceedings against the Commissioner of Inland Revenue (Commissioner) and the Commissioner was ordered to reconsider a number of matters - Second judicial review proceedings held the Court would not enforce the debt owed to the Commissioner by the appellants until the Court was satisfied that the first judicial review had been complied with – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing to an extent the appeal by the Commissioner against the second judicial review judgment.[2010] NZCA 400 CA 607/2008, CA 800/2008, SC 271/2009, CA 156/2010 31 August 2010.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
The application for leave to appeal and the associated application for directions are dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
16 December 2010
Case name
Westpac Banking Corporation v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 22/2009
Summary
Tax Law – Whether judicial review of a Commissioner’s decision is inconsistent with the statutory scheme of challenge under Part VIIIA of the Tax Administration Act 1994; whether judicial review amounted to a collateral attack on the Commissioner’s decision; Whether exceptional circumstances existed that resulted in an amended assessment falling outside the scope of s 109 and s 114 of the Tax Administration Act 1994 (the statutory scheme of challenge) and thereby justifying judicial review; Whether conscious or deliberate maladministration are the only circumstances in which an assessment may be invalid; Whether there was a breach of a legitimate expectation held by Westpac; Whether the Commissioner’s amended assessment was not an honest appraisal or a genuine exercise of judgment; Whether the Commissioner’s amended assessment was the product of an abuse of power; Whether the Commissioner’ s procedure applied in coming to an amended assessment was consistent with the law; Whether a correct assessment, reached by an improper process, is valid.[2009] NZCA 24 CA 624/07 20 February 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements to the respondent.
8 April 2009
8 April 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Govind Prasad Saha v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 24/2009
Summary
Civil appeal – application of the foreign investment fund rules contained in Part CG of the Income Tax Act 1994 – the appellant was a partner in a firm that sold its consultancy business to a French company – as part of the sale transaction the appellant agreed to work for the consultancy business for five years from the date of settlement – as part of the sale transaction the appellant received a package of shares in the French company to be gradually released to him over a five year period – the appellant ended his employment in the consultancy business prematurely – the resulting deed of settlement provides that 50% of the unreleased shares will be transferred to the French company – whether the transfer of shares is a “disposition” for the purpose of s CG 23(5) – whether the appellant derived a gain in kind from the transfer of shares for the purposes of s CG 14(2)[2009] NZCA 76 CA 617/2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal is granted. 25 May 2009
______________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs $15,000 to respondent.
23 July 2010
______________________
Appeal dismissed. Costs $15,000 to respondent.
23 July 2010
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Hearing date : 27 October 2009
Chief Justice, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Wilson JJ.
Case name
William Patrick Jeffries v The Privacy Commissioner
Case number
SC 42/2009
Summary
Civil – Judicial Review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that a barrister may not invoke the privilege of general immunity against civil liability in respect of his participation in court proceedings against the Privacy Commissioner in relation to the barrister’s preparation and conduct of court proceedings and thereafter – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that a barrister conducting litigation before a court comes within the definition of “agency” in s 2 of the Privacy Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that “any person” in s 91(4) of the Act includes persons who are not “agencies” pursuant to s 2 of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to find that the Privacy Commissioner’s failure to abide her notice obligations under ss 70 and 73 of the Act was understandable and not a relevant consideration in assessing her decision-makingCIV 2006 – 485-860 22 May 2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal refused. Costs $2,500 plus disbursements to the respondent. 3 June 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Westpac Banking Corporation, Bank of New Zealand Limited, ANZ National Bank Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 83/2009
Summary
Civil Appeal – Banking and Finance – Unclaimed Money Act 1971 – meaning of terms: “money” “payable”, “has become owing” – Whether UMA applies to conditional transactional liabilities such as cheques, drafts or other bills of exchange – Bills of Exchange Act 1908 – nature of drawer’s liability – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Thomas Cook (New Zealand) Ltd [2005] 2 NZLR 722 (PC) applied – Whether Thomas Cook rightly decided.[2009] NZCA 376 CA 741/2008 26 August 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
4 December 2009
__________________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellants are ordered to pay the respondent costs of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
7 April 2011
4 December 2009
__________________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellants are ordered to pay the respondent costs of $15,000 together with reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
7 April 2011
Transcripts
- sc 83 2009 westpac ors v ird (PDF, 579 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 12 of 15