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
Donald Eugene Allen v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 60/2005
Summary
Civil appeal - whether the Court of Appeal erred in their interpretation of ss 138B and 89D of the Tax Administration Act 1994 (˜the Act"), which regulate the process which a taxpayer is required to follow if he or she wishes to challenge a default assessment made by a Commissioner under s 106 of the Act - whether the Court was in error in concluding that the Taxation Review Authority had power to strike out the challenge under s 138H of the Act. CA 204/04 8 September 2005
Result
Leave to appeal granted. 8 December 2005
Transcripts
- Hearing date 28 February 2006 (PDF, 339 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Garry Albert Muir and others v Commissioner of Inland Revenue.
Case number
SC CIV 18/2004
Summary
Appeal from decision of Court of Appeal dismissing an appeal of the High Court's decision to discharge confidentiality orders - the application of "open justice" principles to tax cases in light of the confidentiality and fairness provisions in the Tax Administration Act 1994. CA 185/04 14 October 2004
Result
Leave to appeal dismissed. Interim stay of Court of Appeal judgment set aside. 15 November 2004
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Attorney-General v Ahmed Zaoui, Inspector General of Intelligence and Security, and Human Rights Commissioner
Case number
SC CIV 19/2004
Summary
Civil appeal - judicial review of the standard to be applied by Inspector General in reviewing a security risk certificate issued under Part A of the Immigration Act 1997 in respect of a refugee who is said to be a threat to national security - whether Inspector General required to take into consideration New Zealand's international obligations, including but not limited to, the Refugee Convention - if so, what standard of risk does international law require before certificate can be confirmed. CA20/04 19 November 2004
Result
Leave to appeal granted.
3 February 2005
_______________________
The first respondent is granted leave to cross appeal. The declarations made by the Court of Appeal are set aside. The Court makes the following declarations: 1. Those applying article 33.2 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 under Part 4A of the Immigration Act 1987 are to apply it in its own terms. In particular, to come within article 33.2, the person in question must be thought on reasonable grounds to pose a serious threat to the security of New Zealand; the threat must be based on objectively reasonable grounds and the threatened harm must be substantial. 2. In carrying out his function under Part 4A of the Immigration Act the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is concerned only to determine whether the relevant security criteria - here s 72 and article 33.2 - are satisfied. He is not to determine whether Mr Zaoui is subject to a threat which would or might prevent his removal from New Zealand. To the extent that the above declarations differ from those made by the Court of Appeal, the appeal and the cross-appeal are allowed.
21 June 2005
3 February 2005
_______________________
The first respondent is granted leave to cross appeal. The declarations made by the Court of Appeal are set aside. The Court makes the following declarations: 1. Those applying article 33.2 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 under Part 4A of the Immigration Act 1987 are to apply it in its own terms. In particular, to come within article 33.2, the person in question must be thought on reasonable grounds to pose a serious threat to the security of New Zealand; the threat must be based on objectively reasonable grounds and the threatened harm must be substantial. 2. In carrying out his function under Part 4A of the Immigration Act the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is concerned only to determine whether the relevant security criteria - here s 72 and article 33.2 - are satisfied. He is not to determine whether Mr Zaoui is subject to a threat which would or might prevent his removal from New Zealand. To the extent that the above declarations differ from those made by the Court of Appeal, the appeal and the cross-appeal are allowed.
21 June 2005
Substantive judgment
Appeal Hearing Date
12 and 13 April 2005
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Westfield (New Zealand) Limited and Northcote Mainstreet Incorporated v North Shore City Council and Discount Brands Limited
Case number
SC 4/2004 SC CIV 4/2004
Summary
Civil appeal - resource management - application for consent for non-complying activity - whether a decision to proceed on a non-notified basis is extraordinary - whether the correct standard of review of such a decision is to be in accordance with traditional Wednesbury principles - whether the cautionary approach discussed in Bayley v Manukau City Council (1999) NZLR 568 should be adopted in non-notification decisions - whether there was sufficient material before the Commissioners to enable them to conclude that the effects of the application would be more than de minimis. CA 30/04 14 June 2004.
Result
6 October 2004 Elias CJ; Tipping J Leave to appeal granted.
6 October 2004
________________________________
The appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court is restored. The decisions made by the North Shore City Council (a) on 25 July 2003 not to require notification of the second respondent's resource consent application and (b) on 21 August 2003 granting that application are set aside. Costs in favour of the appellants are to be fixed by the Court following receipt of written submissions.
19 April 2005
6 October 2004
________________________________
The appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court is restored. The decisions made by the North Shore City Council (a) on 25 July 2003 not to require notification of the second respondent's resource consent application and (b) on 21 August 2003 granting that application are set aside. Costs in favour of the appellants are to be fixed by the Court following receipt of written submissions.
19 April 2005
Transcripts
- Hearing date 6 - 8 December 2004 (PDF, 685 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Page 15 of 15