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
Frucor Suntory New Zealand Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 81/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal (SC 81/2020) against the Court of Appeal’s decision is granted (Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Frucor Suntory New Zealand Limited [2020] NZCA 383).
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
C The application for leave to appeal (SC 92/2020) against the Court of Appeal’s decision is granted (Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Frucor Suntory New Zealand Limited [2020] NZCA 383).
D The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that shortfall penalties do not apply.
18 December 2020
________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed with the result that the appellant’s challenge to shortfall penalties is dismissed.
C The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $45,000 plus usual disbursements.
30 September 2022
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
C The application for leave to appeal (SC 92/2020) against the Court of Appeal’s decision is granted (Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Frucor Suntory New Zealand Limited [2020] NZCA 383).
D The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that shortfall penalties do not apply.
18 December 2020
________________________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed with the result that the appellant’s challenge to shortfall penalties is dismissed.
C The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $45,000 plus usual disbursements.
30 September 2022
Date of hearing
08 June 2021
- 10 June 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 - 10 June 2021 (PDF, 1 MB)
Case Synopses
- Case Synopsis Frucor Suntory (PDF, 410 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 113 (PDF, 195 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Frucor Suntory New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 92/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal (SC 81/2020) against the Court of Appeal’s decision is granted (Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Frucor Suntory New Zealand Limited [2020] NZCA 383).
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
C The application for leave to appeal (SC 92/2020) against the Court of Appeal’s decision is granted (Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Frucor Suntory New Zealand Limited [2020] NZCA 383).
D The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that shortfall penalties do not apply.
18 December 2020
____________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed with the result that the appellant’s challenge to shortfall penalties is dismissed.
C The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $45,000 plus usual disbursements.
30 September 2022
B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal.
C The application for leave to appeal (SC 92/2020) against the Court of Appeal’s decision is granted (Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Frucor Suntory New Zealand Limited [2020] NZCA 383).
D The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that shortfall penalties do not apply.
18 December 2020
____________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The cross-appeal is allowed with the result that the appellant’s challenge to shortfall penalties is dismissed.
C The appellant must pay the respondent costs of $45,000 plus usual disbursements.
30 September 2022
Date of hearing
08 June 2021
- 10 June 2021
Judges
Winkelmann CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ
Case Synopses
- Case Synopsis Frucor Suntory (PDF, 410 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2022] NZSC 113 (PDF, 195 KB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Leticia Margaret Drake and Gavin John Steward v Commissioner of New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 97/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
1 March 2021
1 March 2021
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Peter Gerard Stockman v The Health and Disability Commissioner, Anthony Hill, Meenal Duggal and Robyn Galvin
Case number
SC 107/2020
Summary
Civil Appeal — Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the first respondent costs of $2,500.
3 March 2021
B The applicant must pay the first respondent costs of $2,500.
3 March 2021
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Court of Appeal decision
Not publicly available
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chatfield & Co Limited and Chatfield & Co
Case number
SC 34/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Tax Administration Act 1994, s 17 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the decision of the High Court that notices issued by the Commissioner requiring the respondent company to furnish certain information were unlawful.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
7 August 2019
B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
7 August 2019
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Malcolm Rabson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Supreme Court of New Zealand
Case number
SC 98/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court erred in striking out the applicant’s proceeding.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The Supreme Court of New Zealand is removed as a proposed party from this proceeding.
C Mr Rabson is to pay costs of $250 to the Crown Law Office.
18 November 2019
B The Supreme Court of New Zealand is removed as a proposed party from this proceeding.
C Mr Rabson is to pay costs of $250 to the Crown Law Office.
18 November 2019
High Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
R v Legal Services Commissioner
Case number
SC 101/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal – Legal Services Act 2011, s 7 – Whether the High Court erred in finding that an “administrative tribunal or judicial authority” does not include the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
6 December 2019
B There is no order as to costs.
6 December 2019
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High Court decision
Not publicly available
Case name
P(SC 120/2019) V Commissioner of Inland Revenue, W(SC 120/2019) and Attorney-General
Case number
SC 120/2019
Summary
Civil Appeal - Application for leave to bring an appeal
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B There is no order as to costs.
C We make an order prohibiting publication of the name or identifying particulars of P, W and A.
18 March 2020
_______________________________
A The application to review the decision of the Deputy Registrar is dismissed.
B The application for recall of our judgment of 18 March 2020 (P (SC 120/2019) v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2020] NZSC 22) is dismissed.
20 May 2020
B There is no order as to costs.
C We make an order prohibiting publication of the name or identifying particulars of P, W and A.
18 March 2020
_______________________________
A The application to review the decision of the Deputy Registrar is dismissed.
B The application for recall of our judgment of 18 March 2020 (P (SC 120/2019) v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2020] NZSC 22) is dismissed.
20 May 2020
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Case name
Patty Tzu Chou Lin v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 23/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Income Tax Act 2007 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant was not entitled to a tax credit against income tax liability for tax spared by China under New Zealand’ s Controlled Foreign Company tax regime.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
20 June 2018
B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
20 June 2018
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Garry Albert Muir v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 41/2018
Summary
Civil Appeal – Tax Administration Act 1994 – Res judicata – Whether the Court of Appeal was right to dismiss the applicant’ s appeal against summary judgment – Whether challenge proceedings finally determined.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
29 August 2018
B Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
29 August 2018
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
High/District Court judgment
Page 5 of 15