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
Eric Meserve Houghton v Timothy Ernest Corbett Saunders, Samuel John Magill, John Michael Feeney, Craig Edgeworth Horrocks, Peter David Hunter, Peter Thomas and Joan Withers, and Credit Suisse Private Equity Inc, and Credit Suisse First Boston Asian Me
Case number
SC 135/2016
Summary
Civil Appeal – Securities Act 1978 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the Securities Act 1978, ss 2, 55 and 56 – Whether the Court of Appeal findings preclude Fair Trading Act 1986 claims. [2016] NZCA 493 CA578/2014
Result
A The appeal in relation to the fourth and fifth respondents is dismissed.
B The appeal in relation to the first, second and third respondents is allowed to the limited extent described below.
C The Court of Appeal’s finding that the forecast of revenue for the financial year ended 30 June 2004 (the untrue statement) was, at the time of allotment of the shares offered for subscription in the Feltex prospectus, an untrue statement for the purposes of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978, is upheld.
D The Court of Appeal’s findings that the untrue statement did not give rise to liability under s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and was not in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 are set aside.
E We find that the untrue statement was in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986.
F The questions of whether plaintiffs represented by the appellant: (i) invested on the faith of the prospectus in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so; (ii) suffered any loss by reason of the untrue statement in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so, the quantum of such loss; and (iii) are entitled to any remedy under the Fair Trading Act 1986 are left for resolution by the High Court at the stage 2 hearing.
G In all other respects, the appeal in relation to the first to third respondents is dismissed.
H Costs in this Court and the Courts below are reserved. Submissions on costs should be filed and served according to the following timetable: (i) Appellant: 20 working days after the date of this judgment. (ii) First to third respondents: 10 working days after the appellant’s submissions are filed. (iii) Fourth and fifth respondents: 10 working days after the first to third respondents’ submissions are filed. (iv) Appellant in reply: 10 working days after the fourth and fifth respondents’ submissions are filed.
15 August 2018
_________________________________
A The first to third respondents must pay the appellant costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements.
B Costs in the High Court should be reconsidered by that Court in light of this Court’s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal should be determined in light of this Court’ s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment if the agreement between the parties as to costs in that Court expressly or impliedly allows for such a determination to occur.
22 November 2018
B The appeal in relation to the first, second and third respondents is allowed to the limited extent described below.
C The Court of Appeal’s finding that the forecast of revenue for the financial year ended 30 June 2004 (the untrue statement) was, at the time of allotment of the shares offered for subscription in the Feltex prospectus, an untrue statement for the purposes of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978, is upheld.
D The Court of Appeal’s findings that the untrue statement did not give rise to liability under s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and was not in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 are set aside.
E We find that the untrue statement was in breach of s 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986.
F The questions of whether plaintiffs represented by the appellant: (i) invested on the faith of the prospectus in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so; (ii) suffered any loss by reason of the untrue statement in terms of s 56 of the Securities Act 1978 and, if so, the quantum of such loss; and (iii) are entitled to any remedy under the Fair Trading Act 1986 are left for resolution by the High Court at the stage 2 hearing.
G In all other respects, the appeal in relation to the first to third respondents is dismissed.
H Costs in this Court and the Courts below are reserved. Submissions on costs should be filed and served according to the following timetable: (i) Appellant: 20 working days after the date of this judgment. (ii) First to third respondents: 10 working days after the appellant’s submissions are filed. (iii) Fourth and fifth respondents: 10 working days after the first to third respondents’ submissions are filed. (iv) Appellant in reply: 10 working days after the fourth and fifth respondents’ submissions are filed.
15 August 2018
_________________________________
A The first to third respondents must pay the appellant costs of $30,000 plus usual disbursements.
B Costs in the High Court should be reconsidered by that Court in light of this Court’s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment.
C Costs in the Court of Appeal should be determined in light of this Court’ s judgment in Houghton v Saunders [2018] NZSC 74 and this judgment if the agreement between the parties as to costs in that Court expressly or impliedly allows for such a determination to occur.
22 November 2018
Transcripts
- Hearing date 5 April 2017 (PDF, 284 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2018] NZSC 74 (PDF, 68 KB)
Additional document
Transcript hearing date 5 September 2017 (PDF, 1.4 MB)
High Court decision
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
HOUGHTON v SAUNDERS & ORS [2017] NZSC 55 (PDF, 113 KB)
Substantive judgment
Supreme court decision
Case name
Razdan Rafiq v Commissioner of New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 15/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs.[2015] NZCA 8 CA 669/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500. 23 April 2015
The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500. 23 April 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Kensington Developments Limited (in receivership) v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 25/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the High Court’s decision to transfer taxation challenge proceedings from the Taxation Review Authority to the High Court.[2015] NZCA 60 CA 64/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 to the respondent.
4 June 2015
Costs $2,500 to the respondent.
4 June 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Ailsa Duffy
Case number
SC 41/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – whether Brown J erred in striking out the applicant’ s application for judicial review.[2015] NZHC 714 CIV 2014 485 11404
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay the first respondent costs of $2,500.
1 July 2015
B The applicant is to pay the first respondent costs of $2,500.
1 July 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Trustpower Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 74/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Income Tax Act 2004, s DA 2 – Whether Court of Appeal correct to consider ground of reassessment irrelevant – Whether Court of Appeal made unsupported findings of fact – Whether Court of Appeal correct to find that Feasibility Expenditure was incurred on capital account.[2015] NZCA 253 CA830/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (CIR v Trustpower [2015] NZCA 253).
B The approved questions are:(a) was the Court of Appeal wrong to consider the ground of reassessment set out in the Reassessment letter as irrelevant, or was the Court otherwise acting outside its jurisdiction in determining the appeal? If not, was the Court of Appeal correct in its conclusions on s DA 1?(b) Despite stating that it proceeded on the basis of accepting the High Court’s findings of fact, were any aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgment based on findings for which there was no evidence before the Court and/or that was contradicted by the evidence before the Court? If so, what is the significance of this?(c ) What is the correct approach to determining whether the expenditure of the type at issue in this proceeding has been incurred on revenue or capital account, for the purposes of s DA 2(1) of the Act?(d) Was the Commissioner correct, or at least not in error, to select the date by which the applicant had decided to apply for a resource consent as the point at which its expenditure was sufficiently connected to the capital purpose of obtaining a resource consent to be on capital account?
11 September 2015
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Trustpower is to pay the Commissioner costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
27 July 2016
B The approved questions are:(a) was the Court of Appeal wrong to consider the ground of reassessment set out in the Reassessment letter as irrelevant, or was the Court otherwise acting outside its jurisdiction in determining the appeal? If not, was the Court of Appeal correct in its conclusions on s DA 1?(b) Despite stating that it proceeded on the basis of accepting the High Court’s findings of fact, were any aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgment based on findings for which there was no evidence before the Court and/or that was contradicted by the evidence before the Court? If so, what is the significance of this?(c ) What is the correct approach to determining whether the expenditure of the type at issue in this proceeding has been incurred on revenue or capital account, for the purposes of s DA 2(1) of the Act?(d) Was the Commissioner correct, or at least not in error, to select the date by which the applicant had decided to apply for a resource consent as the point at which its expenditure was sufficiently connected to the capital purpose of obtaining a resource consent to be on capital account?
11 September 2015
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Trustpower is to pay the Commissioner costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
27 July 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 - 10 March 2016 (PDF, 1.4 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 91 (PDF, 246 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Michael Kinlim Yan v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 111/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Employment Court failed to adopt the correct test for bias in respect of dismissal from the Public Service.[2015] NZEmpC 36 ARC 11/14
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500. 9 November 2015
Employment Court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Wayne Seymour Chapman
Case number
SC 135/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to recall its earlier judgment.[2014] NZCA 158 CA 855/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 23 February 2016
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Vinelight Nominees Limited and Weyand Investments Limited v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 10/2014
Summary
Civil appeal - tax avoidance - Tax Administration Act 1994. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding there was an arrangement with a more than incidental purpose or effect of tax avoidance - whether a tax avoidance purpose can be inferred from aspects of a transaction other than those which produce the impugned tax result - whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that resort to sGB1 reconstruction power was unnecessary - whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the time bar in s 108 did not apply to particular approved issuer levy payments.[2013] NZCA 655 CA 35/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
17 June 2014
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
17 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Sovereign Assurance Company Limited, ASB Bank Limited, Sovereign Services Limited, CBA Asset Finance (NZ) Limited, CBA Funding (NZ) Limited, CBA Dairy Leasing Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 14/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Income Tax Acts 1994 and 2004 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Commissioner’s reassessments of the applicants’ income – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the accrual rules in subpt EH of the Income Tax Act 1994 were of exclusive application in determining the tax treatment of the commission arrangements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the commissions when received and the commission repayments when paid were not assessable income and deductible expenditure respectively – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Commissioner was entitled to an award of costs.[2013] NZCA 652 CA 506/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
10 June 2014
10 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Razdan Rafiq v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and Commissioner of Police
Case number
SC 19/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs.[2014] NZCA 4 CA 812/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
16 June 2014
____________
Application for recall dismissed.
10 October 2014
16 June 2014
____________
Application for recall dismissed.
10 October 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Page 8 of 15