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.

22 September 2026

Case information summary (as at 18 September 2026) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 112 KB)
Case information summary (as at 18 September 2026)  – Currently unavailable

All years

Case name
Razdan Rafiq v Commissioner of New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 113/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal Judge erred in refusing to dispense with security for costs.[2014] NZCA 500    CA 495/2014
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
10 December 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
RAZDAN RAFIQ v COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2014] NZSC 181     10 December 2014 (PDF, 42 KB)
Judgment appealed from

RAZDAN RAFIQ V COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE CA495/2014 [2014] NZCA 500   14 October 2014
Case name
Razdan Rafiq v Commissioner of New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 116/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal Judge erred in refusing to dispense with security for costs.[2014] NZCA 492    CA 249/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent. 16 February 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
RAZDAN RAFIQ v COMMISSIONER OF NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZSC 4   16 February 2015 (PDF, 65 KB)
Judgment appealed from

RAFIQ v THE COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE CA249/2014 [2014] NZCA 492   7 October 2014
Case name
Razdan Rafiq v The Secretary for the Department of Internal Affairs of New Zealand, The Director of the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, The Commissioner of Police, the
Case number
SC 121/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to dispense with security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not granting a stay of proceedings[2014] NZCA 518
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Costs of $2,500 are awarded to the respondent.
20 February 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
RAZDAN RAFIQ v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS [2015] NZSC 10     20 February 2015 (PDF, 63 KB)
Judgment appealed from

RAFIQ V THE SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF NEW ZEALAND CA445/2014 [2014] NZCA 518    29 October 2014
Case name
Malcolm Edward Rabson v Wayne Seymour Chapman
Case number
SC 22/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 35(6) – Judicature Act 1908, s 61A(2) and s 61A(3) – Security for costs – whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs – whether the Court of Appeal erred in not reviewing the decision made by a single judge in that Court.[2013] NZCA 5  CA 855/2012
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
2 July 2013.
Case name
Alesco New Zealand Limited and others v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 33/2013
Summary
Income Tax Acts 1994 and 2004 – Tax Administration Act 1994 - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the applicant’s funding transactions were “tax avoidance arrangements” in terms of the Income Tax Acts 1994 and 2004 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the respondent’s tax reassessments of the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the respondent’s reassessments in respect of the applicant were not in excess of the respondent’s powers under the Income Tax Acts 1994 and 2004 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant took an unacceptable tax position in terms of s 141B of the Tax Administration Act 1994 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the applicant liable for penalties under s 141D of the Tax Administration Act 1994 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the respondent was entitled to costs.[2013] NZCA 40  CA 53/2012
Hearing
Notice of abandonment of appeal being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.

14 February 2014.
Dates

A Leave to appeal is granted.

B The approved grounds of appeal are whether, in light of the principles laid down by this Court in Ben Nevis Forestry Ventures Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue  and other cases on tax avoidance:

(i) the structure used by the applicants for funding the transactions is a tax avoidance arrangement;

(ii) the Commissioner’s application of shortfall penalties was a proper exercise of the relevant statutory powers;

(iii) the Commissioner’ s reassessments were a proper exercise of the relevant statutory powers.
9 July 2013.
Case name
Andrew John Caplen Beavis v Elizabeth Joy De Vere and Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 43/2013
Summary
Child Support Act 1991 – Whether the Court of Appeal judgment indicates bias against the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal judgment contain irrelevant statements or statements not supported by the evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal had proper regard to the decision of the Family Court judge – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in departing from analysis provided by accountants – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the applicant’s business arrangements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding there were special circumstance justifying a departure order – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that retrospective orders may be made under the Child Support Act 1991, and in making such an order – Whether the Court of Appeal otherwise erred in its interpretation of the Child Support Act 1991 – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to have regard to certain relevant considerations and had regard to irrelevant considerations – Whether the Court of Appeal accepted that s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980 was available, and erred in doing so – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its understanding of the jurisdiction of the Family Court.[2013] NZCA 124  CA 190/2013
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs of $2,500 together with reasonable disbursement payable to the first respondent.
19 August 2013.

Application for recall dismissed.

20 September 2013
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner and others
Case number
SC 55/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Review of a Registrar’s decision – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to address whether the Court of Appeal Registrar has power to refuse an application for filing a notice of appeal or review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Court of Appeal’s review powers under s 61A(2) of the Judicature Act 1908 are expressly limited to orders made by a single Judge pursuant to s 61A(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding there is no power for the Court to review decisions made under s 61A(3).[2013] NZCA 205   CA 422/2012
Dates
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B  The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements (to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar) to the first respondent.

 

14 October 2013
Case name
Evgeny Orlov v New Zealand Law Society, Auckland Lawyers Standards Committee, Auckland Lawyers Standards Committee No 1, National Standards Committee.
Case number
SC 68/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a lawyer could be proceeded against before the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal or struck off for making a complaint against a Judge pursuant to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004 –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there is no legal or evidential threshold for referring matters to a Disciplinary Tribunal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that reasons need not be given for a decision by a Standards Committee to refer a matter to a Disciplinary Tribunal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the appellant was responsible for delay in the disciplinary process –Whether the Court of Appeal denied the appellant a fair and impartial hearing.[2013] NZCA 230  CA 554/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondents. 
8 October 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
EVGENY ORLOV v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2013] NZSC 94 [8 October 2013 (PDF, 55 KB)
Case name
C  v The Queen
Case number
SC 74/2013
Summary
Criminal appeal – Pre-trial application – Blackmail, assault, assault with intent to injure – Whether trial Judge correctly concluded that text messages were not unlawfully interception – Crimes Act 1961, s 216B – Whether text messages could be lawfully obtained through a production order – Search and Surveillance Act 2012, ss 71¬–72 – Admissibility of text messages at trial – Evidence Act 2006, s 30.[2013] NZHC 1900     CRI 2012 009 11872
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
CHAPMAN v R [2013] NZSC 83 [23 August 2013] (PDF, 49 KB)
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

23 August 2013
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Helen Diana Winkelmann
Case number
SC 93/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether there is a right to apply under s 61A(2) of the Judicature Act 1908 for review of a judgment reviewing a Registrar’ s decision regarding security for costs CA 712/20122
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements (to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar) to the first respondent.
14 November 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER [2013] NZSC 113 [14 November 2013] (PDF, 53 KB)
Recall judgment
VINCENT ROSS SIEMER v JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER [2013] NZSC 136 [4 December 2013] (PDF, 10 KB)
Page 10 of 15