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
David Neil Balfour v The Queen
Case number
SC 110/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Animal welfare – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the District Court Judge’s pre-trial ruling was correct – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was no improper use of representative charges – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to rule the evidence of two expert witnesses as inadmissible. [2013] NZCA 429 CA 445/2012
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
18 December 2013.
Case name
Anthony David Banbrook v The Queen
Case number
SC 123/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the decision of the High Court refusing to stay the prosecution on the grounds of breach of s 25 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to allow an application to set aside the guilty plea on the basis that the plea was induced by a ruling that embodied a wrong decision on a question of law.[2013] NZCA 525 CA 147/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
18 December 2013.
18 December 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BANBROOK v R [2013] NZSC 148 [18 December 2013] (PDF, 46 KB)
Case name
Rita Wilson v David Murray Blanchett and Grant Edward Burns
Case number
SC 7/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Company Law – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to conclude that there was no arguable defence to the Respondents’ application for summary judgment – Whether certain payments transferred to the Applicant were made with valuable consideration per s 298(2) of the Companies Act 1993[2011] NZCA 647 CA 521/2010.
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $2,500 to the respondents.
24 February 2012.
Case name
David Stanley Heenan v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 26/2011
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908 – Vexatious litigant – Order made by the High Court under s 88B(1) of the Act that no civil proceeding be instituted or continued by Mr Heenan, either in his own name or in a representative or fiduciary capacity, in any court without the leave of the High Court – Order upheld by the Court of Appeal – Applicant’s submissions to this Court repeat allegations of forgery, fraud and perjury against judicial officers and other individuals – whether the High Court erred in exercising its discretion to make orders under s 88B(1)[2011] NZCA 9 CA 630/2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
20 April 2011.
Case name
David Ingram Rowley and Barrie James Skinner v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 51/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Name Suppression – Interim name suppression order granted in the District Court, but overturned in High Court, with a Court of Appeal majority upholding the High Court’s decision – Whether Court of Appeal majority correctly applied the test for name suppression appeals – Whether Court of Appeal majority was right to uphold the view of the High Court Judge that the possible impact on financing of a defence was an irrelevant consideration – Whether Court of Appeal majority was correct in supporting the High Court Judge’s finding that the District Court Judge had failed to take into account a relevant consideration, namely the interest in clients of the appellants in knowing of the charges faced – Whether Court of Appeal majority was justified in holding that the High Court could make its own evaluation of the factors for and against name suppression if the District Court took into account irrelevant considerations or failed to take into account a relevant consideration.[2011] NZCA 160 CA 112/2011
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is declined.
7 July 2011.
7 July 2011.
Case name
David Mitchell v Bluestar Print Group (NZ) Limited
Case number
SC 74/2011
Summary
[2010] NZCA 385 CA 504/2009
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
22 September 2011.
22 September 2011.
Case name
Churchill Group Holdings Limited and others v Aral Property Holdings Limited and David Leung
Case number
SC 25/2010
Summary
Civil – Stay of execution of judgment for costs pending appeal – Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that the abrupt end to the proceedings was not the fault of the respondents – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the proposed method of payment for the original litigation and security for costs was unknown – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that that Mr Fava was unlikely to regain control of two of the appellant companies – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding the appellants had no realistic prospect of success – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to address one of the grounds of appeal.[2010] NZCA 88 CA 80/2010 23 March 2010
Dates
Notice of Abandoment of Appeal being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.
25 May 2010.
Case name
David Owen Crequer v Chief Exectutive, Department of Corrections
Case number
SC 30/2010
Summary
Civil – Denial of order for habeas corpus – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to hear the appeal on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.[2010] NZCA 75 CA 125/2010 16 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs to Respondent $1,250.
6 May 2010
Case name
David Paul Halford and Blue Sky Holdings Ltd (in liquidation) (as trustee of the Auckland Residential Property Trust) v R F Coughlan & Associates and Ors
Case number
SC 35/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to find that the designer of apartment units was not negligent in respect of the plans and specifications of those units; whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the issue of practical completion certificates should give rise to liability irrespective of specific reliance by an owner.[2010] NZCA 64 CA 66/2009 22 March 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs $2,500 to the 1st respondent.
13 July 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.
Page 10 of 13