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
CP Asset Management Limited  and others v Damien Grant and Steven Khov and others
Case number
SC 121/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Companies Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the resolution was contrary to the interests of unsecured creditors and that the resolution caused prejudice to the second respondents – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the creditors may not get an adequate investigation into the affairs of the company if the replacement liquidators were to continue in office – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to set aside the resolution and in its interpretation of s 245A of the Companies Act – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to properly quantify and assess the extent to which the terms of the first respondent’ s position on funding was a specific benefit to the creditors in the liquidation and whether it misconstrued findings made a first instance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in basing its assessment as to the steps taken in the liquidation solely on the first report of the liquidators – Whether the Court of appeal erred by failing to recognise that related creditors have an interest in the liquidation and in giving primacy to the position of one creditor over the general body of creditors. [2013] NZCA 452   CA 67/2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
C P ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED v DAMIEN GRANT & STEVEN KHOV AS LIQUIDATORS OF NZ PROPERTIES HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2014] NZSC 11 [25 February 2014] (PDF, 53 KB)
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicants must pay to the First Respondents costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. 

The applicants must pay to the Second Respondents costs of $2,500 plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.

25 February 2014
Case name
Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Redcliffe Forestry Venture Limited and others
Case number
SC 8/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Jurisdiction – High Court Rules, r 5.49 – The respondents sought to set aside a High Court judgment, holding that a forestry investment structure was created for the dominant purpose of tax avoidance and that was upheld by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, on the basis that the Commissioner presented a false case to the Court by failing to disclose that another provision of the Income Tax Act 1994 was applicable – This was raised on appeal before the Supreme Court which refused to hear the argument – Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this proceeding – In the alternative, whether the proceeding should be struck out as an abuse of process.[2011] NZCA  638  CA 152/2010, CA 204/2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved questions are:

(i) whether the Commissioner’s challenge to the claim was appropriately brought under r 5.49; and
(ii) whether the judgment of the High Court should in any event have been upheld.

29 February 2012

_____________________________
Transcript

Hearing date : 19 June 2012

Elias CJ, Tipping, McGrath, William Young, Gault JJ.
Case name
Shane Daniel Hannigan  v The Queen
Case number
SC 20/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Evidence Act 2006, ss 43 and 94 – Appeal against conviction for arson – Propensity evidence – Whether propensity evidence admitted without regard to the balancing exercise required by s 43 to determine whether the probative value of the evidence is outweighed the risk that it would be unfairly prejudicial – Whether evidence related to the specific issue in dispute – Whether any direction to the jury as to how to use the evidence should have been given – Whether evidence amounted to separate criminal allegations that should have been brought as separate charges – Cross-examination – Whether Crown breached s 94 by cross-examining its own witness – Whether Court of Appeal should have applied Rongonui v R [2010] NZSC 92, [2011] 1 NZLR 23.CA 639/2011  [2012] NZCA 133
Result

A Leave to appeal is granted. 
B  The approved ground is whether the way in which Kirsty Hannigan was re-examined led to a substantial miscarriage of justice. 

30 May 2012

______________________

Appeal dismissed.

26 April 2013
Transcript

Hearing date : 22 October 2012

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.
Case name
Michael Peter Stiassny, Grant Robert Graham, Forestry Corporation of New Zealand Limited (in receivership), Citic New Zealand Limited (in receivership), CNI Forest Nominees Limited and Bank of New Zealand v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 21/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Goods and services tax – Restitution – Recovery of a GST payment paid by the first appellants to the respondent in the mistaken belief that they were personally liable for the debt – Whether secured creditors own the proceedings of sale of assets that are subject to registered fixed charges at the time of sale, if they are sold for less than the secured debts to which the charges relate – Whether the first appellants were entitled to apply the proceeds of sale of the Central North Island Forestry Partnership (CNIFP) assets to the payment of GST amount, in priority to the claims of the secured creditors – Whether the GST payment was “ debtor-initiated” in terms of s 95 of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 (PPSA) – Whether s 95 of the PPSA barred the recovery of the GST payment if it was made under a mistake – Whether the second and third appellants have a cause of action in restitution for the recovery of their mistaken payment – Whether the first appellants have a cause of action in restitution for the recovery of their mistaken payment – Whether the security trustees have a cause of action in restitution for the recovery of the mistaken payment made by the first appellants to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue –  Whether “good faith” is a pre-requisite for a defence of the provision of good consideration to the payer to a claim for the recovery of a payment made under a mistake – Whether the first appellants are entitled to recover GST payment pursuant to their tax challenge cause of action pursuant to the Tax Administration Act 1994.SC 775/2010   [2012] NZCA 93
Result

A  Leave to appeal is granted.

B  The approved grounds are:

(i)  whether the GST payment was a “ debtor-initiated payment” in terms of s 95 of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 so as to confer priority to the Commissioner over any claim to those moneys by any respondent;

(ii)  whether any of the appellants can recover the amount of GST so paid from the Commissioner on the basis that it was paid by the receivers under a mistaken belief that they were personally liable to pay it or on any other basis.

8 May 2012

_____________________________

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellants are to pay the respondent’ s costs in this Court in the sum of $40,000 together with reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

28 November 2012
Transcript

Hearing dates : 27 and 28 September 2012

McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Gault, Blanchard JJ.
Case name
Manukau Golf Club Incorporated v Shoye Venture Limited
Case number
SC 36/2012
Summary
 CA  747/2011  [2012] NZCA154
Result

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved questions are whether the Court of Appeal was wrong:

(i) to make no order for costs in respect of the appeal; and
(ii) to give no reasons.

19 July 2012

________________________

The appeal is allowed. 
The respondent must pay to the appellant, with respect to costs in the Court of Appeal, costs of $12,220, plus disbursements of $5,051.73. 
By agreement, no order as to costs in this Court. 

4 December 2012
Transcript

Hearing date : 4 October 2012

McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v The Solicitor-General
Case number
SC 37/2012
Summary
CA  417/2011  [2012] NZCA139
Result

Leave to appeal is granted. 
The approved ground is whether New Zealand courts have inherent power or jurisdiction to suppress judgments in criminal cases. 

19 July 2012

__________________

Appeal dismissed.
Mr Siemer must  surrender at the Registry of the High Court at Auckland at 9.00 am on Monday 16 July 2013.

 

12 July 2013
Transcripts

Hearing date : 15 November 2012

Hearing date : 14 February 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers  Glazebrook JJ
Case name
Vector Limited v Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 46/2012
Summary
[2012]NZCA 220  CA   702/2011
Result

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved grounds are whether under the Commerce Act 1986 the s 54K(3) power:

(i) is able to be exercised in the manner provided for in s 53P(3)(b) in the absence of a published input methodology (or methodologies) specific to starting price adjustment under s 53P(3)(b); and, if so:

(ii) permits change only to the extent necessitated by the newly published input methodology relied on by the Commission.

14 August 2012

__________________________

The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay the respondent costs of $40,000 together with disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar. 

15 November 2012
Transcript

Hearing dates : 9 and 10 October 2012

McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Blanchard, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Kyung Yup Kim v The Prison Manager, Mt Eden Corrections Facility
Case number
SC 80/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Habeas corpus – Applicant remanded in custody until his eligibility for surrender under s 24 of the Extradition Act 1999 has been determined – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to take into consideration the right to life and the right not to be subjected to torture under ss 8 and 9 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to give authorities from New Zealand and the United Nations Human Rights Committee the intensive scrutiny they warranted – Whether the lawfulness of the application to extradite the applicant is a matter capable of summary determination in a habeas corpus application – Whether challenges to the applicant’s status as an “extraditable person” are a matter capable of summary determination in a habeas corpus application.   [2012] NZCA 471  CA 637/2012
Result

Leave to appeal is granted.

The approved ground is whether the Courts below were correct to dismiss the proceeding because the alleged deficiencies in the request to surrender and the application for a provisional warrant were not suitable for determination on a habeas corpus application.

16 November 2012

_____________________________

The appeal is dismissed. No order for costs.

20 December 2012
Transcript
Hearing date : 10 December 2012
Case name
P v Bridgecorp Limited (in receivership and in liquidation)
Case number
SC 87/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – evidence – contractual capacity – abuse of process – jurisdiction – discovery – conflict of interest – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to give adequate weight to the full or overall tenor of medical evidence, the context of the report writers’ briefs and the reasons for adducing these reports – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to determine the level of the applicant’s mental illness and its impact on the applicant’s contractual capacity – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the application was an abuse of process – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the application for particular discovery – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining leave to withdraw the admission of claim under r 15.16 of the High Court  Rules – Whether the Court of Appeal applied insufficient weight to evidence of email correspondence as indicating that the applicant was self-represented – Whether the Court of Appeal applied insufficient weight to the existence of a conflict of interest on the part of Mr Cunningham – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by focusing on economic pressure and on a test of illegitimacy in relation to any threat for unreasonable pressure.[2012] NZCA 530    CA 756/2011
Result
Leave to appeal is granted on the following ground: Was r 15.16 of the High Court Rules correctly applied?
15 March 2013.
__________________________________
25 July 2013.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.
Decision reserved.
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
P v BRIDGECORP LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) SC 87/2012 [15 March 2013] (PDF, 7 KB)
Substantive judgment
P (SC 87/2012) v BRIDGECORP LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) [2013] NZSC 152 [19 December 2013 (PDF, 285 KB)
Case name
Phillip Purewa v The Queen
Case number
SC 40/2011
Summary
Criminal Appeal - Trial by Judge alone - whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the order made in the High Court under s 361D of the Crimes Act 1961 that the trial of the applicant proceed before a Judge alone[2011] NZCA 114   CA 874/2010
Result

A The application for leave to appeal is granted.

B The approved ground is whether the High Court and Court of Appeal correctly interpreted and applied s 361D of the Crimes Act 1961 in directing that the applicants be tried for the offences charged under indictment (Number CRI 2007-085-7842) before a Judge without a jury.

6 May 2011

___________________

Appeal allowed by consent. Orders for trial by judge alone set aside.
14 September 2011
Transcript
Hearing date : 14 September 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ
Page 37 of 41