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
Yandina Investments Limited v ANZ National Bank Limited, Westpac Banking Corporation and BNZ Investments Limited
Case number
SC 129/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Strike out application – Deeds of Assignment – Did the Court of Appeal correctly determine the subject matter being assigned under the Deeds – How should the principles for the interpretation of commercial contracts from Vector Gas Ltd v Bay of Plenty Energy Ltd [2010] 2 NZLR 444 apply in proceedings where there is an alleged lack of information as to the background of entry into the contract as well as its context – Reconsideration of Junior Farms Ltd v Hampton Securities Ltd (in liquidation) [2006] NZSC 60 as to the application of substantial miscarriage of justice ground in s 13(2) of the Supreme Court Act 2003 to civil appeals. [2013] NZCA 469  CA 529/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
YANDINA INVESTMENTS LIMITED v ANZ NATIONAL BANK LIMITED [2014] NZSC 28 [26 March 2014] (PDF, 57 KB)
Dates

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Costs of $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements to the respondents.
Case name
Mortgage Administration Services (Calibre) Limited v Calibre Financial Services Limited
Case number
SC 132/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first appellant was liable to indemnify the respondent for the GST sum payable on the mortgage advanced by the respondent – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the first appellant’s counterclaim could not succeed as the agreement underlying it had been terminated.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
MORTGAGE ADMINISTRATION SERVICES (CALIBRE) LIMITED v CALIBRE FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED [2014] NZSC 14 [4 March 2014] (PDF, 46 KB)
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The first applicant must pay the respondent costs in the amount of $2,500.
4 March 2014.

[2013] NZCA 503  CA 538/2012
Case name
Gibbston Downs Wines Limited v Property Ventures Limited (in receivership and liquidation)
Case number
SC 139/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether a liquidator can issue a statutory demand in relation to a debt owed to the company that is subject to a charge or in respect of which a receiver has been appointed by a secured creditor – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 254 of the Companies Act 1993 – Whether Court of Appeal erroneously admitted affidavit evidence from respondent and placed too much weight on it in reaching its decision – Whether section 50 of the Property Law Act 2007 applied.[2013] NZCA 546  CA 82/2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GIBBSTON DOWNS WINES LIMITED v PROPERTY VENTURES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION) [2014] NZSC 21 [17 March 2014] (PDF, 19 KB)
Dates

The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.

The applicants, jointly and severally, must pay the respondent costs in the amount of $5,000 plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.

17 March 2014.
Case name
Spinach Design Limited v Property Ventures Limited (in receivership and liquidation)
Case number
SC 140/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Whether a liquidator can issue a statutory demand in relation to a debt owed to the company that is subject to a charge or in respect of which a receiver has been appointed by a secured creditor – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 254 of the Companies Act 1993 – Whether Court of Appeal erroneously admitted affidavit evidence from respondent and placed too much weight on it in reaching its decision – Whether section 50 of the Property Law Act 2007 applied.[2013] NZCA 546  CA 83/2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GIBBSTON DOWNS WINES LIMITED v PROPERTY VENTURES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION) [2014] NZSC 21 [17 March 2014] (PDF, 19 KB)
Dates

The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed.

The applicants, jointly and severally, must pay the respondent costs in the amount of $5,000 plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.

17 March 2014.
Case name
Firm PI 1 Limited v Zurich Australian Insurance Limited and Body Corporate 398983
Case number
SC 141/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Insurance – Earthquake Commission Act 1993 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the clause in the insurance policy providing that the respondent’s liability would be limited to the amount of loss in excess of the cover under the Earthquake Commission Act limited the respondent’s liability for natural disaster damage from a single event to the difference between the maximum cover under the Act and the sum insured.[2013] NZCA 560  CA 3933/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.

The question is whether the sum insured for buildings under the material damage section of the contract of insurance is inclusive or exclusive of sums payable to the insured by the Earthquake Commission under the Earthquake Commission Act 1993 for natural disaster damage to the insured’s buildings from the 22 February 2011 earthquake.

17 March 2014
__________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant must pay the first respondent costs of $25,000 plus reasonable disbursements.  We certify for two counsel.

15 October 2014
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
FIRM PI 1 LIMITED v ZURICH AUSTRALIAN INSURANCE LIMITED T/A ZURICH NEW ZEALAND [2014] NZSC 147 [15 October 2014] (PDF, 240 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
FIRM PI 1 LIMITED v ZURICH AUSTRALIAN INSURANCE LIMITED T/A ZURICH NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2014] NZSC 19 [17 March 2014 (PDF, 36 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 3 July 2014

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook,  Arnold   JJ.
Case name
Roading and Asphalt Limited v South Waikato District Council
Case number
SC 145/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Tender methodology – Whether the respondent was in breach of a tender contract by awarding the solid waste disposal contract to a bid that was not the lowest price conforming tender – Whether the respondent was in breach of an implied obligation to treat tenderers fairly and equally, in not following the specific tender process set out in the tender contract, and in not treating the tenderers even-handedly.[2013] NZCA 566  CA 398/2012
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
ROADING AND ASPHALT LIMITED v SOUTH WAIKATO DISTRICT COUNCIL [2014] NZSC 18 [10 March 2014] (PDF, 46 KB)
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.

10 March 2014.
Case name
NT v The Queen
Case number
SC 147/2013
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961, s 381A – Stay of prosecution in the District Court – Whether or not this Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a decision made pursuant to s 381A – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that District Court Judge’s question was a question of law – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in making a finding on a question of fact, not law.[2013] NZCA 589  CA 391/2013
Dates

Leave hearing
3 April 2014.
Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold JJ.

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
4 July 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
Mark Joseph Benjamin  v The Queen
Case number
SC 13/2012
Summary
Criminal Procedure – A number of errors alleged relating to process and matters of fact and law in Court of Appeal decision – Whether by allocating a one day hearing the Court of Appeal breached principles of procedural fairness and natural justice resulting in counsel for the applicant having an inadequate opportunity to present the applicant’s case – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its conclusions as to the reliability of the computer system and by refusing to admit new evidence relating to the computer records – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its consideration of the audit report – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the outcome of the trial was not affected by the decision of the applicant’ s counsel not to brief and lead Mr Lowe’s evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal ought to have considered the unlikelihood of Mr Spence junior having acted as an “instrument” of the applicant – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its treatment of evidence as to whether there was an oral agreement to increase the applicant’s salary – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that certain findings regarding count 5 were open to the trial judge – Whether trial counsel misconducted the trial by failing to put the appellant’s case to opposing witnesses as required by s 92 of the Evidence Act 2006. CA 897/2010  [2012]  NZCA 9
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 May 2012.
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.
Page 49 of 78