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.
19 June 2026
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 89 KB)
Case information summary (as at 19 June 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 126 KB)
All years
Case name
GFM v JAM
Case number
SC 11/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to approach the appeal as an appeal against the exercise of a discretion in accordance with the test established in May v May – Whether the Court of Appeal mis-stated the primary question and should have asked whether the respondent has shown that the Family Court Judge acted on the wrong principle, failed to take into account some relevant matter or was plainly wrong and whether the High Court Judge had approached the appeal on that basis or had erred in his approach – Whether the Court of Appeal erroneously interfered with finding of the Family Court Judge and failed to defer to the Family Court Judge’s expertise – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to recognise a number of discretions exercised by the Family Court Judge and erred in describing the discretion under s 2G(2) as a fettered discretion – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by putting the focus on equal sharing of relationship property (and at date of hearing values as determined by the Court) rather than on a just division – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to take into account the interests of the children – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in placing the burden of proof on the wife to establish certain key facts – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to s 18C of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in effectively directing sale of the former family home rather than valuing the home at the date of hearing – Whether the Court of Appeal’s approach is unjust to the wife by adopting date of hearing values.[2013] NZCA 660 CA 566/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Cost of $2,500 to the respondent.
2 April 2014
Cost of $2,500 to the respondent.
2 April 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GFM v JAM [2014] NZSC 32 2 April 2014 (PDF, 49 KB)
Judgment appealed from
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
Ross Donald Macrae and Lynette Gweneth Joy Macrae v Anthony Patrick Walshe and others
Case number
SC 16/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the right of way allows access only to a single dwelling on the dominant land and for naturally related or ancillary purposes – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicant’s property was a “dwelling” for the purpose of the easement– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the easement should be modified in accordance with that Court’ s conclusions – Whether the Court erred in relation to costs.[2013] NZCA 664 CA 814/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay the first respondent costs of $2,500.
22 July 2014
B The applicants must pay the first respondent costs of $2,500.
22 July 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
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
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Official Assignee
Case number
SC 21/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908, s 61A – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was no jurisdiction under s 61A(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred is understanding the respective role of the Judge and Registrar in regards to r 35(6) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005[2014] NZCA 9 CA 863/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal are dismissed. The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.
30 April 2014
___________
Application for recall dismissed.
26 May 2014
_______________
Second application for recall dismissed.
5 June 2014
30 April 2014
___________
Application for recall dismissed.
26 May 2014
_______________
Second application for recall dismissed.
5 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Vincent Ross Siemer v Michael Peter Stiassny and Korda Mentha
Case number
SC 23/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicature Act 1908, s 61A – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that there was no jurisdiction under s 61A(1) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred is understanding the respective role of the Judge and Registrar in regards to r 35(6) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005[2014] NZCA 3 CA 104/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal are dismissed. The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.
30 April 2014
__________
Application for recall dismissed.
26 May 2014
______________
Second application for recall dismissed.
5 June 2014
30 April 2014
__________
Application for recall dismissed.
26 May 2014
______________
Second application for recall dismissed.
5 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Kim Dotcom, Finn Batato, Mathias Ortmann, Bram Van der Kolk v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 25/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992, ss 44 and 45 – Summary Proceedings Act1 1957, s 204 – New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of s 45 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the information in the search warrants could be clarified by information in the arrest warrants – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that it was not necessary for the District Court judge to include special conditions in the search warrants – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in stating that the police could be expected to and did in fact know and apply the requisite limits of the warrant and that the District Court judge issuing the warrants was entitled to rely on this – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the defects in warrants were defects in form not substance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that s 204 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 was applicable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in affirming that the applicant bore the burden of proof in relation to miscarriage of justice in s 204 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the defects in the search warrants did not cause substantial prejudice to the appellants so that there was no miscarriage of justice – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to interpret the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 and s 204 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 in a manner least intrusive upon the rights guaranteed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2014] NZCA 19 CA 420/2013
_________________________________________
Appeal dismissed
23 December 2014
_________________________________________
Appeal dismissed
23 December 2014
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal from the High Court on the basis that the search warrants issued by the District Court under s 44 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 were valid.
C The appeal is set down for hearing on 11 and 12 June 2014. The appellant’s submissions are to be filed and served by 4 pm on 19 May 2014. The respondent’s submissions are to be filed and served by 4 pm on 3 June 2014.
5 May 2014
____________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $35,000 to the respondent.
23 December 2014
B The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal from the High Court on the basis that the search warrants issued by the District Court under s 44 of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992 were valid.
C The appeal is set down for hearing on 11 and 12 June 2014. The appellant’s submissions are to be filed and served by 4 pm on 19 May 2014. The respondent’s submissions are to be filed and served by 4 pm on 3 June 2014.
5 May 2014
____________________________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The appellants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $35,000 to the respondent.
23 December 2014
Transcripts
- Hearing date 25 - 26 August 2014 (PDF, 898 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2014] NZSC 199 (PDF, 134 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Johan Aarts v Barnardos New Zealand, Commissioner of Police and others
Case number
SC 26/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Employment Relations Act 2000, s 135(5) and sch 3, s 2 – Whether the Court of Appeal decision was deficient because it failed to properly state its reasons in breach of rule 27(3) of the Court of Appeal Rules – Whether the Court of Appeal went beyond its jurisdiction by treating the hearing as a de novo hearing when the appellant had elected for a non de novo hearing – Whether “suspicion” falls below the threshold of “knowing” or reasonably knowing” in terms of s 135(5) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to extend the right to lay representation in the Employment Court, as provided under s 2 of sch 3, to the Court of Appeal. [2014] NZCA 16 CA 400/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar to the second and third respondents (collectively) and to the sixth respondent.
28 May 2014
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 together with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar to the second and third respondents (collectively) and to the sixth respondent.
28 May 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Alavine Feliuia Liu v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
Case number
SC 31/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child arts 9, 9.1 and 3 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that art 9, and in particular art 9.1, were not relevant to deportation cases – Whether the respondent erred in not having specific regard to art 9 notwithstanding its consideration of other specific articles in the convention – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that with the exception of Ewebiyi v Parr no other authorities referred to it held that art 9.1 applied to deportation cases – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the relevant case law and its assessment as to the reconciliation of arts 3 and 9.1.CA 4/2014[2014] NZCA 37 CA 754/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
20 June 2014
B The applicant is to pay the respondent costs of $2,500.
20 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Sajo Oyang Corporation and Southern Storm Fishing (2007) Limited v The Ministry for Primary Industries and The Director - General of the Ministry for Primary Industries
Case number
SC 35/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that non-defendant third parties do not have standing to participate in an application relating to the special circumstances exception to automatic forfeiture of property following conviction for specified fisheries offences under s 255C of the Fisheries Act 1996[2014] NZCA 46 CA 167/2013
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 first and second respondents.
17 June 2014
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $2,500 to the first and second respondents.
17 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Page 74 of 107