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
Eric Meserve Houghton v AIG Insurance Limited and TEC Saunders and others 
Case number
SC 21/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Law Reform Act 1936, s 9 – Charge on insurance monies in favour of third parties paid to indemnify an insured in respect of insured’s liability to third party – Priority between a s 9 charge in favour of third party claimants and an uncharged claim to defence costs by directors of a company – Whether Court of Appeal erred in holding that a s 9 charge only attaches to the balance of the insurance money available to meet third party claims after any defence cost liability has been met – Whether question of priorities under s 9 is subject to contract of insurance ¬– Whether Court of Appeal erred in deciding that the outcome of the Steigrad appeal (on appeal SC 19/2013) would dictate the outcome of this appeal.   [2012] NZCA 604  CA 841/2011
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved ground is:  Did the Court of Appeal interpret s 9 of the Law Reform Act 1936 correctly?
15 April 2013.
____________________________________________

The appeal is allowed. The Court of Appeal’ s declaration in SC 21/2013 is set aside.

The respondents are to pay, jointly and severally, costs of $25,000 to the appellants in SC 21/2013 (to be set by the Registrar, if necessary). We certify for two counsel.

23 December 2013.
Date of hearing
17 October 2013
Judges
Elias CJ, McGrath, Glazebrook, Gault, Anderson JJ.
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
BFSL 2007 LIMITED & ORS (IN LIQUIDATION) v STEIGRAD [2013] NZSC 156 [23 December 2013] (PDF, 482 KB)
Supreme court decision
costs: E M HOUGHTON v AIG INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (formerly Chartis Insurance New Zealand Limited) [2014] NZSC 20 [18 March 2014] (PDF, 65 KB)
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
Susan Margaret Angelina Seager-Buckle v Eric Clyde Hurrell and Vivienne Mary Hurrell, Chief Executive of Ministry of Social Developmemt, Paul Maurice Buckle
Case number
SC 24/2013
Summary
Civil appeal – Security for costs – Whether Court of Appeal correct to affirm Registrar’s decision not to waive security for costs ¬– Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 35(6)(c) –– Whether the making of Court of Appeal decision on the papers was in breach of natural justice.CA 673/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
10 June 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
S (SC24/2013) v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2013] NZSC 54 [10 June 2013] (PDF, 48 KB)
Case name
Barry John Hart v ANZ Bank Limited
Case number
SC 26/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – striking out of appeal against order adjudicating bankrupt.[2013] NZCA 9   CA 858/2012 [2013] NZCA 10  CA 858/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2500 together with all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.

11 April 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
HART V ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED SC 26/2013 [11 April 2013] (PDF, 56 KB)
Case name
Ewan Robert Carr and Brookside Farm Trust Limited v Gallaway Cook Allan
Case number
SC 27/2013
Summary
Arbitration agreements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to the legal test for severance, and in particular, whether essentiality is a factor or whether policy and part performance are the determining factors.  [2013] NZCA 11   CA437/2012
Result
Leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is: 
Should the arbitral award have been set aside?
2 July 2013
__________________
A   The appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court setting aside the award of 9 May 2011 is reinstated.
B   The respondent must pay to the appellants costs in this court of $25,000 together with reasonable disbursements. 
C    The order for costs in the Court of Appeal is set aside and the respondent is to pay the appellants’ costs in that Court and the High Court to be fixed by those courts.
20 June 2014
Transcripts
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
EWAN ROBERT CARR and BROOKSIDE FARM TRUST LIMITED v GALLAWAY COOK ALLAN [2014] NZSC 75 [20 June 2014] (PDF, 312 KB)
Case name
Kim Dotcom, Finn Batato, Mathias Ortmann and Bram van der Kolk v The United States of America and The District Court at North Shore
Case number
SC 30/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Extradition – Disclosure – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting the NZ/US Treaty – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of ss 22, 24, 25 and 102(1)(e)(i) of the Extradition Act 1999 which allow for and contemplate disclosure – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation and application of the relevant Canadian and United States authorities – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the Criminal Disclosure Act 2007 did not apply in the extradition context – Whether the Court of Appeal erred, in relation to the cross-appeal, in determining that s 184B of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 procedure applies in the extradition context.[2013] NZCA 38    CA526/2012
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted. 
B  The approved ground is: was the Court of Appeal correct to hold that the disclosure orders made in the District Court and upheld by the High Court were wrongly made? 
16 May 2013
___________
Appeal dismissed.
Costs reserved

21 March 2014
Media Releases
Substantive judgment
DOTCOM, BATATO, ORTMANN and VAN DER KOLK v THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [2014] NZSC 24 [21 March 2014] (PDF, 755 KB)
Transcript

Hearing date : 30 July 2013

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook, Blanchard JJ.
Case name
Te Whanau O Rangiwhakaahu Hapu Charitable Trust Inc and Friends of Matapouri Inc v Chief Execuitve, Land Information New Zealand  and Attorney-General
Case number
SC 31/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Cadastral Survey Act 2002, s 52 – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to decline to judicially review the Surveyor-General’ s refusal to exercise his power in s 52 of the Cadastral Survey Act to require correction of the cadastral survey data set – Costs – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its approach to costs. [2013] NZCA 33    CA67/2011
Result
Application for  leave to appeal dismissed.
Costs $2,500 plus reasonable disbursements to the respondents.
9 July 2013
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
TE WHANAU O RANGIWHAKAAHU HAPU CHARITABLE TRUST v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, LAND INFORMATION NEW ZEALAND [2013] NZSC 67 [9 July 2013] (PDF, 38 KB)
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
The New Zealand Pork Industry Board v The Director-General of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and another.
Case number
SC 36/2013
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial Review – Biosecurity Act 1993, s 22A – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicant’ s challenge was rightly dismissed – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s 22A so that the decision of the Director-General under s 22A(3) did not involve determining issues in dispute between the party seeking the s 22A review and the Ministry – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s 22A so that none of the issues concerning the adequacy of the Ministry’s consideration of the scientific evidence subject to the Terms of Reference for the Independent Review Panel established under s 22A were an “issue in dispute” under s 22A(3) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Ministry had wrongly understood that a determination under s 22A(3) was in fact necessary, as an earlier decision by the previous Director-General to conduct further work following the Panel’s report was sufficient to meet the requirements of s 22A(3). [2013] NZCA 65  CA 282/2012
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved grounds of appeal are:
(a) whether the Court of Appeal’ s interpretation of ss 22 and 22A of the Biosecurity Act 1993 was correct;
(b)  whether the Director-General correctly applied the requirements of ss 22 and 22A following the report of the Independent Review Panel. 15 May 2013
____________________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay costs of $25,000 to the first and second respondents collectively, plus reasonable disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
20 December 2013
Transcripts
Media Releases
Supreme court decision
THE NEW ZEALAND PORK INDUSTRY BOARD v THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2013] NZSC 58 [12 June 2013] (PDF, 35 KB)
Substantive judgment
THE NEW ZEALAND PORK INDUSTRY BOARD v THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2013] NZSC 154 [20 December 2013] (PDF, 448 KB)
Case name
Brooks Homes Limited, My Refund Limited and Stephen Cavell Brooks v NZ Tax Refunds Limited
Case number
SC 37/2013
Summary
Interim injunction – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that, where an appellate court disagrees with a lower court’s finding that there is no serious issue to be tried, the appellate court is then entitled and required to carry out its own assessment of the balance of convenience and the overall justice of the case.[2013] NZCA 90  CA 715/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
The applicants must pay the respondent costs of $2,500 plus
reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
21 June 2013.
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
BROOKS HOMES LTD, MY REFUND LTD AND STEPHEN CAVELL BROOKS v NZ TAX REFUNDS LTD [2013] NZSC 60 [21 June 2013] (PDF, 64 KB)
Page 82 of 107