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
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.
Case name
Churchill Group Holdings Limited and others v Aral Property Holdings Limited and David Leung
Case number
SC 82/2010
Summary
Civil – Conflict of Interest – Whether employment of High Court Judge’s child within the respondent’s firm of solicitors gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias which meant Judge should not have sat or continued to sit on the case – Whether Court of Appeal should accordingly have recalled its judgment dismissing an appeal from the High Court’s decision not to stay the execution of a costs order against the appellant.[2010] NZCA 335 30 July 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
3 November 2010
Case name
Henry David Levin and Barry Philip Jordan v Patrick Ikiua, Kenti Apa, Tess Apa, Mark Crosbie, Andrew David Smith.
Case number
SC 123/2010
Summary
Civil – Liquidators’ right under s 298 of the Companies Act 1993 to recover property which a liquidated company has disposed of to certain entities – Whether the company must have had a proprietary interest in the property – Whether s 298 applies only to transactions where the directors are duty bound to obtain fair value in return for the disposition of property – Whether the company had legitimately transferred its assets – Whether the directors of the company had breached their duties by disposing of all profits.[2010] NZCA 509 CA 508/2009 12 November 2010
Dates
Notice of Abandonment being lodged, the application is deemed to be dismissed.
Case name
David Cullen Bain v The Queen
Case number
SC 3/2009
Summary
[2008] NZCA 585 CA 572/2008, CA 672/2008 24 December 2008
Result
Notice of Abandonment of Appeal being lodged, the appeal is deemed to be dismissed.
9 February 2009
9 February 2009
Case name
David Cullen Bain v The Queen
Case number
SC 13/2009
Summary
[2009] NZCA CA 769/2008 30 January 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
24 February 2009
_______________________
A The appeal is allowed. B The disputed evidence is excluded and the material in issue is to be excised.
18 March 2009
24 February 2009
_______________________
A The appeal is allowed. B The disputed evidence is excluded and the material in issue is to be excised.
18 March 2009
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
BAIN V R SC 13/2009 [6 March 2009] (PDF, 12 KB)
Additional document
Transcript hearing date 2 March 2009 (PDF, 352 KB)
Substantive judgment
BAIN v R (REASONS) SC 13/2009 [6 March 2009] (PDF, 158 KB)
Recall judgment
BAIN v R SC 13/2009 [25 May 2009] (PDF, 11 KB)
Additional document
Transcript hearing date 11 June 2009 (PDF, 39 KB)
Supreme court decision
BAIN v R SC 13/2009 [11 June 2009] (PDF, 16 KB)
Case name
TFAC Limited, Geoffrey Alan Grisdale and Amanda May Grisdale v Susan Elizabeth David and UAR Limited
Case number
SC 26/2009
Summary
Civil – Fair Trading Act 1986 – Australian home services franchising operation – Applicants entered into a master franchise agreement covering Auckland’s eastern suburbs with the respondents, who owned the New Zealand master franchise – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in fact and law in its finding that the respondents did not engage in misleading and deceptive conduct in breach of s 9 of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in overlooking the High Court’s finding that the respondents had breached s 22(1) and (2) of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in treating a particular pleaded misrepresentation as a misrepresentation as to a future matter – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that a particular opinion was honestly held by the first respondent and had a reasonable basis – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its finding that even if the respondents had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct the causal link necessary to justify relief under s 43 of the Act was doubtful – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its finding that the respondents were protected from liability by various disclaimer and acknowledgement clauses.[2009] NZCA 44 CA 26/2008
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed, with costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
26 May 2009
26 May 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Peter David Buddle v The Queen
Case number
SC 43/2009
Summary
Criminal – Appeal against conviction – Crimes Act 1961 – Sexual offending – Criminal procedure – Exercise of s 374 discretion to discharge jury without their giving of a verdict – Whether trial Judge had authority to discharge jury at first trial on “a hung jury aspect” – Whether second trial a nullity in respect of all charges – Whether miscarriage of justice established.[2009] NZCA 184 CA 416/2008 14 May 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
22 June 2009
22 June 2009
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
BUDDLE v R SC 43/2009 [22 June 2009] (PDF, 9 KB)
Substantive judgment
BUDDLE v R SC 43/2009 [26 November 2009] (PDF, 132 KB)
Result
Appeal allowed, Convictions set aside. New Trial ordered on three counts.
26 November 2009
Hearing
13 August 2009
Case name
David George Saggers v The Queen
Case number
SC 47/2009
Summary
Criminal Appeal – the appellant was convicted in the High Court for manufacturing methamphetamine and possessing equipment capable of being used in the manufacture of methamphetamine – Court of Appeal allowed the appellant’s appeal against conviction on the manufacturing charge and ordered a retrial but upheld the appellant’s conviction for possessing equipment capable of being used in the manufacture of methamphetamine – Appellant was found not guilty on the manufacturing charge at the retrial – Whether the guilty verdict on the charge of possessing equipment is inconsistent with the not guilty verdict on the manufacturing charge, amounting to a miscarriage of justice.[2008] NZCA 364 CA 121/2008 12 September 2008
Result
Application to leave to appeal dismissed. 30 July 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
SAGGERS V R SC 47/2009 30 July 2009 (PDF, 14 KB)
Case name
Chesterfields Preschools Limited, David John Hampton and others v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 90/2009
Summary
Civil – GST Act 1995 - Costs awards – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the appeals of the Commissioner for a stay of payment of costs awards in favour of the applicant.[2009] NZCA 373 CA 607/2008 25 August 2009
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Costs $3,000 plus disbursements to the respondent. 8 December 2009
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Page 11 of 13