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.

3 July 2026

Case information summary (as at 3 July 2026) –  Cases where leave granted (PDF, 88 KB)
Case information summary (as at 3 July 2026)  – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 127 KB) 

All years

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
YS v The Queen
Case number
SC 26/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence and Procedure – Admissibility of evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the verb “to obtain” in the context of s 30(5) of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court erred in its decision not to exclude the statements made by the appellants on the ground of unfairness.CA 373/2011  [2012] NZCA 114
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 May 2012.
Case name
CF v The Queen
Case number
SC 27/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence and Procedure – Admissibility of evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of the verb “to obtain” in the context of s 30(5) of the Evidence Act 2006 – Whether the Court erred in its decision not to exclude the statements made by the appellants on the ground of unfairness.CA 372/2011  [2012] NZCA 114
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 May 2012.
Case name
Reginald Robert Long v ANZ National Bank Limited
Case number
SC 31/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Appeal against summary judgment – Property Law Act 2007, s 176(1) – Whether Court of Appeal erred in its conclusion that mortgagee complied with duty to use reasonable care to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable – Whether Court of Appeal was correct that Respondent provided sufficient evidence to prove that there was no arguable defence against summary judgment. CA  708/2011  [2012] NZCA132
Dates

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Costs are reserved, with the respondent to submit a memorandum within seven days as to the costs sought and the applicant to reply within a further seven days.
4 July 2012.
Case name
John George Russell v Commissioner of Inland  Revenue
Case number
SC 33/2012
Summary
Civil Appeal – Tax avoidance – Whether the applicant received a fair and impartial hearing – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its analysis of the evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the overall arrangement established and operated by the applicant had the purpose or effect of tax avoidance – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the applicant was a person affected by the arrangement and that he obtained a tax advantage – Whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find that the assessment made by the Commissioner would not be void even if it included income deemed by virtue of s 99(4) of the Income Tax Act 1976 to be the income of someone else.CA  654/2010  [2012] NZCA128
Dates
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant is to pay costs of $5,000 to the respondent Commissioner plus all reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
13 August 2012.
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
RAS  v The Queen
Case number
SC 41/2012
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Prostitution Reform Act 2003, s 22(1) – Whether Court of Appeal erred in interpreting s 22(1) as a strict liability offence – Whether Court of Appeal correctly held that search warrants were properly obtained under s 198 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 rather than s 30 of the Prostitution Reform Act – Whether Court of Appeal’ s interpretation of the jurisdictional scope of s 198 of the Summary Proceedings Act was correct.[2012]NZCA 189   CA 761/2011
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
27 July 2012.
Case name
Ann Mary Seaton v Minister for Land Information
Case number
SC 44/2012
Summary
Civil – s 23 Public Works Act 1981– compulsory acquisition – whether s 23 empowers the Minister to acquire land indirectly required for a Government work – whether the Minister’s intention to transfer the easement interests to Transpower and Orion following acquisition meant that he had not acted for a proper purpose as required by s 23.[2012]NZCA 234  CA   360/2011
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the Public Works Act 1981 in the circumstances of this case?
25 July 2012
___________________
A The appeal is allowed.
B The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set aside.
C The orders made in the High Court are restored.
D The respondent is to pay the appellant, with respect to costs in this Court, the sum of $25,000 together with disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.
E  If the parties cannot agree on costs in the Court of Appeal, the Court of Appeal must fix them.
29 April 2013
Media Releases
Transcript

Hearing date : 13 November 2012

Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Chambers, Glazebrook JJ.
Page 12 of 32