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
Avowal Administrative Attorneys Limted and Nikytas Nicholas Petroulias v The District Court at North Shore and The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 55/2010
Summary
Civil – Judicial review - Powers of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to obtain information under the Tax Administration Act 1994 – That the Court of Appeal erred in failing to require that inspection of documents be necessary and relevant before the CIR may access them – That the Court of Appeal erred in finding no scope to interpret “book or document” in s16 of the TAA narrowly – That the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the CIR had an obligation to disclose the information obtained to the Australian Tax Office.[2010] NZCA 183 CA 73/2009 11 May 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Applicants must pay 2nd respondents cost of $3,000 plus disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
16 August 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
Tannadyce Investments Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 63/2010
Summary
Civil – Statutory demand for tax arrears – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that conscious maladministration cannot justify judicial review unless it negated the assessment made by the CIR – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that Tannadyce had the opportunity to invoke the statutory challenge procedure – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to find that the CIR and its officers acted unacceptably in refusing Tannadyce access to documents relating to it.[2010] NZCA 233 CA 703/2008, CA 330/2009 4 June 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal erred in striking out as an abuse of process the remaining ground of the appellant’s judicial review proceeding in which it alleges conscious maladministration by the respondent in denying that it had possession of documents which the appellant alleges it needed in order to be able to file tax returns. 27 August 2010
________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $15,000 plus disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
20 December 2011
________________________
The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the respondent costs in the sum of $15,000 plus disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
20 December 2011
Media Releases
- MR [2011] NZSC 158 (PDF, 84 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Hearing date : 25 August 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Case name
Justin Leigh Harney v New Zealand Police
Case number
SC 64/2010
Summary
[2010] NZCA 264 CA 194/2010 1 July 2010
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. The approved grounds are: (i) Was the Court of Appeal correct to find that there was a “good reason” for not following a formal identification procedure pursuant to s 45(1) of the Evidence Act 2006? (ii) If not, was the Court of Appeal correct to find that the circumstances in which the identification was made produced a reliable identification beyond reasonable doubt pursuant to s 45(2) of the Evidence Act? 13 August 2010 __________________ Appeal allowed. Convictions set aside. No order for a new trial.
16 September 2011
16 September 2011
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment / Media release
Transcript
Hearing date : 17 August 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Robert Erwood v Janet Maxted and others
Case number
SC 66/2010
Result
The appeal is allowed.
The appeal to the Court of Appeal is reinstated. The proceeding is remitted to the Court of Appeal for hearing.
The costs order in the Court of Appeal is set aside.
18 March 2011
____________________________
The application by the first respondents for recall is dismissed.
15 July 2011
____________________________
Application by the appellant for recall is dismissed.
25 November 2015
The appeal to the Court of Appeal is reinstated. The proceeding is remitted to the Court of Appeal for hearing.
The costs order in the Court of Appeal is set aside.
18 March 2011
____________________________
The application by the first respondents for recall is dismissed.
15 July 2011
____________________________
Application by the appellant for recall is dismissed.
25 November 2015
Recall judgment
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Recall judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
Case name
Philip John Smith v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 71/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal denied the appellant the right to a fair hearing on account of bias, hostility and predetermining the appellant’s recusal applications; whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that evidence tendered at the High Court was admissible; whether psychological reports of the appellant were obtained in breached s 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.[2010] NZCA 258 23 June 2010
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Dates
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
8 September 2010
Case name
Graeme John Ingram and Elizabeth Knee & Kip Investments Limited v Patrcroft Investments Limited
Case number
SC 72/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Contract – Respondent re-entered property on 14 June 2005, one day before entitled to cancel lease contract for failure by Appellants to pay rent arrears – Whether Respondent cancelled contract under s 8 Contractual Remedies Act 1979 on 15 June by remaining in occupation of the property – Whether Respondent must have been ready, willing and able to perform the contract when cancelling on 15 June – Whether Court of Appeal correct to say Appellants could have reserved their rights to cancel for Respondent’s repudiation by paying outstanding rent on 14 June.[2010] NZCA 275 29 June 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved ground is: In circumstances in which the respondent’s re-entry into the premises on 14 June 2005 was invalid, whether, and when, either of the parties thereafter validly terminated the lease.
27 September 2010
______________________
A The appeal is allowed and the orders made by the High Court are restored.
B The appellants are awarded costs of $15,000 together with their reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
C The costs order made by the Court of Appeal is reversed. Any outstanding questions concerning interest and costs should be determined by the High Court.
19 May 2011
The approved ground is: In circumstances in which the respondent’s re-entry into the premises on 14 June 2005 was invalid, whether, and when, either of the parties thereafter validly terminated the lease.
27 September 2010
______________________
A The appeal is allowed and the orders made by the High Court are restored.
B The appellants are awarded costs of $15,000 together with their reasonable disbursements to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
C The costs order made by the Court of Appeal is reversed. Any outstanding questions concerning interest and costs should be determined by the High Court.
19 May 2011
Media Releases
- media release ingram v patcroft 10 may 2011 doc (PDF, 84 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
North Shore City Council v The Attorney-General
Case number
SC 77/2010
Summary
Civil – Duty of care – Whether Building Industry Authority owed a duty of care to the Council in connection with 1995 review of Council’ s building regulatory operations and functions under Building Act 1991 – Whether case so untenable to justify striking out of third-party notice.[2010] NZCA 324 26 July 2010
Result
A Leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds are:
(i) Whether it is reasonably arguable that the BIA owed a duty of care to the Council in relation to the Grange development in any of the respects pleaded (as described in para 13.1 – 13.3 of the Council’s submissions in support of its application for leave to appeal).
(ii) Whether it is reasonably arguable that the BIA owed a duty of care to the plaintiff body corporate and unit owners in the respect pleaded (as described in para 13.4 of the Council’s submissions in support of its application for leave to appeal).
13 October 2010
________________
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay the respondent costs of $40,000 and reasonable disbursements in connection with this appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
27 June 2012
Transcript
Hearing date : 1 – 3 November 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard , Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Elias CJ, Blanchard , Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Peter Hardie McNamara and Patrick Sturgeon McNamara as Trustees of the PH McNamara Family Trust v Auckland City Council
Case number
SC 85/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the respondent did not owe a duty of care to the appellant; whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the building certificate issued by a third party was invalid under the Building Act 1991.[2010] NZCA 345 CA 457/2009 3 August 2010.
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted.
B The approved grounds are: Whether a local authority: (i) owes a duty of care to purchasers of units in a residential development for which a code compliance certificate was issued by a private certifier which was acting outside of its authority to issue such certificates; and/or (ii) was immunised by s 50(3) of the Building Act 1991 against liability in relation to its actions in reliance on such a certificate.
30 November 2010
____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
The appellants are to pay the respondent costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements in connection with this appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
9 May 2012
B The approved grounds are: Whether a local authority: (i) owes a duty of care to purchasers of units in a residential development for which a code compliance certificate was issued by a private certifier which was acting outside of its authority to issue such certificates; and/or (ii) was immunised by s 50(3) of the Building Act 1991 against liability in relation to its actions in reliance on such a certificate.
30 November 2010
____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
The appellants are to pay the respondent costs of $25,000 and reasonable disbursements in connection with this appeal, as fixed by the Registrar if necessary.
9 May 2012
Transcripts
- sc 85 2010 mcnamara family trust v auckland cc (PDF, 983 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2012] NZSC 34 (PDF, 95 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Case name
Tabbasum Mahomed v The Queen
Case number
SC 97/2010
Summary
Criminal – Failing to Provide the Necessaries of Life – Whether Court of Appeal erred in pre-trial ruling admitting certain propensity/narrative evidence against the applicant – Whether Court of Appeal in dismissing appeal erred in concluding trial Judge not required to give specific directions on propensity evidence at trial – Whether Crown was required to exclude at trial the possibility that murder injury was unsurvivable – Whether Court of Appeal wrong to find sufficient evidence to exclude that possibility.[2010] NZCA 419 CA 790/2009 14 September 2010.
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted.
The approved grounds are: (i) Whether the evidence concerning the child’ s being left in the car on 19 December 2007 was admissible; and (ii) If so, whether the Judge’s directions relating to that evidence were adequate.
2 November 2010
_____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
19 May 2011
The approved grounds are: (i) Whether the evidence concerning the child’ s being left in the car on 19 December 2007 was admissible; and (ii) If so, whether the Judge’s directions relating to that evidence were adequate.
2 November 2010
_____________________________
Appeal dismissed.
19 May 2011
Media Releases
- mahomed v the queen press release (PDF, 87 KB)
Substantive judgment
MAHOMED v R SC 97/2010, SC 117/2010 [19 May 2011] (PDF, 321 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 17 February 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, William Young JJ.
Page 18 of 32