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.
4 September 2026
Case information summary (as at 4 September 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 116 KB)
Case information summary (as at 4 September 2026) – Cases where leave to appeal decision not yet made (PDF, 132 KB)
All years
Case name
Trustpower Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 74/2015
Summary
Civil Appeal – Income Tax Act 2004, s DA 2 – Whether Court of Appeal correct to consider ground of reassessment irrelevant – Whether Court of Appeal made unsupported findings of fact – Whether Court of Appeal correct to find that Feasibility Expenditure was incurred on capital account.[2015] NZCA 253 CA830/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is granted (CIR v Trustpower [2015] NZCA 253).
B The approved questions are:(a) was the Court of Appeal wrong to consider the ground of reassessment set out in the Reassessment letter as irrelevant, or was the Court otherwise acting outside its jurisdiction in determining the appeal? If not, was the Court of Appeal correct in its conclusions on s DA 1?(b) Despite stating that it proceeded on the basis of accepting the High Court’s findings of fact, were any aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgment based on findings for which there was no evidence before the Court and/or that was contradicted by the evidence before the Court? If so, what is the significance of this?(c ) What is the correct approach to determining whether the expenditure of the type at issue in this proceeding has been incurred on revenue or capital account, for the purposes of s DA 2(1) of the Act?(d) Was the Commissioner correct, or at least not in error, to select the date by which the applicant had decided to apply for a resource consent as the point at which its expenditure was sufficiently connected to the capital purpose of obtaining a resource consent to be on capital account?
11 September 2015
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Trustpower is to pay the Commissioner costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
27 July 2016
B The approved questions are:(a) was the Court of Appeal wrong to consider the ground of reassessment set out in the Reassessment letter as irrelevant, or was the Court otherwise acting outside its jurisdiction in determining the appeal? If not, was the Court of Appeal correct in its conclusions on s DA 1?(b) Despite stating that it proceeded on the basis of accepting the High Court’s findings of fact, were any aspects of the Court of Appeal’s judgment based on findings for which there was no evidence before the Court and/or that was contradicted by the evidence before the Court? If so, what is the significance of this?(c ) What is the correct approach to determining whether the expenditure of the type at issue in this proceeding has been incurred on revenue or capital account, for the purposes of s DA 2(1) of the Act?(d) Was the Commissioner correct, or at least not in error, to select the date by which the applicant had decided to apply for a resource consent as the point at which its expenditure was sufficiently connected to the capital purpose of obtaining a resource consent to be on capital account?
11 September 2015
_______________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B Trustpower is to pay the Commissioner costs of $45,000 and reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
27 July 2016
Transcripts
- Hearing date 8 - 10 March 2016 (PDF, 1.4 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2016] NZSC 91 (PDF, 246 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
KWK v The Queen
Case number
SC 4/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Admissibility of evidence – Improperly obtained evidence – Evidence Act 2006, s 30 – Whether the availability of other investigatory techniques under s 30(3)(e) of the Evidence Act was a factor favouring admissibility of improperly obtained evidence – Whether s 30(3)(e) requires the person(s) exercising the unlawful search to have knowledge of the other investigatory techniques not involving any breach of rights.[2013] NZCA 616 CA 456/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
6 March 2014
6 March 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
[2013] NZCA 616 not available online
Case name
The Queen v TWW
Case number
SC 80/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence Act 2006, ss 28, 30 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that admissions by the accused obtained through a police undercover operation employing the “scenario technique” were unfairly and thus improperly obtained – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in adopting a Bill of Rights analysis where the accused’s rights were not breached – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that exclusion of the admissions was proportionate to the impropriety – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the admissions were unreliable.[2014] NZCA 339 CA 852/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted ([2014] NZCA 339).
The questions on which leave is given are whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that:
(a) the appellant’s confession to “Scott” was unfairly obtained; and
(b) evidence of it should be excluded.
10 October 2014
______________________
The appeal is allowed and the evidence in question is ruled to be admissible.
18 December 2015
The questions on which leave is given are whether the Court of Appeal was right to find that:
(a) the appellant’s confession to “Scott” was unfairly obtained; and
(b) evidence of it should be excluded.
10 October 2014
______________________
The appeal is allowed and the evidence in question is ruled to be admissible.
18 December 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 12 February 2015 (PDF, 506 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
Supreme court decision
Case name
Jonathan Dixon v The Queen
Case number
SC 82/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its interpretation of s 386(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in amending the charge and entering a conviction on the amended charge – Whether amending the charge breached the applicant’ s rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal against conviction – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to consider and take into account relevant submissions and evidence – Whether the Court of Appeal’s failure to consider and take into account relevant submissions denied the applicant a proper opportunity of appeal under s 383 of the Crimes Act and resulted in a breach of the applicant’ s rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in not finding a miscarriage of justice.[2014] NZCA 329 CA 518/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted.
The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred when it dismissed the appeal.
23 October 2014
___________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The decision of the Court of Appeal quashing the appellant’s conviction for obtaining property contrary to s 249(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961 and substituting a conviction for obtaining a benefit contrary to s 249(1)(a) is quashed. The appellant’s original conviction is reinstated.
C The appellant is to contact the Probation Service in South Dunedin by 10.30 am on Wednesday 28 October 2015 to make arrangements to complete his sentence.
20 October 2015
The approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred when it dismissed the appeal.
23 October 2014
___________________
A The appeal is dismissed.
B The decision of the Court of Appeal quashing the appellant’s conviction for obtaining property contrary to s 249(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1961 and substituting a conviction for obtaining a benefit contrary to s 249(1)(a) is quashed. The appellant’s original conviction is reinstated.
C The appellant is to contact the Probation Service in South Dunedin by 10.30 am on Wednesday 28 October 2015 to make arrangements to complete his sentence.
20 October 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 24 March 2015 (PDF, 447 KB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 147 (PDF, 253 KB)
Leave judgment - leave granted
JONATHAN DIXON v R [2014] NZSC 151 [23 October 2014] (PDF, 42 KB)
Substantive judgment
JONATHAN DIXON v R [2015] NZSC 147 [20 October 2015] (PDF, 343 KB)
Case name
The Wanaka Gym Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council
Case number
SC 84/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Building Act 2004 – Whether the High Court erred in classifying the residential building as other than a single household unit – Whether High Court erred in holding that the C/AS1 purpose group SA was the appropriate proxy to meet the Building Code fire safety requirements for a residential building – Whether the High Court failed to take proper account of the different criminal and civil standards of proof – Whether the convictions were based on improperly obtained evidence – Whether leave to adduce fresh evidence should be granted. [2012] NZHC 284
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 December 2014
23 December 2014
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Fiona Caroline Graham v Queenstown Lakes District Council
Case number
SC 85/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Building Act 2004 – Whether the High Court erred in classifying the residential building as other than a single household unit – Whether High Court erred in holding that the C/AS1 purpose group SA was the appropriate proxy to meet the Building Code fire safety requirements for a residential building – Whether the High Court failed to take proper account of the different criminal and civil standards of proof – Whether the convictions were based on improperly obtained evidence – Whether leave to adduce fresh evidence should be granted.[2012] NZHC 284
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
23 December 2014
23 December 2014
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Supreme court decision
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Clive Richard Bradbury and Gregory Alan Peebles v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 87/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to set aside a decision which has been the subject of an appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to indemnity costs – Whether the proceeding involves substantial relitigation of issues already determined by the courts.[2014] NZCA 350 CA 623/103
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. Costs are reserved. If the respondents wish to obtain orders for costs they should apply within 14 days setting out in detail the orders sought. If such applications are made, the applicants may respond within a further 14 days.
2 December 2014
_________
Leave is granted under s 76(2) of the Insolvency Act 2006 to permit continuation of the applications for costs in respect of SC 87/2014 and SC 103/2014. We fix costs and disbursements in favour of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in the sum of $10,653.99.
8 June 2015
2 December 2014
_________
Leave is granted under s 76(2) of the Insolvency Act 2006 to permit continuation of the applications for costs in respect of SC 87/2014 and SC 103/2014. We fix costs and disbursements in favour of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in the sum of $10,653.99.
8 June 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Supreme court decision
Case name
Accent Management Limited v Attorney-General and Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 90/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Income Tax Act 1994 - Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to provide a remedy if a Judge attempting to calculate tax overlooks the direction in s EH 8(1) of the Income Tax Act 1994 that subpart EG and s DL 1(3) of that Act are not to apply, where failure to comply with them engages the Constitution Act 1986 and the Bill of Rights 1688 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the High Court has jurisdiction to overlook the direction in s EH 8(1), whether in demanding tax or reviewing such a demand - Whether the proceeding involves substantial relitigation of issues already determined by the courts.[2014] NZCA 351 CA 541/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Costs are reserved. If the respondents wish to obtain orders for costs they should apply within 14 days setting out in detail the orders sought. If such applications are made, the applicants may respond within a further 14 days.
2 December 2014
_____________
We fix costs and disbursements in favour of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in the sum of $3,659.67.
8 June 2015
Costs are reserved. If the respondents wish to obtain orders for costs they should apply within 14 days setting out in detail the orders sought. If such applications are made, the applicants may respond within a further 14 days.
2 December 2014
_____________
We fix costs and disbursements in favour of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in the sum of $3,659.67.
8 June 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Supreme court decision
Case name
Clive Richard Bradbury and Gregory Alan Peebles v Judicial Conduct Commissioner
Case number
SC 103/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the judicial review application – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that it was not judicial misconduct for a judge to have unsatisfied liabilities to a party that are not disclosed in cases involving that party, to sit in such cases, and to deny such liabilities - Whether the Judicial Conduct Commissioner failed to adopt a proper process – Whether the judicial review proceedings are abuse of process – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in awarding indemnity costs.[2014] NZCA 441 CA 357/2013
Result
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Costs are reserved. If the respondents wish to obtain orders for costs they should apply within 14 days setting out in detail the orders sought. If such applications are made, the applicants may respond within a further 14 days.
2 December 2014
________________
Leave is granted under s 76(2) of the Insolvency Act 2006 to permit continuation of the applications for costs in respect of SC 87/2014 and SC 103/2014. We fix costs and disbursements as follows: To the Judicial Conduct Commissioner in the sum of $5,294.50; To the Hon Justice Venning in the sum of $2,829.
8 June 2015
Costs are reserved. If the respondents wish to obtain orders for costs they should apply within 14 days setting out in detail the orders sought. If such applications are made, the applicants may respond within a further 14 days.
2 December 2014
________________
Leave is granted under s 76(2) of the Insolvency Act 2006 to permit continuation of the applications for costs in respect of SC 87/2014 and SC 103/2014. We fix costs and disbursements as follows: To the Judicial Conduct Commissioner in the sum of $5,294.50; To the Hon Justice Venning in the sum of $2,829.
8 June 2015
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Costs judgment
Judgment appealed from
Case name
The Queen v Shivneel Shahil Kumar
Case number
SC 115/2014
Summary
Criminal Appeal – Evidence – Right to refrain from making a statement under s 23(4) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 – Whether admissions made to undercover police officers in holding cell after applicant arrested were actively elicited – Whether evidence obtained in consequence of a breach of ss 23(4) and 24(c) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act – Whether evidence obtained unfairly – Whether exclusion of evidence was proportionate to the Police impropriety. [2014] NZCA 489 CA 86/2014
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted ([2014] NZCA 489).
19 November 2014
______________________
The appeal is dismissed.
6 August 2015
19 November 2014
______________________
The appeal is dismissed.
6 August 2015
Page 9 of 33