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.
22 September 2026
Case information summary (as at 18 September 2026) – Cases where leave granted (PDF, 112 KB)
Case information summary (as at 18 September 2026) – Currently unavailable
All years
Case name
Commerce Commission v Vodafone New Zealand Limited and Telecom New Zealand Limited
Case number
SC 44/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Communications - Telecommunications Act 2001 - Whether the Commerce Commission erred in its calculation of the net cost of providing Telecommunications Services Obligation under the Act by ceasing to introduce new technology into the modelled network.Civ 2008 485 2194/295/ 2341 1 April 2010
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. Approved ground of appeal is whether the Commerce Commission in making its determination complied with applicable statutory provsion.
14 May 2010
__________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order for costs.
17 November 2011
14 May 2010
__________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order for costs.
17 November 2011
Substantive judgment
Leave judgment - leave granted
Transcript
Hearing date : 21 – 24 February 2011
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Case name
Telecom New Zealand Limited v Vodafone New Zealand Limited and Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 45/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Communications – Telecommunications Act 2001 – Whether the High Court erred in holding that there was no reviewable inconsistency or error of law in the Commerce Commission’s determination to reduce material input in its modelling methodology based on the removal from its modelling of a technological optimisation factor.Civ 2008 485 2194/295/ 2341 1 April 2010
Substantive judgment
Leave judgment - leave granted
Transcript
Hearing dates : 21 – 24 February
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Dates
Application for leave to appeal granted.
Approved ground of appeal is whether the Commerce Commission in making its determination complied with applicable statutory provsion.
14 May 2010
__________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order for costs.
17 November 2011
Case name
Telecom New Zealand Limited v Vodafone New Zealand Limited and Commerce Commission
Case number
SC 46/2010
Summary
Civil Appeal – Communications - Telecommunications Act 2001 - Whether the Commerce Commission erred in its calculation of the net cost of providing Telecommunications Services Obligation under the Act by ceasing to introduce new technology into the modelled network.Civ 2008 485 2293/2205/2206 1 April 2010
Result
Application for leave to appeal granted. Approved ground of appeal is whether the Commerce Commission in making its determination complied with applicable statutory provsion.
14 May 2010
________________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order for costs.
17 November 2011
14 May 2010
________________________________
Appeal dismissed. No order for costs.
17 November 2011
Substantive judgment
Leave judgment - leave granted
Transcript
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Gault JJ.
Case name
James Louis Mason v The Queen
Case number
SC 47/2010
Summary
Criminal Appeal – whether the Court of Appeal erred in combining two allegations of criminal conduct to be included in a single count in the indictment.[2010] NZCA 170 CA 481/2009 5 May 2010
Result
The application for leave to appeal is granted. The approved ground of appeal is whether the combining in a single count in the indictment of the two allegations (punching the child and pulling his ear) resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
7 July 2010
___________________________
Appeal allowed and the conviction is quashed. No order for a new trial.
3 November 2010
7 July 2010
___________________________
Appeal allowed and the conviction is quashed. No order for a new trial.
3 November 2010
Transcripts
- sc 47 2010 james louis mason v the queen (PDF, 100 KB)
Media Releases
Leave judgment - leave granted
MASON v R SC 47/2010 [7 July 2010] (PDF, 6 KB)
Substantive judgment
MASON v R SC 47/2010 [3 November 2010] (PDF, 66 KB)
Transcript
Hearing date : 19 October 2010
Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath, Anderson JJ.
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 2010Page 18 of 33