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
Peter Gerard Stockman v New Zealand Association of Counsellors Incorporated
Case number
SC 1/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 35(6)(c) – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs because the purpose of the appeal was to challenge a rule that unjustly discriminates against the poor and underprivileged and because the “pro forma” respondent need not appear on the appeal and incur any costs for which security is required[2013] NZCA 647 CA 665/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Cost to the respondents $2,500.00
6 May 2014
_________________
Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
14 May 2014
_____________________
2nd application for recall of judgment declined.
17 June 2014
Cost to the respondents $2,500.00
6 May 2014
_________________
Application for recall of judgment dismissed.
14 May 2014
_____________________
2nd application for recall of judgment declined.
17 June 2014
Recall judgment
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Graham Edward McCready v ABC and another
Case number
SC 3/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to dispense with security for costs.[2013] NZCA 646 CA 698/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 together with disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar. 9 June 2014
B The applicant is to pay costs of $2,500 together with disbursements to be fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar. 9 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Quake Outcasts v The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, The Chief Executive of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, Fowler Developments Limited
Case number
SC 5/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Government had lawfully established the residential red zone in Christchurch through the use of its common law or third source powers – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the creation of the residential red zone did not affect the legal rights and liberties of the affected residents such that recourse to the third source was available – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the Government’ s offers to purchase the properties of the applicants and the third respondent under s 53 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 (Act) could be implemented without compliance with the regime set out in the Act for a planned and co-ordinated earthquake recovery approach – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the different treatment of the applicants and third respondent was not in itself a reviewable error as there was a rational basis for differentiating between insured and uninsured land owners. [2013] NZCA 588 CA 571/2013
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal in SC 5/2014 and SC 8/2014 are granted.
B The questions on which leave is granted are:
Were the offers made by the Crown to Residential Red Zone property owners under s 53 of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 lawfully made? In particular:
(i) Was there a material failure to comply with the Act?
(ii) Was there a rational basis for the distinction drawn between those owners who were insured and those who were uninsured?
5 May 2014
__________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B There is a declaration that the September 2012 decisions relating to uninsured improved residential property owners and to vacant residential land owners in the red zones were not lawfully made.
C The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 and the respondent in SC 8/2014 are directed to reconsider their decisions in light of this judgment.
D Leave is reserved to apply for any supplementary or consequential orders.
E The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 are to pay to the appellants costs of $40,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for three counsel.
F The respondent in SC 8/2014 is to pay to the appellant costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 March 2015
B The questions on which leave is granted are:
Were the offers made by the Crown to Residential Red Zone property owners under s 53 of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 lawfully made? In particular:
(i) Was there a material failure to comply with the Act?
(ii) Was there a rational basis for the distinction drawn between those owners who were insured and those who were uninsured?
5 May 2014
__________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B There is a declaration that the September 2012 decisions relating to uninsured improved residential property owners and to vacant residential land owners in the red zones were not lawfully made.
C The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 and the respondent in SC 8/2014 are directed to reconsider their decisions in light of this judgment.
D Leave is reserved to apply for any supplementary or consequential orders.
E The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 are to pay to the appellants costs of $40,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for three counsel.
F The respondent in SC 8/2014 is to pay to the appellant costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 March 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 29 - 31 July 2014 (PDF, 1.2 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 27 (PDF, 162 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Glover No 2 Limited v The Glover Trust Limited, Bailey Trustee Services Limited and Auckland West Legal Services Limited, and CIT Holdings Limited
Case number
SC 6/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal –Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the partie’s intention to create the bare trust was unmistakeable – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trust structure was used to achieve the best result for the beneficiaries of the Glover No 2 Trust – Whether the Court of Appeal erred when it held that the deed of bare trust was not severable from the other bundle of documents executed on the same day due to its status as a “rogue” document – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to consider the argument that it was against public policy to enforce this document.[2013] NZCA 608 CA 194/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed. Cost to the respondents $2,500.00
7 May 2014
7 May 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Fowler Developments Limited v The Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery, The Chief Executive of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority.
Case number
SC 8/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Judicial review – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that there was a rational basis for the respondent, in making the September 2012 offer to purchase the applicant’s land, to differentiate between insured residential property owners and uninsured owners.[2013] NZCA 588 CA571/2013
Result
A The applications for leave to appeal in SC 5/2014 and SC 8/2014 are granted.
B The questions on which leave is granted are: Was the establishment of the Residential Red Zones in Christchurch lawful as being a legitimate exercise of any common law powers or “residual freedom” the Crown may have, given the terms of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011? Were the offers made by the Crown to Residential Red Zone property owners under s 53 of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 lawfully made? In particular: (i) Was there a material failure to comply with the Act? (ii) Was there a rational basis for the distinction drawn between those owners who were insured and those who were uninsured?
5 May 2014
____________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B There is a declaration that the September 2012 decisions relating to uninsured improved residential property owners and to vacant residential land owners in the red zones were not lawfully made.
C The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 and the respondent in SC 8/2014 are directed to reconsider their decisions in light of this judgment.
D Leave is reserved to apply for any supplementary or consequential orders.
E The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 are to pay to the appellants costs of $40,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for three counsel.
F The respondent in SC 8/2014 is to pay to the appellant costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 March 2015
B The questions on which leave is granted are: Was the establishment of the Residential Red Zones in Christchurch lawful as being a legitimate exercise of any common law powers or “residual freedom” the Crown may have, given the terms of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011? Were the offers made by the Crown to Residential Red Zone property owners under s 53 of the Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Act 2011 lawfully made? In particular: (i) Was there a material failure to comply with the Act? (ii) Was there a rational basis for the distinction drawn between those owners who were insured and those who were uninsured?
5 May 2014
____________________
A The appeal is allowed in part.
B There is a declaration that the September 2012 decisions relating to uninsured improved residential property owners and to vacant residential land owners in the red zones were not lawfully made.
C The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 and the respondent in SC 8/2014 are directed to reconsider their decisions in light of this judgment.
D Leave is reserved to apply for any supplementary or consequential orders.
E The first and second respondents in SC 5/2014 are to pay to the appellants costs of $40,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for three counsel.
F The respondent in SC 8/2014 is to pay to the appellant costs of $20,000 plus usual disbursements. We certify for two counsel.
13 March 2015
Transcripts
- Hearing date 29 31 July 2014 (PDF, 1.2 MB)
Media Releases
- MR [2015] NZSC 27 (PDF, 162 KB)
Court of Appeal decision
Leave judgment - leave granted
Substantive judgment
Case name
Vinelight Nominees Limited and Weyand Investments Limited v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 10/2014
Summary
Civil appeal - tax avoidance - Tax Administration Act 1994. Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding there was an arrangement with a more than incidental purpose or effect of tax avoidance - whether a tax avoidance purpose can be inferred from aspects of a transaction other than those which produce the impugned tax result - whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that resort to sGB1 reconstruction power was unnecessary - whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the time bar in s 108 did not apply to particular approved issuer levy payments.[2013] NZCA 655 CA 35/2013
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
17 June 2014
B The applicants are jointly and severally liable to pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent.
17 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
GFM v JAM
Case number
SC 11/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Property (Relationships) Act 1976 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to approach the appeal as an appeal against the exercise of a discretion in accordance with the test established in May v May – Whether the Court of Appeal mis-stated the primary question and should have asked whether the respondent has shown that the Family Court Judge acted on the wrong principle, failed to take into account some relevant matter or was plainly wrong and whether the High Court Judge had approached the appeal on that basis or had erred in his approach – Whether the Court of Appeal erroneously interfered with finding of the Family Court Judge and failed to defer to the Family Court Judge’s expertise – Whether the Court of Appeal failed to recognise a number of discretions exercised by the Family Court Judge and erred in describing the discretion under s 2G(2) as a fettered discretion – Whether the Court of Appeal erred by putting the focus on equal sharing of relationship property (and at date of hearing values as determined by the Court) rather than on a just division – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to take into account the interests of the children – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in placing the burden of proof on the wife to establish certain key facts – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in its approach to s 18C of the Act – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in effectively directing sale of the former family home rather than valuing the home at the date of hearing – Whether the Court of Appeal’s approach is unjust to the wife by adopting date of hearing values.[2013] NZCA 660 CA 566/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Cost of $2,500 to the respondent.
2 April 2014
Cost of $2,500 to the respondent.
2 April 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
GFM v JAM [2014] NZSC 32 2 April 2014 (PDF, 49 KB)
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Sovereign Assurance Company Limited, ASB Bank Limited, Sovereign Services Limited, CBA Asset Finance (NZ) Limited, CBA Funding (NZ) Limited, CBA Dairy Leasing Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Case number
SC 14/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Income Tax Acts 1994 and 2004 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Commissioner’s reassessments of the applicants’ income – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the accrual rules in subpt EH of the Income Tax Act 1994 were of exclusive application in determining the tax treatment of the commission arrangements – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the commissions when received and the commission repayments when paid were not assessable income and deductible expenditure respectively – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the Commissioner was entitled to an award of costs.[2013] NZCA 652 CA 506/2012
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
10 June 2014
10 June 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Case name
Ross Donald Macrae and Lynette Gweneth Joy Macrae v Anthony Patrick Walshe and others
Case number
SC 16/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the right of way allows access only to a single dwelling on the dominant land and for naturally related or ancillary purposes – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the applicant’s property was a “dwelling” for the purpose of the easement– Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the easement should be modified in accordance with that Court’ s conclusions – Whether the Court erred in relation to costs.[2013] NZCA 664 CA 814/2012
Result
A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
B The applicants must pay the first respondent costs of $2,500.
22 July 2014
B The applicants must pay the first respondent costs of $2,500.
22 July 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Judgment appealed from
Case name
Razdan Rafiq v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and Commissioner of Police
Case number
SC 19/2014
Summary
Civil Appeal – Security for costs – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding the Registrar’s decision not to dispense with security for costs.[2014] NZCA 4 CA 812/2013
Result
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
16 June 2014
____________
Application for recall dismissed.
10 October 2014
16 June 2014
____________
Application for recall dismissed.
10 October 2014
Leave judgment - leave dismissed
Recall judgment
Page 74 of 110