Dispute Resolution 2026 Comparisons

New Zealand’s commercial dispute resolution landscape is pragmatic and pluralistic. Litigation, arbitration, and a range of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms coexist and are frequently used in combination. The choice between them is shaped by the nature of the dispute, the parties’ contractual arrangements, and the relief sought.

Litigation in the High Court remains the primary forum for substantial commercial disputes, offering definitive judicial determination, interim relief, and the development of binding precedent. New Zealand courts apply the common law principle of precedent, with persuasive authority drawn from other common law jurisdictions.

Arbitration is a well-established feature of the commercial landscape and supported by statute and New Zealand’s commitment to international obligations such as the New York Convention. Domestically, it is particularly prevalent in construction, property, and infrastructure disputes where parties have agreed in advance to a private binding process. Mediation and negotiation are the principal ADR methods available to commercial parties and are actively encouraged by the courts. For construction disputes, adjudication under the Construction Contracts Act 2002 provides a widely used fast-track statutory mechanism.

Tikanga-based dispute resolution, rooted in the concept of hohou te rongo and the restoration of relational balance, operates as a distinctly indigenous mechanism alongside common law processes. It is receiving growing formal recognition, including from the Supreme Court and within the Government Centre for Dispute Resolution’s best practice framework.

Litigation remains the most favoured mechanism for resolving complex commercial disputes in New Zealand, particularly where interim relief is required, a party is unwilling to engage in consensual resolution, or the matter raises novel questions of law. In practice, the boundaries between mechanisms are porous. Sophisticated commercial parties routinely structure dispute resolution as a sequenced process rather than a binary choice, and recent procedural reforms have embedded that disposition within the court system itself.

Arbitration is prevalent in construction, lease, and general commercial contract disputes, reflecting the frequency of pre-dispute arbitration clauses in standard-form contracts and the mechanism’s advantages of privacy and finality. Tiered dispute resolution clauses are common in commercial contracts.

Mediation and negotiation are used across a broad range of commercial disputes and at various stages of proceedings. Negotiation typically represents the first step in any sequenced resolution process. Mediation most commonly occurs after proceedings have been filed but before trial, once the parties have a clearer picture of their respective positions.

New Zealand dispute resolution is in a period of sustained institutional reform, animated by a broad commitment to proportionality, cost-efficiency, and timely resolution. Chronic court delays have accelerated both structural change and the growth of alternatives to litigation.

The most consequential response is the High Court (Improved Access to Civil Justice) Amendment Rules 2025, in force from 1 January 2026 (the New Rules). The New Rules introduce an evidence-first model, replace standard discovery with front-loaded initial disclosure obligations, and place the Judicial Issues Conference at the heart of case management. Proportionality is embedded as a governing principle, including promoting ADR at every stage of proceedings.

The re-establishment of a dedicated Commercial List at the Auckland High Court from October 2025 reflects the same orientation, providing an expedited case management pathway for disputes valued at NZD1 million or more. The Disputes Tribunal Amendment Act 2025, effective 24 January 2026, increased the Tribunal’s financial jurisdiction from NZD30,000 to NZD60,000.

Class actions and third-party litigation funding are both growth areas, each reinforcing the other. Representative proceedings are an increasingly prominent feature of the litigation landscape, supported by an expanding body of appellate jurisprudence. Litigation funding is permitted but unregulated by statute, with the courts adopting a cautiously permissive approach.

Environmental and climate litigation remains a rapid growth area. The Supreme Court’s reinstatement of novel climate tort claims in Smith v Fonterra [2024] NZSC 5 signals judicial willingness to engage with climate liability at common law, with trial scheduled for April 2027. Judicial review proceedings challenging the lawfulness of New Zealand’s emissions reduction plans are also on foot, with judgment reserved following a High Court hearing in March 2026.

The Limitation Act 2010 governs the limitation periods within which civil claims must be brought in New Zealand courts, introducing a knowledge-based framework to balance claimant and defendant interests.

The primary limitation period is six years, running from the date upon which the claimant discovered, or ought reasonably to have discovered, the act or omission giving rise to the claim, the loss suffered, and the identity of the defendant. Constructive knowledge arises once a claimant has information that would lead a reasonable person to begin investigating whether a right to claim exists (Rea v Auckland Council [2024] NZCA 313).

There is an absolute longstop of 15 years from the date of the relevant act or omission, irrespective of the claimant’s state of knowledge, operating as a statutory bar.

Where fraud or deliberate concealment is established, a fresh three-year period runs from the date of discovery, preventing defendants from benefiting from their own wrongdoing.

New Zealand’s court system is hierarchical, with each level exercising jurisdiction appropriate to the nature and complexity of the matters before it.

The District Court is the court of first instance for the majority of proceedings, handling civil claims up to NZD350,000. The Disputes Tribunal handles minor civil disputes up to NZD60,000.

The High Court exercises general supervisory jurisdiction over inferior courts and tribunals, hears appeals from the District Court, and has unlimited civil jurisdiction, including an inherent jurisdiction. It further exercises judicial review jurisdiction, enabling supervision of decisions made by public bodies and inferior tribunals. The Court of Appeal hears appeals on questions of both fact and law from the High Court and certain tribunals.

At the apex sits the Supreme Court, established by the Supreme Court Act 2003, replacing the Privy Council as the final appellate court. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is granted only where the matter raises a question of general or public importance.

A number of specialist courts operate alongside the general court hierarchy. The Environment Court determines appeals and proceedings under resource management and environmental legislation. The Employment Court has exclusive jurisdiction over employment relationship matters of a more serious or complex nature. The Māori Land Court exercises jurisdiction over matters concerning Māori land and the obligations arising under Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993.

New Zealand does not impose a formalised pre-action conduct regime comparable to that found in England and Wales under the Civil Procedure Rules Practice Directions. There is no general statutory obligation requiring parties to comply with pre-action protocols before commencing civil proceedings. Certain statutory contexts impose pre-action requirements, including notification and negotiation obligations under some insurance contracts.       

Civil proceedings in the New Zealand High Court are governed by the High Court Rules 2016, as reformed by the New Rules described in 1.3 Key Dispute Resolution Trends. The New Rules introduce proportionality as the overriding objective under rule 1.2 and embed a general duty to co-operate under rule 1.2A.

Proceedings are commenced by the filing and service of a statement of claim, accompanied by initial disclosure. Under the New Rules, initial disclosure is more demanding, requiring adverse documents of which the disclosing party is aware or has reasonable grounds to believe exist, verified by affidavit. The defendant then files a statement of defence, following which factual witness statements and standardised chronologies are exchanged early, prior to the Judicial Issues Conference (JIC).

The JIC is the centrepiece of the New Rules: a mandatory half-day hearing before a judge at which client representatives attend. It addresses ADR options, narrows issues, deals with disclosure, and sets directions for expert evidence and trial. Further disclosure after the JIC requires agreement or court order. One expert per topic is ordinarily permitted, and at trial evidence in chief is by witness statement, with oral evidence focused on genuinely contested matters.

Timeframes remain a significant concern, with the average wait between a case being ready for hearing and its scheduled date standing at 566 days as of 2024 (627 days in Auckland).

Court proceedings in New Zealand are governed by the open justice principle. Hearings are generally open to the public, judgments are publicly available, and parties’ names may be published prior to the hearing.

Suppression orders may be granted where the interests of justice clearly demand it. Courts may redact commercially sensitive material or, in exceptional circumstances, clear the public from a hearing. Routine procedural matters are heard in chambers. New Zealand’s approach to court document access is notably broad by international standards, with parties and members of the public able to apply to access pleadings and submissions.

Certain categories of proceedings are subject to confidentiality by statute, including judicial review proceedings concerning commercially sensitive regulatory decisions.

New Zealand courts may grant a range of interim remedies, including interim injunctions, freezing orders, search orders, and preservation orders. The full treatment of interim injunctions, including the without-notice procedure, is described in 6.5 Interim Injunctions.

In transnational disputes, freezing orders are available where the applicant demonstrates a good arguable case and a real risk that the respondent will dissipate assets. The jurisdiction extends to worldwide assets. Search orders remain rare given their intrusive nature. Preservation orders may be sought to protect property or evidence pending resolution of proceedings.

New Zealand courts may grant a wide range of final remedies in commercial litigation.

Damages are the primary remedy, available as of right upon proof of loss. Where inadequate, specific performance may be ordered, most commonly in disputes involving land or unique goods. Permanent injunctions are available to restrain continuing or threatened wrongs. Declarations as to rights or obligations may be granted independently of other relief and have assumed increasing significance in the regulatory and climate litigation context (see 1.3 Key Dispute Resolution Trends).

In equity, an account of profits is available as an alternative to damages in claims for breach of fiduciary duty or intellectual property infringement, where the defendant’s gain may exceed the plaintiff’s measurable loss. Restitutionary relief is available to reverse unjust enrichment. Proprietary remedies, including the constructive trust, are of particular importance where a defendant’s insolvency renders them unable to satisfy all claims. Contribution between co-defendants is available where multiple parties bear concurrent liability.

In contract, the aim is to place the plaintiff in the position it would have been in had the contract been performed (the expectation basis), or alternatively to recover wasted expenditure on the reliance basis. In tort, the objective is to restore the plaintiff to the position it occupied before the wrong. A duty to mitigate operates in both contexts.

Remoteness in contract is governed by Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341, limiting recovery to loss arising naturally from the breach or within the reasonable contemplation of the parties at contracting. In tort, the broader reasonable foreseeability test applies.

Penalty clauses are unenforceable where the consequence imposed for breach is out of all proportion to the innocent party’s legitimate interests in performance.

Exemplary damages are available but rare, requiring truly outrageous conduct amounting to subjective recklessness (Couch v Attorney-General [2010] 3 NZLR 149). New Zealand does not apply punitive multipliers of the kind familiar in United States litigation.

Interest on money judgments is mandatory under the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016, calculated by reference to the Reserve Bank’s retail six-month term deposit rate plus 0.15% per annum.

Arbitration in New Zealand is governed by the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act), which adopts the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration and applies to all arbitrations seated in New Zealand.

Arbitration occupies a significant and well-established position within the commercial dispute resolution landscape. Its prevalence is driven principally by contractual pre-dispute arbitration clauses and it offers a materially faster resolution pathway than High Court litigation. The comparative duration data is addressed in 3.6 Length of Proceedings.

The Second Aotearoa New Zealand Arbitration Survey (published 2025) (the Survey) records that lease and property-related disputes dominated the domestic subject matter at 52% of reported arbitrations. Commercial and contract disputes accounted for 21% and construction disputes for 17%. International arbitrations were concentrated in commercial and contract matters.

Ad hoc arbitration under the Act remains strongly preferred, with 83% of reported arbitrations conducted under the Act alone, though the use of institutional rules has increased from 4% to 12% between survey periods, suggesting a gradual shift in practice.

Disputes engaging matters of public law, criminal liability, or statutory rights incapable of private waiver are generally considered non-arbitrable. The High Court retains power to set aside an award where the subject matter is not capable of settlement by arbitration or where the award conflicts with public policy.

Beyond these categories, New Zealand takes a broadly permissive approach to arbitrability, consistent with its adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law. There are no restrictions on the nationality or residence of arbitrators or parties, and no requirement for government approval of arbitration agreements in commercial matters.

Sustained court delays and New Zealand’s bicultural legal foundations give the advantages of arbitration particular resonance. The former has sharpened the commercial case for private dispute resolution; the latter has introduced a dimension of party autonomy distinctive among Model Law jurisdictions.

Confidentiality is widely regarded as a practical advantage. Arbitral proceedings and awards are generally confidential, a material consideration for commercial parties seeking to protect sensitive commercial information from the open justice principle that governs court proceedings.

Arbitration also offers a faster resolution pathway than High Court litigation, as the comparative figures in 3.1 Prevalence demonstrate. The ability to tailor procedure to the dispute amplifies that advantage further. Party autonomy is broad. The seat, language, procedural rules, and composition of the tribunal are all matters the parties may agree on. The flexibility of the Model Law accommodates tikanga Māori as the governing law, enabling parties in disputes involving Māori entities or interests to appoint tribunals with expertise in tikanga and adopt procedures consistent with te ao Māori.

Parties may also select arbitrators with specific technical or legal expertise, a significant advantage in construction, engineering, valuation, and specialist commercial disputes. Unless parties have opted into appeal rights under Schedule 2 of the Act, awards are final and binding with very limited grounds for challenge. New Zealand’s status as a New York Convention contracting state gives awards the capacity to be enforced in over 170 contracting states.

Cost is the most immediate constraint. Parties bear the arbitrator’s fees and, where applicable, institutional administration costs, in addition to their own legal costs. In lower-value domestic disputes, those additional costs can erode the efficiency savings that arbitration might otherwise deliver.

The Act contains no specific disclosure provisions, leaving the scope of document production to party agreement or tribunal determination. Where the documentary record is extensive and potentially determinative, that flexibility can become a meaningful constraint.

Appeal rights are narrow by design. Unless parties have agreed to apply Schedule 2 of the Act, the grounds on which an award may be challenged are limited. Where a tribunal has made a material error of law, the restricted avenues for correction can leave a party without adequate redress.

Multi-party and multi-contract disputes present structural difficulties. Consolidation of related proceedings requires the consent of all parties involved, which can produce fragmented proceedings and inconsistent outcomes in complex commercial disputes.

Finally, the confidentiality afforded to individual parties comes at a collective cost. Arbitral awards do not create binding precedent, and in a small jurisdiction where the body of commercial case law is relatively slim, widespread use of arbitration contributes little to the development of commercial jurisprudence.

New Zealand’s arbitration landscape is served by the following three principal institutions:

• The Arbitrators’ and Mediators’ Institute of New Zealand (AMINZ) is the principal professional body for arbitrators and mediators, maintaining panels of accredited practitioners and acting as the default appointing authority where parties cannot agree.
• The New Zealand Dispute Resolution Centre (NZDRC) administers arbitration, mediation, and adjudication proceedings under its own procedural rules, and has seen increased uptake for domestic arbitrations.
• The New Zealand International Arbitration Centre (NZIAC) focuses on international and cross-border arbitrations, with rules and case management services tailored to that context.

The length of arbitral proceedings varies with the complexity of the dispute, the volume of documents, and the availability of the tribunal and representatives. For smaller disputes, NZIAC’s Expedited Arbitration Rules provide an accelerated procedure.

The Survey recorded an average duration of 10.65 months from arbitral appointment to substantive award, with a median of seven months, against an average of 566 days between a High Court case being ready for hearing and the defended hearing date. 75% of awards were issued within 12 months of appointment. Where a substantive oral hearing was held, the average hearing length was 3.3 days. Procedural and case management steps are increasingly conducted by audio-visual link, a practice now settled in New Zealand arbitral procedure even as substantive hearings have largely reverted to in-person.

The Act establishes a two-tier framework distinguishing mandatory rules applicable to all arbitrations from the optional Schedule 2 provisions. International arbitrations and domestic arbitrations where parties have opted out of Schedule 2 may be challenged only on the limited grounds prescribed by the Model Law: procedural irregularity, non-arbitrability, and conflict with public policy.

Arbitrators are not required to hold any particular licence or formal qualification. AMINZ maintains accreditation standards for Fellows and Members, which in practice represent the principal markers of professional standing. There are no regulatory requirements specific to the conduct of arbitral institutions.

New Zealand courts take an explicitly pro-arbitration approach, giving effect to arbitration agreements wherever possible and intervening only within the limits prescribed by the Act and the Model Law.

The High Court has jurisdiction to grant interim relief in support of arbitral proceedings regardless of whether the seat is in New Zealand. Considerations of comity carry reduced weight where the court’s role is to uphold the parties’ contractual bargain. Under Section 184 of the Evidence Act 2006, the court may also compel a New Zealand-based person to give evidence in aid of an arbitration seated outside New Zealand, extending judicial assistance beyond the territorial limits of the seat.

The circumstances in which courts will intervene in an arbitration are intentionally limited. A court may remove an arbitrator where there are justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence, or where they are unable or unwilling to perform their functions.

A party may apply to the High Court to set aside an award on the grounds prescribed by Article 34 of the Model Law. The grounds are narrow: procedural irregularity, including a party being unable to present its case; an award exceeding the scope of the submission to arbitration; the tribunal being constituted inconsistently with the parties’ agreement; non-arbitrability; and conflict with New Zealand public policy.

Where Schedule 2 applies, a party may seek leave to appeal to the High Court on a question of law. Leave will be granted only where the question substantially affects the rights of one or more parties and the tribunal’s determination is at least open to serious doubt.

Arbitral tribunals have broad powers to grant relief, including monetary damages, declarations, orders for specific performance, and injunctions, generally equivalent to those available from the High Court subject to any contrary agreement.

New Zealand was the first country to adopt the 2006 UNCITRAL revisions on interim measures, now found in Articles 17 to 17M of Schedule 1. A tribunal may order preservation of the status quo, restraint of action likely to harm the arbitral process, preservation of assets, and security for costs. Such measures are binding and enforceable by application to the competent court. The courts exercise an ancillary jurisdiction under Article 9, including before a tribunal has been constituted, and will generally decline to intervene where the tribunal is able to act.

Costs are at the tribunal’s discretion, with reasonable contribution to costs incurred the standard applied in most arbitrations, and indemnity costs reserved for exceptional cases.

In addition to arbitration, the principal ADR procedures available for resolving commercial disputes in New Zealand are mediation, negotiation, expert determination, and adjudication.

Mediation is the most widely used method. It is available on an ad hoc basis or through institutions and contractual ADR clauses commonly provide for it as a mandatory first step before arbitration or litigation may be commenced. Negotiation is the most informal and flexible option, requiring no institutional involvement, and many commercial disputes resolve through it alone.

Adjudication under the Construction Contracts Act 2002 provides a statutory fast-track mechanism for construction payment disputes, with determinations ordinarily issued within 20 working days and binding on an interim basis.

There is no general legal requirement for commercial parties to engage in ADR before commencing litigation or arbitration. Formal requirements and practical incentives do, however, apply in specific contexts.

The most significant development is the New Rules, under which a Judicial Issues Conference is now mandatory in every defended ordinary High Court proceeding. At that conference, the Court must consider whether any steps should be taken to settle the dispute by means of ADR and, if not, why not. While parties cannot be compelled to participate, the obligation to genuinely engage with the question is now a structural feature of High Court litigation rather than a discretionary one.

Where a commercial contract contains a tiered dispute resolution clause, failure to comply before commencing arbitration or litigation may provide grounds for a stay of proceedings. Courts will generally enforce such clauses where the ADR obligation is sufficiently certain and mandatory in its terms.

Engaging in ADR does not affect a party’s substantive right to litigate or arbitrate. A mediation that does not result in settlement leaves the parties free to pursue their dispute through the courts or by arbitration.

ADR may take place at any stage of a dispute, though in practice mediation most commonly occurs after proceedings are filed but before trial. Engaging in ADR does not stop limitation periods running unless the parties expressly agree otherwise or a relevant statutory provision applies.

Mediation is conducted on a confidential and without prejudice basis. Communications made in the course of mediation are generally inadmissible in subsequent litigation or arbitration, and mediators are not compellable as witnesses in relation to anything said or done during the process. Negotiation conducted on a without prejudice basis attracts equivalent protections.

The costs of ADR are generally borne equally by the parties in the absence of any contrary agreement, with each party bearing its own legal costs. Institutional providers such as AMINZ and NZDRC charge administration and mediator fees in accordance with their published fee schedules.

New Zealand courts have long been supportive of ADR in principle, but the New Rules mark a more decisive institutional commitment. For the first time, ADR consideration is embedded as a mandatory structural feature of High Court proceedings rather than a discretionary judicial tool.

Whether that structural shift translates into meaningfully higher rates of ADR remains to be seen. The early indications are that the High Court intends to give the new framework genuine effect. New Zealand appears to be at the beginning of a period of closer institutional integration between the court process and ADR, and the direction of travel is clear even if the pace is not.

Legal fees are regulated under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 and the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008. Lawyers must charge fees that are fair and reasonable having regard to the circumstances of the matter, including complexity, the skill required, the results achieved, and the terms of the retainer. There is no general fee tariff. Fees are typically charged on an hourly or fixed-fee basis, and lawyers are required to provide fee information at the commencement of a retainer and to advise promptly if an estimate is likely to be exceeded.

Contingency fees are prohibited. Conditional fee arrangements, under which fees are payable only on success, are permitted and may include a premium, provided that premium is not calculated by reference to the amount recovered. The New Zealand Law Society, as the profession’s statutory regulatory and representative body, handles complaints relating to fees and professional conduct.

Third-party litigation funding is permitted but operates without a dedicated statutory framework. The common law torts of maintenance and champerty have not been abolished but are applied with restraint and have not been invoked to prevent funded litigation from proceeding. The courts’ approach is cautiously permissive.

The Law Commission’s 2022 report recommended a specific statutory regime governing litigation funding, alongside a new class actions framework. The government expressed in-principle support. No implementing legislation has been enacted as at the date of this publication.

Funding arrangements are governed through general case management mechanisms, including the courts’ powers to stay proceedings and order security for costs, together with disclosure obligations. A funded party is required to disclose the existence and identity of its funder. In representative proceedings, funding arrangements attract greater court supervision.

The most significant recent development is Simons v ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd [2024] NZCA 330, confirming that New Zealand courts have jurisdiction to make common fund orders binding all class members to the representative plaintiffs’ funding agreement.

Contingency fees are prohibited in New Zealand. Conditional fee arrangements are permitted, subject to the requirements set out in 5.1 Legal Fees. All areas of civil practice other than criminal, immigration, and family law are, in principle, open to conditional fee arrangements.

Insurance coverage for dispute resolution costs is available in two principal forms. After-the-event (ATE) insurance protects a party against the risk of an adverse costs order if unsuccessful and is primarily associated with litigation, though cover for arbitration proceedings may be available depending on the insurer and the nature of the dispute. ATE insurance is increasingly used in funded representative proceedings, where litigation funders commonly obtain such cover as part of their risk management arrangements. ATE insurance premiums cannot generally be recovered as a disbursement from the other party in the event of success, unlike the position in some other jurisdictions.

Before-the-event legal expenses insurance is available and may be included in professional indemnity policies, covering legal costs for certain types of dispute arising after the policy is taken out. Cover for arbitration and ADR processes will depend on the terms of the individual policy.

The general principle in New Zealand civil litigation is that costs follow the event: the unsuccessful party pays costs to the successful party. In the High Court, costs are awarded by reference to the scale set out in the High Court Rules 2016, which establishes time allowances and recovery rates for each step in a proceeding across four complexity bands. Scale costs represent a portion of a party’s actual legal costs; full solicitor-client costs are not ordinarily recoverable, though the court retains discretion to award indemnity costs in appropriate cases.

In arbitration, costs are at the discretion of the tribunal. Consistent with litigation, costs generally follow the event, with the successful party recovering a substantial portion of its reasonable legal and arbitral costs. The costs of mediation and other ADR processes are generally borne equally by the parties as agreed in the absence of any contrary arrangement.

When awarding costs in High Court civil proceedings, the principal factors taken into account are: outcome of the proceeding; the applicable scale costs methodology and complexity band; the conduct of the parties; whether a Calderbank offer was made and unreasonably refused; and whether the proceeding was brought or defended in the public interest.

The Court retains a broad discretion. Costs may be increased, up to and including indemnity costs, where a party conducted the litigation unreasonably or where the complexity of the matter substantially exceeded what the scale contemplates. Costs may be reduced or declined altogether where the successful party contributed unnecessarily to the time and cost of the proceeding, or where only partial success was achieved.

Courts have broad jurisdiction to grant interim relief at any stage of civil proceedings. The sections that follow address the principal forms: interim injunctions, freezing orders, search orders, preservation orders, and security for costs.

Courts may grant interim relief in support of arbitral proceedings under Article 9 of the Model Law, as incorporated in Schedule 1 to the Act. That jurisdiction is available before or during arbitral proceedings and applies regardless of whether the seat of arbitration is in New Zealand. A party may accordingly apply to the High Court for urgent interim relief before a tribunal has been constituted.

The Court confirmed in Pindur v Koffeman [2025] NZHC 3458 that where proceedings are stayed pending arbitration, a party retains the right to apply for interim relief from the court, with the test being that applicable to interim injunctions generally. Articles 9 and 17 of Schedule 1 expressly confirm that court-granted interim measures are not incompatible with an arbitration agreement.

The Court’s jurisdiction to grant interim relief is unaffected by a party’s participation in mediation or other ADR. Interim orders already in place continue to apply during ADR processes unless the court orders otherwise.

Applications for interim relief may be made at any stage of civil proceedings, including before commencement where there is an immediate need to protect assets or preserve rights.

Under the New Rules, non-dispositive interlocutory applications are generally deferred until after the Judicial Issues Conference. Genuine urgent applications may be brought at any time; where urgency is demonstrated, the court may list an application within 24 hours of filing and, in exceptional circumstances, deliver judgment on the same day.

A defendant may apply for an order requiring a plaintiff to provide security for costs. Such an order may be made where the plaintiff is resident or incorporated outside New Zealand, or where there is reason to believe the plaintiff will be unable to meet a costs award if unsuccessful, and it is just in all the circumstances to do so.

In exercising its discretion, a court will consider the merits of the claim, whether an order would stifle a legitimate claim, the extent to which any impecuniosity was caused by the defendant’s alleged wrongdoing, and the availability of third-party funding or other resources. Security is typically paid into and held by the court.

Under the New Rules, applications for security for costs are classified as dispositive applications and may be brought at an early stage of proceedings without requiring special leave.

Interim injunctions, both prohibitory and mandatory, are available in civil proceedings. The test is whether there is a serious question to be tried in the substantive claim and the balance of convenience and overall justice favours the grant of relief. In assessing the balance of convenience, a court will consider the adequacy of damages as a remedy for each party, the relative strength of the cases at the interlocutory stage, the potential prejudice to each party, and any other relevant factors, including the public interest. Mandatory injunctions attract a higher threshold and may require the applicant to demonstrate a strong prima facie case.

Interim injunctions may be granted on an urgent without-notice basis where the circumstances require it. An applicant seeking without-notice relief must make full and frank disclosure of all material facts and is required to give an undertaking in damages to compensate the respondent for any loss sustained if the injunction is ultimately found to have been wrongly granted.

Anti-suit injunctions restraining foreign proceedings, and anti-enforcement injunctions restraining enforcement of foreign judgments, may be available where the ends of justice require restraint. Both are characterised as extraordinary remedies given their potential to interfere with foreign legal processes, and are granted only in rare and compelling circumstances.

A party may apply for summary judgment before trial where a court is satisfied that a defendant has no defence to a claim, or that none of the plaintiff’s claims can succeed. It will not ordinarily be granted where the outcome turns on disputed facts or credibility. A court may give summary judgment on liability alone and direct a separate hearing on quantum.

Under the New Rules, summary judgment is classified as a dispositive application and may be brought at an early stage without special leave. Strike-out is available where a pleading discloses no reasonably arguable claim, is likely to cause prejudice or delay, is frivolous or vexatious, or is otherwise an abuse of process, and is determined on the pleaded facts without reference to evidence.

New Zealand does not have a specific statutory class actions regime. The primary mechanism for collective redress is the representative action under rule 4.24 of the High Court Rules 2016, which allows one or more persons to sue or be sued on behalf of all persons with the same interest in the subject matter of a proceeding.

A representative order may be made with the consent of all class members or, where consent cannot be obtained, with leave of the court. Leave requires the applicant to demonstrate a sufficient commonality of interest. Representative proceedings may be run on an opt-in or opt-out basis. In Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd v Ross [2020] NZSC 126, the Supreme Court confirmed that opt-out orders may be made in appropriate cases, with the starting point being to adopt the procedure sought by the applicant unless there is good reason to depart from it.

The principal standing requirement is that the proposed representative plaintiff and the persons to be represented must have the same interest in the subject matter of the proceeding. The same interest test requires a significant common interest in the resolution of any question of law or fact. A liberal and flexible approach is applied, with access to justice a relevant consideration.

The practical application of these principles in large opt-out proceedings has been considered in Gielen v Johnson & Johnson (New Zealand) Ltd [2026] NZHC 758, addressed further in 7.5 Trends.

The types of relief available in representative actions are broadly the same as in individual proceedings. The availability of aggregate damages remains an area of developing law. The plaintiffs in Gielen v Johnson & Johnson sought aggregate damages assessed on the basis of economic loss suffered by the class as a whole, with the defendants contesting both their availability and the proposed quantification methodology.

Common fund orders are an established feature of the representative proceedings landscape following Simons v ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd [2024] NZCA 330, addressed in 5.2 Third-Party Funding.

Class actions brought in arbitration are not common. The Act contains no provisions addressing multi-party or representative arbitration, consolidation requires the agreement of all parties, and it is not generally possible to bind non-signatory class members to an arbitration agreement.

Representative proceedings are a significant and growing feature of the New Zealand litigation landscape, driven by appellate clarification, judicial development of existing procedural rules, and the increasing participation of third-party funders.

The most significant recent development is Gielen v Johnson & Johnson, in which the High Court addressed a major opt-out representative proceeding, engaging with substantially all of the key structural questions in funded opt-out litigation: opt-out orders, the same interest requirement, aggregate damages, and common fund orders. If permitted to advance on an opt-out basis, the proceeding would be among the largest representative actions ever brought in New Zealand.

Representative proceedings and third-party funding have developed in a mutually reinforcing relationship. Southern Response made funded class actions more commercially attractive; that growth generated the litigation that produced the common fund order jurisdiction confirmed in Simons; and Simons has in turn strengthened the proposition for funders considering the New Zealand market. Both domestic and international funders are now active. The combined trajectory points toward a rapidly maturing ecosystem in which funding availability and procedural development continue to shape each other.

The Law Commission’s 2022 recommendation for a dedicated statutory class actions regime remains outstanding. Legislative reform, if enacted, would provide greater procedural certainty and is expected to further accelerate growth.

The New Rules have fundamentally reformed document disclosure, abolishing standard discovery for most civil proceedings and replacing it with a two-stage framework.

At the first stage, a party serving its pleading must provide initial disclosure of documents it intends to rely on and all adverse documents it knows to exist or has good reason to believe exist, verified by affidavit. Confidential documents are excluded from initial disclosure. Privileged documents must be identified in the affidavit but need not be produced.

At the second stage, the court or the parties may agree on further disclosure. A judge will consider at the Judicial Issues Conference whether further disclosure is warranted and, if so, its scope. Further disclosure will be ordered only where proportionate and necessary for the fair determination of the proceeding.

Parties and their legal representatives are subject to an overriding duty to co-operate in the disclosure process. Non-compliance may attract adverse costs orders or other judicial intervention.

New Zealand recognises legal privilege under the Evidence Act 2006. Solicitor-client privilege protects communications made for the purpose of seeking or receiving legal advice, including with in-house counsel to the extent the communications concern legal rather than commercial advice. Litigation privilege protects documents prepared for the dominant purpose of litigation that has begun or is reasonably apprehended, and extends to communications with third parties, including prospective witnesses and experts. Settlement negotiation privilege protects confidential communications made in connection with an attempt to settle or mediate a dispute, giving statutory effect to the common law without prejudice rule.

Documents subject to privilege may be withheld from disclosure. Privilege may be waived by voluntary disclosure of the privileged communication or by putting it in issue in the proceeding.

New Zealand law recognises the right to withhold evidence on grounds of confidentiality, subject to the court’s overriding interest in ensuring relevant evidence is before it. Under the New Rules, confidential documents are not required to be included in initial disclosure. A court may order disclosure of confidential documents as part of further disclosure where proportionate and necessary.

Documents may also be withheld to protect a journalist’s source, matters of state, including national security, and information affecting relations with foreign governments. Where disclosure of sensitive commercial or personal information is compelled, the court will generally impose confidentiality restrictions.

Under the New Rules, plaintiffs must serve factual witness statements within 25 working days of the last pleading, and defendants within 45 working days of receiving the plaintiff’s evidence. They must be in the witness’s own words, confined to admissible and relevant matters within their personal knowledge, and must avoid document summaries or submissions. There are no witness depositions in New Zealand civil proceedings.

At trial, evidence-in-chief is given by reference to the witness statement, which may be taken as read, read aloud, or supplemented by further oral evidence permitted by the court. Witnesses are subject to cross-examination and re-examination is confined to matters arising from it. Oral evidence is expected to focus on relevant factual disputes, with the narrative of events addressed through written opening submissions and the merged chronology filed before trial.

Expert evidence is permitted where it will substantially assist the court in understanding other evidence or ascertaining relevant facts. Admissibility is governed by the Evidence Act 2006. Experts owe an overriding duty to assist the court impartially, which takes precedence over any obligation to the instructing party.

Expert evidence is ordinarily called by the parties. A court also has power to appoint an independent expert on its own initiative, though this power is exercised sparingly. Under the New Rules, a party may call only one expert per topic at trial without leave of the court. Experts appointed by opposing parties on the same topic are required to confer before trial, without the presence of the parties’ lawyers, and to produce a joint statement identifying matters of agreement and disagreement together with the reasons for any continuing disagreement.

The procedure for recognising and enforcing a foreign judgment in New Zealand depends on the judgment’s origin.

Judgments from countries covered by the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934, including the United Kingdom and certain Commonwealth countries, may be registered in the High Court on application. Once registered, the judgment is enforceable as a New Zealand judgment. Registration may be set aside on grounds including fraud, lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, or conflict with public policy.

Judgments from Australian courts are subject to the dedicated registration regime under the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010. Registered Australian judgments are enforceable as New Zealand judgments subject to limited grounds for refusal.

For Commonwealth country judgments not covered by the 1934 Act, a memorial may be filed in the High Court under the Senior Courts Act 2016 to register the judgment as a New Zealand judgment.

For all other foreign judgments, enforcement proceeds at common law by bringing a fresh action in New Zealand on the judgment as a debt.

New Zealand has signed but not yet ratified the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters 2019, which would provide a multilateral mechanism for qualifying civil and commercial judgments between contracting states.

The Arbitration Act 1996 governs the recognition and enforcement of both domestic and foreign arbitral awards. A party seeking enforcement applies to the High Court. Where all parties agree, a domestic award may be entered as a judgment by written request to the court registry without a formal hearing, with the High Court having jurisdiction where the amount exceeds NZD350,000 and the District Court below that threshold.

New Zealand gives effect to its New York Convention 1958 obligations. Article III requires contracting states to recognise and enforce awards made in other contracting states, subject only to the limited grounds for refusal in Article V.

A respondent served with an enforcement application may file a cross-application seeking refusal of recognition and enforcement, which stays the original application pending determination.

Unopposed enforcement of an arbitral award by entry as a judgment is largely administrative and may be completed promptly. Uncontested registration of a foreign judgment under a treaty regime is similarly straightforward.

Where enforcement is contested, a substantive High Court hearing will be required. Duration will depend on the complexity of the issues raised and the court’s list. Further delay may arise where a party appeals or where there are parallel proceedings at the seat of arbitration, such as an application to set aside the award.

The grounds for resisting enforcement of a foreign judgment or arbitral award are limited, reflecting a strong default toward recognition.

For foreign judgments registered under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934, registration may be set aside where the original court lacked jurisdiction, the judgment was obtained by fraud, enforcement would conflict with public policy, the judgment debtor lacked sufficient notice, or the rights under the judgment are not vested in the person seeking registration. At common law, similar grounds apply, with the addition of a prior New Zealand judgment between the same parties on the same issues.

The grounds for refusing recognition of an arbitral award under Article 36 of the Model Law are exhaustive and mirror Article V of the New York Convention: incapacity or invalidity of the arbitration agreement, failure to give proper notice, the award exceeding the scope of the submission, irregular tribunal constitution, the award not yet binding or set aside at the seat, non-arbitrability, and conflict with public policy.

New Zealand has taken a deliberately light-touch approach to AI governance in dispute resolution. The government’s first national AI Strategy, released in July 2025, expressly ruled out AI-specific legislation in favour of existing technology-neutral frameworks covering privacy, consumer protection, and human rights.

The principal regulatory instrument is the Guidelines for Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Courts and Tribunals, issued in December 2023 and applicable across all courts and tribunals. The guidelines address the limitations and risks of generative AI, including accuracy, confidentiality, privacy, and the imperative of human verification of outputs. Though not legally binding, they engage directly with lawyers’ existing professional obligations, including the duties to act competently and to ensure the accuracy of material submitted to the court. In March 2024 the New Zealand Law Society issued complementary guidance for lawyers, and launched an AI Research Project in 2025 to examine the evolving impact of AI on legal practice.

Artificial intelligence is having a growing impact on dispute resolution in New Zealand. In legal practice, AI tools are increasingly deployed for document review, legal research, contract analysis, and drafting, with the potential to reduce materially the time and cost of legal services. That potential is contingent on rigorous human oversight.

The most acute concern in the New Zealand courts is AI hallucination: the generation of fictitious case citations, statutory references, and legal propositions by generative AI. A global database tracking hallucinated AI content in judicial proceedings records six New Zealand cases, all involving self-represented litigants – a pattern consistent with overseas experience. Self-represented parties are particularly vulnerable, lacking the legal training to interrogate AI outputs critically. In Jones v Family Court at Whangarei [2026] NZSC 1, the Supreme Court identified multiple hallucinated authorities and warned that reliance on false citations could, in serious cases, amount to obstruction of justice or contempt of court.

The cumulative effect of these decisions is to place a clear professional obligation on lawyers to verify all AI-generated content before filing, and to highlight an emerging access-to-justice concern: self-represented litigants relying on AI assistance without adequate means to verify its accuracy.

Beyond these immediate concerns, AI is beginning to influence dispute resolution more broadly through case outcome prediction, automated document review for large disclosure exercises, and the streamlining of routine procedural tasks. These applications remain at an early stage in New Zealand but are developing rapidly.

The courts have engaged with AI cautiously rather than as an active efficiency tool. The AI Guidelines establish a framework for responsible use but do not encourage deployment in case management or decision-making. Judicial attention has focused on managing the risks of misuse rather than harnessing AI to improve throughput or reduce delay.

The Law Commission has been asked to develop a legal framework governing government use of automated decision-making, including AI-assisted processes, with work expected to begin mid-2026. That signals growing institutional recognition that dedicated attention to AI governance is required.

The profession is moving faster. Since mid-2025, several firms have made firm-wide commitments to generative AI platforms, and major legal research databases, including Westlaw, have integrated AI-assisted research tools. AI-assisted disclosure review is already used in large commercial cases and is likely to become standard practice under the New Rules, where front-loaded disclosure obligations create a clear incentive for automation.

New Zealand’s broader regulatory posture is expected to remain light-touch, consistent with its established pattern as a considered adopter of international norms rather than a first mover.