Top 5 Civil Litigation Developments in NZ for 2026

Early 2026 marks the introduction of significant procedural reforms affecting disputes of all sizes.  At the same time, the Government is continuing to propose reforms intended to improve access to justice, both within the courts and through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.  We discuss these legislative reforms as well as key case law updates from 2025 in this article.

 

Major reforms to High Court civil procedure (effective 1 Jan 2026)

What’s changed: The High Court (Improved Access to Civil Justice) Amendment Rules 2025 implement one of the most significant reforms to High Court civil litigation in years.

Key features:

• The Amendments reform the High Court Rules 2016.
• Proportionality is now the overriding objective – Judges and parties must ensure litigation effort and costs are proportionate to the issues at stake.
• Duty to cooperate – Parties and lawyers are expected to engage constructively with each other and the Court.
• New disclosure rules – Core documents are required to be identified and disclosed early to streamline disclosure and to reduce costs.

Proceeding timeline: The Chief High Court Judge has issued a Practice Note for all general civil proceedings commenced on or after 1 January 2026.  The Practice Note addresses the completion and filing by the plaintiff of a new document named a “Proceeding Timeline”.

New Commercial List in Auckland High Court: We have previously written on the introduction of a new Commercial List in the Auckland High Court which commenced in October 2025.  Modelled on the New South Wales Supreme Court’s Commercial List, the purpose of the initiative is to enhance efficiency and expedite hearing times.  Our article can be found here and the Practice Note for the list can be found here.

 

Jurisdiction limit of the Disputes Tribunal doubled (effective 24 Jan 2026)

What’s changed: A major statutory reform to the Disputes Tribunal will take effect from 24 January 2026, when Parliament’s Disputes Tribunal Amendment Act 2025 comes into force.

Key features:

• The financial jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal is increased from $30,000 to $60,000.
• A $468 filing fee will apply for claims over $30,001 and up to $60,000.

Why it matters:

• The Amendments will significantly expand access to affordable dispute resolution for individuals and/or small businesses whose claims might previously have been uneconomic to pursue in the District Court.
• The Tribunal continues to remain informal and non-legalistic, preserving its cost-effective nature even for higher value disputes.

 

Substantive legal updates

There have been many developments in case law across 2025 relevant to our litigation practice.  We summarise a few highlights from the senior courts below.

Negligent misstatement: In Routhan v PGG Wrightson Real Estate Ltd [2025] NZSC 68, the Supreme Court considered the scope of a real estate agent’s liability for misrepresentations about a dairy farm’s production levels (where it wrongly led the purchasers to believe that it had verified that information).  The Supreme Court held that the agent’s liability extended not just to the overpayment on purchase, but also to wasted costs incurred in trying to reach the represented production.  Further, the Court confirmed that the “scope of duty” principle forms part of New Zealand negligence law.  This analysis asks what category of risk the agent has assumed responsibility for when the duty arose and only losses linked to that scope are generally recoverable.

Construction contracts: The High Court in Hsieh v Dreamhome Construction Group Ltd [2025] NZHC 1643 considered whether contractors were responsible for remedying defective work performed by a previous contractor.  The Court confirmed that where a contractor agrees to take on the site “as is” and complete the whole work, the courts will readily infer a promise by that contractor to complete that whole work, including remedying pre-existing defects.

Arbitration: In Acanthus Ltd v Watercare Services Ltd [2025] NZHC 479, the High Court considered whether a dispute had to be resolved by arbitration or whether substantive High Court proceedings may continue.  The parties had entered into various agreements under which Watercare agreed to provide wastewater services to a subdivision development.  The first agreement included a clause providing for disputes to be referred to arbitration, but the subsequent agreements had more informal, good faith clauses for dispute resolution.  The High Court considered that the first agreement (with the arbitration clause) governed all latter disputes as the subsequent agreements were all “out of or in connection” with the first agreement (as was the wording of the arbitration clause of the first agreement).  Therefore, the dispute had to be referred back to arbitration, and the High Court proceedings were stayed.

Judicial review: In New Zealand Independent Community Pharmacy Group Inc v Health New Zealand [2025] NZCA 443, the Court of Appeal concluded that the scope to judicially review public body decisions relating to commercial contracts is not confined only to fraud, corruption or bad faith, as previously presumed.  The scope of judicial review of such decisions depends on the factual and legal context.

 

Reducing court backlogs

The Government is currently considering the Judicature (Timeliness) Amendment Bill.  This Bill aims to improve court timeliness and backlogs by streamlining civil proceedings, allowing judges to strike out plainly abusive proceedings, and introducing other procedural efficiencies.  It has passed the Committee of the Whole House phase and will be set down for the Third Reading of the House, followed by Royal Assent, in the new year.

Why it matters: Clients increasingly want predictability and speed – so progress on timeliness is a key trend affecting litigation strategy and choice of forum.

 

Proposed law reform – Private statutory adjudication process

The Ministry of Justice is currently reviewing public submissions on its proposal for a new statutory adjudication framework.  This framework would give businesses a fast-track way to resolve civil disputes quickly and privately, as an alternative to filing a claim in court or going to arbitration. The proposal is inspired by the adjudication framework in the Construction Contracts Act 2002. The discussion document for consultation can be found here.

The proposal:

• The framework would be voluntary, so both parties to the dispute would need to agree to participate.
• An adjudicator’s determination would be enforceable.
• However, parties would retain the ability to litigate the dispute in the courts if desired.
• The legislation would set strict, and speedy, timeframes for the adjudication to be completed.

Taken together, these developments signal a continued shift towards greater efficiency, proportionality and accessibility in New Zealand’s civil justice system.  If you have any questions about what the cases or legislative changes discussed in this article mean for you, please do not hesitate to contact one of the experts in our litigation team.

This article is current as at the date of publication and is only intended to provide general comments about the law. Harkness Henry accepts no responsibility for reliance by any person or organisation on the content of the article. Please contact the author of the article if you require specific advice about how the law applies to you.