{"id":142912,"date":"2026-06-10T09:48:23","date_gmt":"2026-06-10T09:48:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/?post_type=comparative_guide&#038;p=142912"},"modified":"2026-06-10T11:38:17","modified_gmt":"2026-06-10T11:38:17","slug":"new-zealand-class-actions","status":"publish","type":"comparative_guide","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/chapter\/new-zealand-class-actions\/","title":{"rendered":"New Zealand: Class Actions"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-142912","comparative_guide","type-comparative_guide","status-publish","hentry","guides-class-actions","jurisdictions-new-zealand"],"acf":[],"appp":{"post_list":{"below_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Tompkins Wake<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2022\/11\/Tompkins-Wake-PORTRAIT.png\"\/><\/span><\/div>"},"post_detail":{"above_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Tompkins Wake<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2022\/11\/Tompkins-Wake-PORTRAIT.png\"\/><\/span><\/div>","below_title":"<span class=\"guide-intro\">This country specific Q&amp;A provides an overview of Class Actions laws and regulations applicable in New Zealand<\/span><div class=\"guide-content\"><div class=\"filter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"text\" placeholder=\"Search questions and answers...\" class=\"filter-container__search-field\">\r\n\t\t\t<\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<ol class=\"custom-counter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does your jurisdiction have a class action or collective redress mechanism? If so, please describe the mechanism(s) and outline the principal sources of law and regulation and its overarching impact on the conduct of class actions in your jurisdiction.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>New Zealand does not currently have a formal class actions regime. Group claims are commonly brought as representative actions under rule 4.24 of the High Court Rules 2016 (HCR), which permits one or more persons to sue on behalf of all persons with the same interest in the subject matter of a proceeding.<\/p>\n<p>Collective redress may also be achieved through regulatory bodies bringing an action on behalf of the affected individuals, including:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>the Commerce Commission (under the Fair Trading Act 1986 and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 (CCCFA));<\/li>\n<li>the Financial Markets Authority (under the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013); and<\/li>\n<li>the Human Rights Commission (under the Human Rights Act 1993).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The brevity of HCR 4.24 allows judicial flexibility but also creates a lack of certainty in some respects. For example, there are no set rules governing litigation funding or judicial review of settlement amounts.\u00a0 Instead, the courts have largely developed the rules governing the class action regime in line with existing judicial principles.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the history of the development of the class actions\/collective redress mechanism and its policy basis in your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>New Zealand has had a representative action regime, based on concepts developed by the Courts of Chancery, since 1882. The current provision is HCR 4.24.<\/p>\n<p>The main policy considerations driving the development of representative actions have been:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>improving access to justice for claimants, particularly those with relatively low individual losses; and<\/li>\n<li>creating incentives for institutional defendants to improve compliance and manage reputational and financial exposure proactively.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>In 2022, the Law Commission completed a review and published a report recommending the enactment of a new Class Actions Act as the principal source of class actions law. However, there have been no notable government initiatives in the years following that report, leaving the policy landscape largely unchanged.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the frequency of class actions brought in your jurisdiction (divided by type of claim, as applicable), in terms of number of cases over the years and\/or comparison to other types of litigation?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Class actions are brought infrequently in New Zealand relative to other civil proceedings, though this is not unusual given the country&#8217;s population size and litigation risk profile.<\/p>\n<p>Since 1980, approximately 50 cases have been brought in the High Court under HCR 4.24 or its predecessors.\u00a0 In comparison, 2,435 new civil cases were filed in the High Court in 2025 alone, illustrating that class actions remain a small fraction of overall civil litigation. However, the number and scale of representative proceedings has increased markedly in recent years. Several of the largest representative proceedings in New Zealand&#8217;s history have been commenced since 2020, including<em> Simons v ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd <\/em>[2024] NZCA 330, [2024] 3 NZLR 485, which involved a class of approximately 150,000 members. As the Court of Appeal observed in <em>Ross v Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd <\/em>[2019] NZCA 431, the substantial increase in the use of representative proceedings has likely been stimulated by the rapid spread of the class action procedure in other common law jurisdictions, including Australia. The maturation of the litigation funding market in New Zealand (discussed further below) has also contributed to this trend.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there certain courts or types of claims that are most prevalent (for example competition vs commercial litigation generally)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Representative actions under HCR 4.24 are brought in the High Court.<\/p>\n<p>Claims against the government (M\u0101ori land claims, taxation, social security, immigration, negligence, contractual issues) are the most prevalent, followed by general commercial claims (claims in equity, contract, tort, as well statutory claims, including under the Fair Trading Act 1986 and Companies Act 1993).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the definition of 'class action' or 'collective redress' relevant to your jurisdiction?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>There is no statutory definition of class action or collective redress. In the absence of a formal class action regime, the colloquially used term \u201cclass actions\u201d generally refer to representative proceedings brought under HCR 4.24. \u201cCollective redress\u201d may encompass the representative proceedings under HCR 4.24 as well as proceedings brought by regulatory bodies.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the general 'triggers' for commencement of a class action or collective redress in your jurisdiction from a factual perspective?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Representative actions in New Zealand tend to be triggered by one or more of the following factual circumstances: (a) regulatory investigations or enforcement action that establishes or suggests widespread breach affecting a large number of individuals; (b) discovery of product defects or systemic failures in the supply of goods or services; (c) conduct by financial institutions (such as overcharging or non-disclosure) affecting a large and identifiable customer base; (d) environmental events, natural disasters, or infrastructure failures causing loss to identifiable communities; and (e) systemic institutional conduct (such as government underpayment or discrimination) affecting a defined group over a sustained period.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How do class actions or collective redress proceedings typically interact with regulatory enforcement findings? e.g. competition, environmental or financial regulators?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Regulators have certain powers to seek compensation on behalf of individuals, but these powers are limited, resource-constrained, and often serve broader public objectives of deterrence and compliance rather than private compensation, so they do not remove the need for a class actions regime.<\/p>\n<p>New Zealand has seen follow-on or piggyback class actions where private representative proceedings follow regulatory investigation or enforcement action, including under the Fair Trading Act and Financial Markets Conduct Act, though they are not yet as common-place as they have become in several overseas jurisdictions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What types of conduct and causes of action can be relied upon as the basis for a class action or collective redress mechanism?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Any civil cause of action may be brought as a representative action under HCR 4.24. Claims brought include contract and quasi-contract, tort (negligence, nuisance, misrepresentation), statutory causes of action under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, Fair Trading Act 1986, and Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013, shareholder and investor claims, public law and Crown liability claims, trust and estates disputes, employment and discrimination claims, and environmental and climate-related claims.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any limitations of types of claims that may be brought on a collective basis?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>New Zealand&#8217;s accident compensation scheme bars most civil personal injury claims, limiting the availability of representative actions for personal injury compared to some other jurisdictions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Who may bring a class action or collective redress proceeding? (e.g. qualified entities, consumers, companies etc)<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Any plaintiff who satisfies the &#8220;same interest&#8221; requirement in HCR 4.24 can bring a representative action. Regulatory bodies may also bring proceedings on behalf of a group of affected individuals under specific statutes \u2013 see answer to question 1 above.<\/p>\n<p>The High Court\u2019s decision in Gielen v Johnson &amp; Johnson (New Zealand) Limited [2026] NZHC examined the nature of the &#8220;same interest&#8221; requirement in respect of two types of claim: one under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (where no reliance on a specific representation was required), and the other under the Fair Trading Act 1986 (where individual reliance on a particular representation is an element of the cause of action). The Court found that the representative plaintiffs and the class members would not all have relied on the same representations, meaning that the Fair Trading Act claims were declined for certain product categories because the representative plaintiffs did not share the same interest as class members who had relied on different representations. The decision illustrates that the &#8220;same interest&#8221; threshold may be more difficult to satisfy for causes of action that require proof of individual reliance or individual circumstances.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any limits on the nationality or domicile of claimants in class actions or collective redress proceedings?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>There are no nationality or domicile restrictions specific to representative actions. The standard jurisdictional rules for civil proceedings apply: the High Court has jurisdiction over cases where the defendant is domiciled in New Zealand or where the cause of action arose in New Zealand. Accordingly, foreign nationals may participate in representative proceedings in the same manner as New Zealand nationals or residents, provided that they share the same interest as the other class members.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any limitations on size or type of class?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>There is no maximum or minimum class size prescribed by HCR 4.24, but there must be an interest shared by all members of the group.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any requirements or prohibitions in sourcing this class?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>There is little statutory guidance on sourcing the class. In practice, representative actions are commonly commenced by the plaintiff preparing a notice to potential class members, which is shared with the defendant and the Court. The Court may approve or modify any such notice to ensure that it does not contain misleading information designed to encourage participation in the litigation. For example, in Cooper v ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd [2013] NZHC 3116, the Court gave specific directions in respect of the notice to potential class members proposed by the plaintiffs, including directions to delete specific sentences and remove specific words. Among other things, the Court directed that the notice should not include the wording &#8220;As a result, the Court has deemed it appropriate to notify you that \u2026&#8221;, noting that \u201cThe Court is reviewing, not endorsing, the communication.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Which courts deal with class actions or collective redress proceedings?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The High Court is the principal forum, with appeals available to the Court of Appeal, and with leave, to the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any jurisdictional obstacles to class actions or collective redress proceedings?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Jurisdictional rules are the same as for other civil proceedings. Limitation defences may present an obstacle. The Court of Appeal confirmed in Simons v ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd [2024] NZCA 330, [2024] 3 NZLR 485 that allowing representative plaintiffs to shield class members from a valid limitation defence would constitute a misuse of HCR 4.24.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does your jurisdiction adopt an \u201copt in\u201d or \u201copt out\u201d mechanism?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Both mechanisms are available. The Supreme Court in Southern Response Earthquake Services v Ross [2020] NZSC 126, [2021] 1 NZLR 117 held that, in general, the court should adopt the procedure sought by the plaintiff unless there is good reason to do otherwise. An opt-in approach is preferred where there is a real prospect that some class members may end up worse off or adversely affected. A universal approach may be appropriate where the only relief sought is declaratory or injunctive and the outcome will affect all class members identically.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is required (i.e. procedural formalities) in order to start a class action or collective redress claim?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Under HCR 4.24, a representative proceeding may proceed either with the consent of the other persons who have the same interest, or as directed by the court on an application made by a party or intending party. In practice, where the size of the class is large, a Court application would be required given the constraints in obtaining consent from all members of the class. In such cases, the court may direct that the proceeding continue on an opt-out basis, removing the need for individual consent and instead requiring class members who do not wish to participate to take active steps to exclude themselves.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What other mandatory procedural requirements apply to these types of matters?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>If litigation funders are involved, their identity and involvement must be disclosed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are normal civil procedure rules applied to these proceedings or a special set of rules adopted for this purpose?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Representative proceedings follow the High Court Rules 2016, which are the standard civil procedure rules applicable to all High Court proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>As the Court of Appeal in Simons v ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd [2024] NZCA 330, [2024] 3 NZLR 485 put it: \u201cThe interpretation of HCR 4.24 continues to evolve in response to new and innovative ways in which representative proceedings are commenced and funded. The courts continue to test, evaluate and modify the way they supervise representative proceedings in response to emerging innovations in this area of the law.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How long do these cases typically run for?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Many representative actions settle before trial. Of those that proceed to trial, the period from commencement to judgment is typically three to five years or longer, as there are usually several interlocutory applications to be determined (each of which may give rise to separate appeals) before the substantive hearing. The High Court introduced a new case management regime for civil proceedings at the start of 2026, which is intended to reduce time to trial for new proceedings.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What remedies are available to claimants in class action or collective redress proceedings?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>There are no limits on the type of relief available merely because proceedings are brought as a representative action. Monetary relief (including damages), injunctive relief, and declaratory relief are all available.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the measure of damages for any financial remedies for class actions or collective redress proceedings?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The measure of damages depends on the cause of action. Compensatory principles apply at common law. Statutory causes of action carry their own measures.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are punitive or exemplary damages available for class actions or collective redress proceedings?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Exemplary damages (the New Zealand term for punitive damages) are available in principle but are rarely awarded. The threshold is high: a defendant must have acted in complete disregard of the plaintiff&#8217;s rights or in a manner that is truly egregious. There is no blanket prohibition on exemplary damages in representative actions, but the high threshold makes such awards uncommon in this context.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is a judge or multiple judges assigned to these cases?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Complex proceedings may be case-managed by a single judge throughout, but there is no formal requirement for a dedicated case management judge.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are class actions or collective redress proceedings subject to juries?  If so, what is the role of juries?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>No. The only civil proceedings in which a party may elect trial by jury in New Zealand are defamation, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. Representative actions are tried by a judge alone.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is there any prescribed procedural mechanism for the collective settlement of class actions or collective redress proceedings?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Settlements of class actions will often require court approval, where the court considers whether the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable in the interests of the group members considered as a whole. In other cases, the court may be invited to approve the methodology for distributing settlement proceeds between class members.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is there any judicial oversight for settlements of class actions or collective redress mechanisms?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes, settlement will often require court approval. The Court in Southern Response Earthquake Services v Ross [2020] NZSC 126, [2021] 1 NZLR 117 noted that any application under HCR 4.24 should include proposed conditions as to the court\u2019s supervision of settlement and discontinuance.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Is there any prescribed procedural obligation to undertake alternative dispute resolution (outside of the court system) and, if so, a specified format?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The usual ADR mechanisms (mediation and arbitration) are available, but there is no obligation to engage in ADR. Lawyers must advise clients of reasonably available alternatives. Parties may agree to mediate at any stage, and the court may encourage them to do so. Under the 2026 changes to the High Court Rules, ADR is given greater emphasis but is still not mandatory.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What litigation funding models are available for a class action or collective redress.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Third party litigation funding, whereby a funder bears the costs of the proceedings in return for a share of any damages recovered, is available and growing in New Zealand.<\/p>\n<p>The Court of Appeal\u2019s decision in Simons v ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd [2024] NZCA confirmed that the High Court has jurisdiction to make common fund orders (CFOs), and that these should be made at an early stage of proceedings as a matter of general principle. The High Court\u2019s decision in Gielen v Johnson &amp; Johnson (New Zealand) Limited [2026] NZHC also ordered a CFO, while expressly making it subject to later court review. CFOs provide for the litigation funder&#8217;s remuneration to be fixed as a proportion of the litigation proceeds, for all class members to bear a proportionate share of that liability, and for the liability for the litigation funder&#8217;s remuneration to be paid first from any amounts received. In this way, CFOs lower financing risk and are expected to pave the way for larger classes.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any restrictions on third-party funding of a class action or collective redress.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>New Zealand does not have specific legislation regulating litigation funding, and the torts of maintenance and champerty have not been abolished. While this creates a degree of uncertainty, it has not materially impeded the development of the litigation funding market in practice. As noted above, litigation funding is growing in New Zealand, and the courts have demonstrated a willingness to facilitate funded proceedings through mechanisms such as common fund orders.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the top three emerging business risks that are the focus of class action or collective redress litigation?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p><strong>Consumer lending and financial services compliance:<\/strong> financial institutions face heightened class action exposure because even minor systemic breaches can be aggregated across large customer bases. One of New Zealand\u2019s largest class actions to date was brought on behalf of approximately 150,000 consumers against two major Australian-owned banks operating in the New Zealand retail market, alleging breaches of disclosure obligations under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003. The plaintiffs claimed up to NZD 300 million in aggregate. In October 2025, one defendant (ASB Bank) settled for NZD 135.6 million without admission of liability, in the largest class action settlement involving a bank in New Zealand. The High Court granted summary judgment against the remaining defendant (ANZ Bank) in May 2026, ordering the bank to pay NZD 32,728.42 to the plaintiffs (with estimated total liability of approximately NZD 125 million). The bank has appealed that decision.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Product liability:<\/strong> the Gielen v Johnson &amp; Johnson (New Zealand) Limited [2026] NZHC proceeding alleges that widely used cold and flu medications containing oral phenylephrine (recently found by the FDA to be no more effective than a placebo) were marketed as providing sinus relief in breach of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 and the Fair Trading Act 1986. Described as one of New Zealand&#8217;s first large-scale pharmaceutical consumer class actions, the claim signals an emerging category of product liability risk for consumer goods manufacturers and distributors operating in New Zealand.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Climate change and environmental liability:<\/strong> New Zealand is experiencing a growth in climate-related litigation. In 2024, the Supreme Court accepted the possibility that carbon emitters could face civil liability for their emissions, potentially opening the door to claims against other emitters. In May 2026, the New Zealand government said it would legislate to retroactively ban tort claims for greenhouse gas emissions. However, climate-related claims may take many other forms, lending themselves to collective redress, including consumer claims (such as greenwashing), investor claims, and tort claims arising from infrastructure failures following extreme weather events. In January 2026, the High Court approved a claim against Hawke&#8217;s Bay Regional Council proceeding as an opt-out class action. That claim alleges failures of infrastructure planning and management that contributed to widespread flooding affecting more than 400 homes and businesses.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What trends in litigation are evident in the last three years in your jurisdiction in respect of class actions?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Several trends are evident. First, the subject matter of class actions is widening, with claims now spanning banking, discrimination, environmental harm, product liability, and social justice. This reflects a deepening understanding of the representative proceeding regime and the flexibility of New Zealand&#8217;s procedural rules. Second, the litigation funding market is maturing, with the Court of Appeal&#8217;s confirmation of common fund orders lowering financing risk and expected to pave the way for larger classes. Third, class actions are emerging as a tool for advancing social justice and accountability, giving collective voice to groups affected by systemic wrongs.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Where do you foresee the most significant legal development in the next 12 months in respect of collective redress and class actions?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The most significant anticipated development is the appeal of the banking class decision against the remaining defendant (ANZ Bank), following the NZD 135.6 million settlement by the co-defendant (ASB Bank) in October 2025.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are class actions or collective redress proceedings being brought for \u2018ESG\u2019 matters? If so, how are those claims being framed?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Yes. The decision in New Zealand College of Midwives Inc v Attorney-General [2026] NZHC 405 is a significant example of ESG-related collective redress in New Zealand. The New Zealand College of Midwives brought a representative proceeding on behalf of 1,473 lead maternity carer (LMC) midwives against the Attorney-General, claiming breach of contract, breach of good faith obligations, equitable estoppel, restitutionary quantum meruit, and unlawful gender-based discrimination under s 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The social dimension of the claim was central. LMC midwives are an almost exclusively female workforce providing the vast majority of primary maternity care in New Zealand. The plaintiffs alleged that the Crown&#8217;s unilateral setting of remuneration through statutory notices without any enforceable right for midwives to negotiate perpetuated systemic and historic gender-based undervaluation of their work. The Court accepted that the differential treatment of LMC midwives compared with obstetricians (who could charge co-payments for equivalent work) and general practitioners (who had enforceable negotiation rights and a guarantee of fair and reasonable remuneration under the PHO Services Agreement) was on the ground of gender and constituted unlawful discrimination. The Court found the Crown in breach of the 2018 Settlement Agreement (a binding contract under which the Ministry had committed to implement a national midwifery agreement and pay a fair and reasonable service price by July 2020) and awarded compensatory damages calculated by reference to the difference between actual earnings under the statutory notice and a fair and reasonable service price of NZD 170,340 per full-time equivalent as at 1 July 2020 (adjusted annually by the Labour Cost Index). The Court also awarded NZD 1,000 per midwife for injury to dignity arising from the unlawful discrimination and made declarations of breach in respect of the contractual and discrimination causes of action. The Attorney-General has appealed.<\/p>\n<p>The case illustrates how representative proceedings can serve as an effective mechanism for addressing systemic social injustice where individual claims (each relatively modest in value) would lack the economic scale to challenge institutional conduct. By aggregating claims, the representative action gave collective voice to a workforce that had been unable to secure adequate redress through individual negotiation or complaint, reinforcing the role of class actions as a tool for accountability in ESG-related matters.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are there any proposals for the reform of class actions or collective redress proceedings? If so, what are those proposals?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In 2022, the Law Commission completed a review and published a report recommending the enactment of a new Class Actions Act as the principal source of class actions law. However, there have been no notable government initiatives in the years following that report, leaving the policy landscape largely unchanged. Development has therefore continued in the hands of the courts, with the Law Commission&#8217;s recommendations influencing judicial reasoning and case management practice.<\/p>\n<p>The Law Commission&#8217;s key recommendations included:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Implementation of a formal class actions regime<\/strong>: a new Class Actions Act should be enacted as the principal source of law in relation to class actions, supported by dedicated High Court Rules, with the statutory objectives of improving access to justice and managing multiple claims efficiently<\/li>\n<li><strong>Prescribed certification test<\/strong>: proceedings must be certified by the court before proceeding as a class action, with the test requiring:\n<ul>\n<li>one or more reasonably arguable causes of action;<\/li>\n<li>a common issue of fact or law applying to each class member&#8217;s claim;<\/li>\n<li>at least one suitable representative plaintiff;<\/li>\n<li>a class action being an appropriate and efficient procedure; and<\/li>\n<li>an appropriate opt-in or opt-out mechanism<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Court approval required for all settlements<\/strong>: court approval should be required in order for the settlement of a class action to be binding, whether opt-in or opt-out and whether settlement is reached before or after certification, with the court required to be satisfied that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the interests of the class<\/li>\n<li><strong>Abolition of maintenance and champerty<\/strong>: the torts of maintenance and champerty should be abolished, removing a historical barrier to access to justice and providing greater certainty for the litigation funding market<\/li>\n<li><strong>Regulation of litigation funding<\/strong>: in funded class actions, a litigation funding agreement should be enforceable by a funder only if approved by the court as fair and reasonable, with the court empowered to make cost sharing orders spreading legal fees and the funding commission equitably across all class members, and to make orders directly against funders for security for costs and adverse costs<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n<div class=\"word-count-hidden\" style=\"display:none;\">Estimated word count: <span class=\"word-count\">4193<\/span><\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<\/ol>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/twentyseventeen\/src\/jquery\/components\/filter-guides.js\" async><\/script><\/div>"}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide\/142912","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/comparative_guide"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=142912"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}