01
Blog
01
Blog
Categories
The most prevalent barriers to litigation for most New Zealanders are the cost and time it takes to resolve disputes, which can vary from months to years depending on the parties and complexities. Practically, these two major obstacles have eroded access to justice for many people who find themselves in the unfortunate situation of a legal dispute.
The High Court (Improved Access to Civil Justice) Amendment Rules 2025 (the New Rules), which came into effect on 1 January 2026, will drastically alter the way civil litigation is conducted in New Zealand.
As the name suggests, the new High Court rules aim to improve access to justice in ordinary civil proceedings. Whether or not the rules will operate to achieve that aim is yet to be seen, but in this article, we explore the key points to be aware of regarding the New Rules.
The central focuses of the new High Court rules are:
It establishes a new procedure for litigation cases, which requires:
The New Rules represent the most significant change to civil litigation in the last decade. New Zealand’s move away from adversarial-style litigation to results-focused dispute resolution follows a global shift in this direction.
Traditionally, complex commercial dispute resolution has often been slow to progress, and expensive. Sometimes, parties fight over every procedural issue along the way, and by the end of it, the lawyers, through their fees, are the only real winners. This is especially true of messy, complex, commercial disputes that involve several interlocutory applications (“mini-litigations”, often over procedural issues within a main proceeding), delay tactics, and thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of documents in evidence.
The New Rules change the way civil dispute resolution is conducted through litigation. Enacted after extensive consultation with lawyers, judges, and the public, the New Rules are oriented towards quicker, simpler, and more affordable outcomes for parties involved in a dispute. This is reflected in the new rule 1.2, which confirms that the overall objective of the New Rules is to:
…secure the just resolution of any proceeding or interlocutory application by proportionate means, including by securing its speedy and inexpensive determination.
The key objectives of the New Rules are to make the case about the actual facts and issues to be resolved, rather than the procedure. By spotlighting the evidence early in the process, everyone knows exactly what the case is really about and what issues actually need to be resolved from the get-go.
To bring the factual evidence and actual case to the forefront of litigation, the New Rules limit which kinds of interlocutory applications can be brought early in the proceeding.
Only certain applications can be instituted early in the proceeding. Known as “dispositive interlocutory applications”, these include applications to strike out a proceeding and summary judgment applications. Non-dispositive interlocutory applications need to wait until after a conference has been convened with a judge, unless it is truly urgent.
This is aimed at discouraging procedural skirmishes, which drive up legal fees, and encouraging early focus on the real substance of the case, which is found in the evidence, i.e. the documents that contain the facts.
Traditionally, parties exchanged initial pleadings, then embarked on a costly and extremely time-consuming discovery process (whereby the parties exchange all documents that are relevant to the case). Only then would witness statements and a timeline of factual events (known as the “chronology”) be filed in the last few months leading up to trial.
Under the New Rules, evidence comes first. Parties need to disclose early on all documents referred to in their initial pleadings (statement of claim, statement of defence, and statements in reply), as well as any other documents used during preparation.
In this initial disclosure, the parties also need to disclose any known adverse documents (documents that may harm their case and support the other side’s case). Beyond that, discovery occurs only if required by further disclosure orders from the Court.
The early disclosure obligation intends to ensure that each party clearly understands the case and the real issues in dispute from the outset. It prevents unnecessary steps taken early in the civil proceedings, particularly where parties may traditionally try to raise issues about, and argue over, procedure.
Overall, the aim is less paperwork (i.e. lower costs), fewer surprises, and faster resolution.
At trial, judges rely more on contemporaneous documents and agreed chronologies, rather than on the parties’ witnesses’ arguments. Witness statements are strictly limited to relevant, admissible evidence, rather than lengthy, repetitive, and opinionated arguments about the facts they are discussing.
Under the New Rules, the factual witness statements and a draft chronology of events also get exchanged much earlier on in the process – for the plaintiff, within 25 days after the last pleading was filed, and within 45 days thereafter for the defendant. Expert evidence is also more streamlined, with expert witnesses being required to collaborate to narrow the issues.
Further, parties need to endeavour to cooperate and agree on the relevant documents included in the trial bundle. This aims to prevent the duplication of documents and exclude unnecessary documents.
Under the New Rules, cooperation between parties is no longer a mere matter of politeness. Instead, the parties and legal representatives are obligated to talk to each other and work together towards preparing the case for trial (or earlier resolution).
The new Rule 1.2A introduces a duty on “[t]he parties and their solicitors and counsel… to co-operate with the other parties and their solicitors and counsel in accordance with the overriding objective in rule 1.2.”
The general duty to cooperate entails communicating directly by phone or meeting, not just by email. This allows parties to work together on key procedural matters, including disclosure, trial bundles, and scheduling conferences and hearings.
Adversarial email correspondence is intended to fade out, as this kind of approach only leads to increased costs and stagnated progress.
The New Rules introduce quite a drastic change to High Court civil procedure in New Zealand.
Apart from the new procedures around the exchange of initial disclosure, witness statements, and chronologies discussed above, there are some other key changes being made to the current procedure:
One such change is that at the outset of a proceeding, the plaintiff will receive a “proceeding notice” form from the Court.
The proceeding notice serves as a guide for parties to confirm what pleadings have been filed, what applications (if any) are planned, and when evidence will be exchanged. It is intended to give judges clear insight into what needs to happen with the matter, without the matter getting stuck in various interlocutory applications (as noted above, only certain types of interlocutory applications can be brought before a conference with a judge has been convened).
A cornerstone of the New Rules is the introduction of a mandatory Judicial Issues Conference, which is an early substantive conference with a judge.
Judicial Issues Conferences replace the conventional case management conferences under the old rules. These are essentially meetings between the judge, the lawyers and their clients (i.e. the parties themselves):
The objective is to avoid unnecessary steps and ensure everyone understands what the matter should focus on.
In instances where a matter does proceed to trial under the New Rules, there are also procedural changes to how the lead-up to, and trial itself, will be run.
For one, the focus of the trial is on a joint chronology and common bundle of relevant documents that has been agreed by both parties, in line with the duty to cooperate. It is hoped that this will reduce repetition of facts and the number of disputes about the admissibility of evidence.
Additionally, cross-examination is limited to discussing disputed facts, reducing costs for all parties involved.
Under the New Rules, the intended culture of cooperation should serve as a deterrent against delay-tactic litigation, especially for defendants who deliberately try to drag out the litigation process to cause fatigue to the plaintiff pursuing them for liability. Sometimes, even plaintiffs institute litigation proceedings to pressure the defendant into a settlement, without the real intention of seeing the matter through to trial.
The New Rules are specifically aimed at guiding the parties towards a quicker, cheaper resolution, which may mean out-of-court settlement before the matter reaches trial. The sooner an out-of-court settlement can happen in a transparent and cooperative framework, the lower the cost will be for the parties involved in the dispute resolution.
It remains to be seen whether the New Rules will work in practice, given that many parties have traditionally relied on the old procedure to devise dispute-resolution strategies (whether as plaintiffs or defendants). The quicker parties can adapt to the new procedure, the more they will be able to use the new High Court rules to their advantage in their civil court cases.
For Norling Law’s clients, the new High Court rules should mean:
With early disclosure of the documents used to prepare pleadings, we can advise earlier on the strengths and weaknesses of your case and discuss various settlement options sooner. The mandatory Judicial Issues Conference and the courts’ emphasis on proportionate, speedy determination are intended to keep matters progressing, narrow disputes, and focus resources on what will actually decide the case.
However, due to a number of additional steps that now need to be undertaken earlier in the Court proceeding, the cost of commencing and carrying the matter through the initial stages of litigation is expected to increase.
That being said, the overall cost and time spent to bring the whole proceeding to an end should decrease, as the later stages of the Court proceeding are expected to have fewer steps targeted to fewer issues.
This is where Norling Law’s approach, prioritising results over “box ticking”, gives our clients an immediate advantage. We are already structured for evidence-first case theory, collaborative planning, and proactive engagement with the Court.
As these rules take effect, we continue to deploy lean, front-loaded strategies that align with the duty to cooperate and the overriding objective in the New Rules, positioning our clients for earlier, more cost-effective outcomes, whether through negotiated resolution or a focused, document-driven trial.
Our lawyers at Norling Law are litigation specialists and can discuss any questions you may have about litigation under the New Rules as part of our no-obligation legal consultation. Book a free 30-minute consultation with us today.
02
Author Profile
03
Related Articles
Book a free consultation to get clarity on your options and next steps
We’ve been guiding people through times of uncertainty since 2015. Talk to us for free to see what we can do for you.
