The management of civil cases in the New Zealand High Court is changing from 1 January 2026. Amending the High Court Rules 2016 (Rules), the High Court (Improved Access to Civil Justice) Amendment Rules 2025 (Amendment Rules) represent a significant change to the current format of High Court proceedings, with the aim being to streamline dispute resolution and reduce unnecessary cost and complexity for all parties. These changes may also impact other dispute resolution forums which, in some cases, incorporate the Rules, including the District Court Rules 2014 and Employment Court Regulations 2000. In this article, we explain the key changes and outline what clients involved in High Court litigation can expect.
Key changes
Proportionality as the overriding objective
The Amendment Rules deem proportionality to be the overriding objective of the Rules – that is, ensuring that the just resolution of a proceeding is determined in the most speedy and inexpensive manner possible. To achieve this objective, the Court may consider how best fairly and expeditiously to identify and resolve matters in dispute; how best to deal with a proceeding in a way that is proportionate to the nature and issues of the dispute and the costs of that process; and the need to allocate fairly the Court's resources between cases.
A clear duty to co-operate
The Amendment Rules introduce a new general duty on parties and their lawyers to co-operate with each other, and with the Court, to achieve proportionality. In practice, co-operation will require early agreement about procedural steps, proactive case management planning, and additional early work to narrow the real issues in dispute.
Parties can expect more proactive pre-trial dialogue between parties, and less tolerance from the Court when parties attempt to use court procedures tactically to delay resolution or increase costs to other parties. Indeed, such attempts may have adverse costs consequences or prompt judicial intervention.
A new front-loaded disclosure regime
Standard and tailored discovery will be replaced with more intensive initial disclosure obligations. We summarise the framework:
- Earlier disclosure, at the outset of proceedings: whereas discovery was generally undertaken after the filing of initial pleadings and the first case management review, parties will now be required comprehensively to disclose documents at the same time as serving their statement of claim or defence. This disclosure obligation will apply to all documents referred to in, and all documents used to prepare, the statement of claim or defence, as well as all documents the parties intend to rely on at trial. Requests for further disclosure may be agreed between the parties or granted by Court order.
- Obligation to disclose adverse documents: as part of their disclosure obligations, parties will be required actively to disclose documents that are damaging to their case at the outset, and lawyers will be required to ensure their clients understand these obligations. Careful document management processes will be critical.
- Obligation to co-operate in disclosure: the Amendment Rules add to the existing requirement on parties to co-operate in discovery, requiring the parties to ensure disclosure is appropriately focused and proportionate to the subject matter of the dispute (reflecting the new overriding objective, proportionality). Parties must also consider options to focus the scope of disclosure, achieve reciprocity in electronic formats and processes, and ensure technology is used efficiently. Compliance with this obligation will be assisted by the recent integration of AI technologies into many discovery platforms with the aim of making disclosure more efficient and cost-effective. This obligation to co-operate continues in respect of any further disclosure orders made later in litigation.
Neither standard nor tailored discovery as currently provided for under the Rules will form part of the hearing timetable under the Amendment Rules, but there is an opportunity to apply for further disclosure where a party has good reason to believe other relevant documents exist.
Prompt and practical interlocutory applications and factual evidence
Other key steps are also to be expedited in the proceeding.
Certain applications, including applications to strike out pleadings or parties, for security for costs, or for summary judgment must be made promptly (within 25 working days of being served with a pleading).
Factual witness statements will also need to be exchanged near the beginning of a proceeding (rather than after discovery). Statements must be concise, limited to the witness' personal knowledge, and avoid argument. These changes are designed to clarify early in the process which facts are genuinely in dispute and may require a different approach to evidence gathering. The expectation is that witness statements will be less lawyer-driven and will focus on actual recollection. The aim is to save time and cost, and to reduce the potential for inappropriately tactical or combative drafting.
While factual witness statements will need to be provided early, the same rules do not apply to expert evidence. Parties will need to be prepared to discuss any expert evidence necessary at the judicial issues conference.
Judicial issues conferences and active case management
As a central part of case management, the Amendment Rules require a judicial issues conference be undertaken in every defended ordinary proceeding. While the Court currently has the option of ordering a judicial issues conference, under the Amendment Rules, a conference will become a mandatory pre-trial step unless otherwise ordered.
At this conference – scheduled after the exchange of initial pleadings, disclosure, and witness statements – a judge meets with the parties and lawyers and will focus on narrowing the issues, resolving interlocutory matters, encouraging alternative dispute resolution where appropriate, and setting an efficient timetable to trial.
Greater emphasis on settlement and dispute resolution
The Court will be expected actively to consider with the parties whether alternative dispute resolution procedures (like mediation) are appropriate, particularly at the judicial issues conference.
Final thoughts
The Amendment Rules have been designed to ensure that High Court litigation is more predictable, less adversarial, and the costs incurred by the parties is proportionate to the complexity of each dispute. Parties will benefit from earlier clarity as to key issues and evidence and the likely costs and duration of litigation. The payoff for this clarity is more significant upfront investment when preparing cases and an expectation that parties (and their counsel) will proactively engage with each other to refine and resolve disputes at an early stage.
The requirement to provide disclosure and witness statements early in proceedings will mean that proceedings are more costly to commence, especially in significant cases where third-party discovery providers may be involved. Hopefully, the increased costs of this new format should ensure that parties and their counsel remain focused on refining and resolving the key issues in dispute. Developments in document management technology may also assist in offsetting these costs.
If you would like to discuss how the Amendment Rules may affect your current or anticipated litigation, please get in touch with one of our team.
This article was prepared by Rowan Woods (senior associate) and Alex Reilly (solicitor).
