NEW ZEALAND Law and Practice Contributed by: Shane Campbell and Thomas Westaway, Campbell Westaway
7. Mass Claims and Class Actions 7.1 Procedural Mechanisms 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 per- sons with the same interest in the subject matter of a proceeding. A representative order may be made with the con- sent 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. 7.2 Standing Requirements The principal standing requirement is that the pro- posed representative plaintiff and the persons to be represented must have the same interest in the sub- ject matter of the proceeding. The same interest test requires a significant common interest in the resolu- tion 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 . 7.3 Relief 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 avail- ability and the proposed quantification methodology.
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 with- out-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 com- pensate 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 enforce- ment of foreign judgments, may be available where the ends of justice require restraint. Both are charac- terised as extraordinary remedies given their poten- tial to interfere with foreign legal processes, and are granted only in rare and compelling circumstances. 6.6 Summary Judgment 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 classi- fied 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 pro- cess, and is determined on the pleaded facts without reference to evidence.
390 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook