NEW ZEALAND Law and Practice Contributed by: James Cochrane, Andrew Comer, Carlo Wan and Graeme Crombie, Lane Neave
tion and deciding on appropriate regulatory respons- es, including potential enforcement actions. NZ Strategy Paper As noted in 1.1.1 Evolution of Uses of Blockchain , in December 2025, Blockchain Forum New Zealand’s Digital Asset Working Group published the NZ Strategy Paper, expressly directed at parliament and regulatory agencies. The paper records that the group brought together industry leaders, academics, legal experts, regulators and policymakers to develop a clear and practical framework for New Zealand’s digital-asset future. It notes that: • nearly NZD8 billion is traded annually, almost half of New Zealanders have owned or considered owning digital assets, and the global blockchain industry is forecast to grow from USD33 billion in 2025 to nearly USD393 billion by 2030; • 80% of New Zealand activity occurs on offshore platforms, taking talent, capital and innovation with it; and • the opportunities are significant – new export industries, productivity gains, higher-value jobs, improved financial infrastructure and better con- sumer outcomes. 1.1.4 Smart Contracts Smart contracts are capable of being enforced in New Zealand, provided they satisfy ordinary principles of contract law. There is no separate statutory regime governing smart contracts, and the New Zealand courts have not developed a bespoke test for their enforceability. Instead, the orthodox requirements for contract formation apply: there must be an offer, acceptance, consideration, intention to create legal relations, certainty of terms, and capacity. Where these elements are present, the fact that some or all contractual performance is automated through com- puter code should not, of itself, prevent enforcement. The UK Jurisdiction Taskforce’s (UKJT) Legal State- ment on Cryptoassets and Smart Contracts (the “Legal Statement”) was released in November 2019 with the aim of providing legal clarity on the status of crypto-assets and smart contracts under English private law.
The Legal Statement notes that: • in principle, a smart contract can be identified, interpreted and enforced using ordinary and well- established legal principles; • English law is already capable of managing anony- mous or pseudonymous parties; • English law is fully equipped to deal with bilateral smart contracts and also those structured around decentralised autonomous organisations (DAOs); • requirements that a contract be signed can be met using a private key to authenticate the document; and • requirements that a document be in writing can be met where a smart contract’s code element is recorded in source code (in many but not all cases). The UKJT Legal Statement has been effectively endorsed by the courts in NZ. In Cryptopia , the court relied heavily on the Legal Statement in its analysis. The MBIE Briefing Paper highlights the growing and developing use of blockchain as a key trend for NZ businesses. The MBIE also observes that NZ compa- nies are already adopting smart contract technologies across various sectors such as supply chains, finance and the creative industries. While acknowledging the growing use of these technologies, the MBIE has not introduced specific regulatory frameworks for smart contracts but emphasises the need for quality govern- ance as the technology evolves. Smart contracts are also discussed in the FEC Report which noted in summary: • while many smart contracts involve crypto-asset transfers, they can also be used in supply chains to securely record and share information among participants, similar to current Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems. However, once recorded, the information is tamperproof and it can be made visible to other supply chain participants; • however, the authors note that the term “smart contracts” is something of a misnomer; • while some smart contracts can serve as legal agreements, many do not. For instance, blockchain
415 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook