A new procedural framework that governs ordinary civil proceedings commenced in the High Court from 1 January 2026.

The High Court (Improved Access to Civil Justice) Amendment Rules 2025 represents the most significant overhaul of civil litigation procedure in recent memory, with sweeping changes intended to streamline proceedings, reduce costs, and advance proportionate and efficient resolution of disputes. 

Crucially, while the new rules are designed to reduce the overall cost of litigation, they do so by front-loading costs and procedural demands at the outset of proceedings. 

They will have substantial implications for the insurance industry.

Impact of the new rules on the insurance industry

Before turning to the detail of what has changed, it is worth identifying at the outset the key areas in which we expect the new procedural regime to affect insurance operations and strategic decision-making. 

1. Reconsideration of excess levels and reserving

The front-loading of legal costs under the new rules is perhaps the most immediate and significant practical implication.

Under the new regime, parties - and in particular defendants - face substantial early expenditure: Enhanced initial disclosure obligations must be completed at the time of filing initial pleadings, factual witness statements must be served early in the proceeding, and parties must engage deeply with the substance of their case from the outset.

This means that the cost curve of litigation has changed materially. Costs that were previously incurred over a longer period - spread across discovery, interlocutory skirmishes, and evidence preparation - will now be concentrated in the early weeks and months of a proceeding. 

For insurers managing claims on behalf of insureds, this has two immediate implications

• Reserving must be recalibrated. Initial reserves can no longer be set on the basis that significant costs will only be incurred as a matter approaches trial. Early reserves will need to reflect the reality that meaningful legal expenditure commences almost immediately upon the filing of proceedings.

• Excess levels warrant review. Where an insured's excess is set at a level calibrated to earlier, more gradual cost profiles, those thresholds may be reached more quickly than anticipated. Insurers and their insureds should consider whether existing excess structures remain appropriate under the new regime.

2. Need for good document management and recall systems 

The timeframes for provision of enhanced initial disclosure are relatively tight, particularly for defendants. It will be crucial to claims brought against insurers (and against insureds under liability policies) that key documentation is able to be readily retrieved and collated to comply with the disclosure obligations. In particular, the new requirement to disclose “known adverse documents” as part of enhanced initial disclosure incorporates an obligation on parties to establish whether a person within their organisation involved in the events and circumstances the subject of the proceedings is aware of adverse documents. Reasonable steps to check the position with such individuals, including those who have left the organisation, are required.

3. Earlier settlements may be more attractive

The combination of front-loaded costs and the new judicial issues conference (JIC) process is likely to create stronger incentives for early settlement. When parties are required to commit substantial resources to evidence preparation and disclosure at the start of proceedings, and when a judge will convene a substantive early conference to identify determinative issues and discuss potential resolution, the dynamics of settlement negotiation shift considerably.

Parties faced with significant upfront expenditure and an early, informed judicial assessment of the issues in dispute may find that the economics of early settlement are more compelling than under the old regime. For insurers, this represents both an opportunity and a discipline: those who engage early and constructively – as the new duty to co-operate requires  – will be better placed to reach favourable settlements before costs escalate further. Conversely, insurers who adopt a “wait and see” approach may find that the cost advantages of early settlement diminish rapidly once the front-end expenditure has been committed.

4. Careful consideration of subrogated claims

The new rules also warrant careful thought in the context of subrogated claims. When an insurer steps into the shoes of its insured to pursue a recovery, it assumes responsibility for the conduct and costs of that litigation. Under the new regime, the front-loaded cost profile means that insurers must make an early and well-informed commercial decision about whether a subrogated claim is worth pursuing – and must be prepared to commit meaningful resources to that pursuit from the outset.

The enhanced initial disclosure requirements, the obligation to serve factual witness evidence early, and the tight timeframes imposed on defendants (who must complete checks for adverse documents and prepare evidence within prescribed periods) mean that subrogated claims cannot be approached incrementally. A thorough cost-benefit analysis at the point of instruction – rather than as costs accumulate – will be essential. Insurers should also ensure that their panel solicitors are well-versed in the new procedural requirements and are resourced to meet early deadlines.

5. Potential increase in claims against insurers 

One of the express objectives of the new rules is to improve access to civil justice by making litigation cheaper and more efficient overall. If the reforms achieve that goal – and particularly if the overall cost of proceedings is reduced for matters that progress through to trial – it is reasonable to anticipate that the threshold at which claimants consider litigation a viable option may decrease.

For insurers, this could translate into an increase in the volume of claims brought against them or their insureds, as plaintiffs who might previously have been deterred by the prohibitive cost of High Court litigation find proceedings more accessible. The increased use of AI by self-represented litigants is likely to give further momentum to an increase in claims.

This is a medium to long-term risk that insurers should monitor as the new regime embeds. The rules are designed to deter tactical, low-value proceedings through heavy upfront costs – and parties involved in disputes valued at NZD1 million or less may indeed be deterred from issuing proceedings – but for higher-value claims the overall cost reduction is a genuine incentive to litigate.

What has changed: The key reforms 

The new rules apply to ordinary proceedings. Ordinary proceedings are proceedings that are commenced under Part 5 of the rules. They exclude bankruptcy, liquidation, appeals to the High Court, and proceedings brought under the specialist jurisdictions in Parts 18 and 19.

Proportionality as the overriding objective

The new regime places proportionality at the heart of procedural decision-making. While retaining the goals of just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution, the rules now require the court to consider how best to deal with a proceeding in ways that are, and at a cost that is, proportionate to the nature and issues of the dispute - and the need to allocate court resources fairly across its caseload. This proportionality touchstone is expected to influence disclosure, witness evidence, and trial length, limiting cases in which full discovery-style disclosure is required. 

A new duty to co-operate

A general duty of co-operation now applies to parties and their legal representatives, embedded throughout the rules and at key procedural steps including disclosure, judicial issues conferences, and preparation of the common trial bundle. The duty is designed to encourage constructive early engagement, reduce unnecessary interlocutory disputes, and refocus proceedings on the core issues in contention. The court has a range of tools to enforce compliance, including adverse costs orders.

The evidence-first model

Perhaps the most transformative reform is the reversal of the traditional procedural sequence. Previously, discovery and interlocutory skirmishes preceded the exchange of substantive written evidence, often resulting in voluminous, costly, and only partially relevant material. Under the new rules: 

• Parties must complete enhanced initial disclosure at the time of filing their initial pleadings, including documents referred to or used in preparing the pleading, documents they intend to rely on at trial, and – critically – all adverse documents they know exist or have good reason to believe exist.

• Factual witness statements and a new draft chronology must be served early in the proceeding – for plaintiffs, by 25 working days after service of the last initial pleading; for defendants, by 45 working days after that. Factual witness statements should not include a detailed explanation of relevant documents that the witness was involved in creating or receiving. Instead, they should focus on material issues and the witness’s recollections. A separate chronology of documents will be prepared for use at trial that will include all relevant documents.

• Further disclosure may be sought through targeted requests, with court involvement only where agreement cannot be reached. 

This front-loading of substantive preparation is intended to encourage early engagement with the merits, reduce interlocutory delays, and enable the court to give better-tailored directions. Expert witness statements are intended to be exchanged later in the proceeding when all factual evidence and documentation is available. However, there may be some cases with very high values, which are document heavy, and therefore require discovery more akin to the previous process.

Dispositive interlocutory applications

The rules now distinguish between dispositive and non-dispositive interlocutory applications. Only dispositive applications - those that would dispose of the proceeding or materially change its nature or parties, such as protests to jurisdiction, summary judgment, strike-out applications, and security for costs applications – may be determined before factual evidence in filed and have the effect of delaying that obligation.

The judicial issues conference

Following the service of factual evidence in defended ordinary proceeding, a judicial issues conference will be convened. This is a substantive fixture – attended by parties and their lawyers – designed to identify the determinative issues, discuss potential settlement or alternative resolution, and set the timetable through to trial. The conference agenda includes consideration of whether further disclosure is needing and the resolution or timetabling of any remaining interlocutory matters. 

Amendments to the content of evidence and hearing of evidence at trial

The Court expects that the new procedures implemented at an earlier stage will lead to a more disciplined focus on the central issues in dispute in the proceedings. 

Relevant documents will be included in chronologies and in narratives of events presented as part of the opening submissions. This is intended to reflect the removal of labourious narrative factual witness statements and the inclusion in those statements of submissions and other inadmissible evidence.

Further, witness statements will now be taken as read, which is expected, together with the highly-focused content of such statements, to reduce the time taken up at trial with evidence in chief.

The Court will also more closely monitor and enforce compliance with the requirements for witness statements and deal with objections as to those statements and as to admissibility of documents pro-actively. The rules now empower judges to use enforcement provisions to "sanction" breaches of these rules. 

The cost dynamic: Front-loading and overall reduction

It is important to understand the two-part cost dynamic that underpins the new regime. The reforms are designed to reduce the overall cost of proceedings that progress through the trial - by eliminating much of the costly interlocutory skirmishing, narrowing discovery obligations, and focusing proceedings on the real issues in dispute. 

However, they do so by front-loading costs - requiring parties to commit to significant legal expenditure at the outset rather than spreading it across the life of the proceeding. This distinction matters for insurers. The headline benefit (overall cost reduction) does not eliminate the challenge of increased early expenditure. Insurers and their insureds must be financially and operationally prepared to meet those early demands, even where the total cost of a matter that runs to trial is ultimately lower than it would have been under the old regime.

Conclusion

The High Court (Improved Access to Civil Justice) Amendment Rules 2025 represent a genuine structural shift in civil litigation in New Zealand. For the insurance industry, the changes are not simply a matter of procedural adjustment - they require a rethinking of how risk is priced, how claims are managed, and how litigation strategy is approached. The front-loading of costs creates immediate challenges for reserving and excess calibration, while the overall cost reduction and improved access to justice carry longer-term implications for claim volumes and settlement dynamics. 

Those insurers who move quickly to understand and adapt to the new landscape will be best placed to managed their exposure and support their insureds effectively. Those who do not may find themselves navigating an unfamiliar procedural terrain with inadequate preparation. 

This article in intended as a general overview of the recent changes to the Hight Court Rules 2016 by way of the High Court (Improved Access to Civil Justice) Amendment Rules 2025 and their potential implications for the insurance industry. It does not constitute legal advice. Specific legal advice should be sought it in relation to any particular matter.