The District Court has imposed fines totalling $1.104 million on Brand Developers Limited (BDL), trading as TV Shop, following convictions on 13 charges under the Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA). The decision is a significant recent penalty judgment and provides useful guidance on how the courts assess culpability for misleading conduct affecting consumers.
Read MoreThe Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill has been reported back by the Education and Workforce Committee. The Committee has recommended, by majority, that the Bill be passed with amendments.
The Bill is intended to make the health and safety regime clearer and more focused on serious risks. It does this by introducing the concept of “critical risk”, changing some duties for smaller businesses, clarifying officer and landowner responsibilities, strengthening Approved Codes of Practice, and addressing how the Health and Safety at Work Act interacts with other laws.
Read MoreIn Candida Trustee Co Ltd v Teak Construction Group Ltd (in liq) [2026] NZHC 1352, the High Court considered whether a claimant creditor could compel liquidators to disclose a company’s professional indemnity insurance information prior to the claim being resolved.
Read MoreIn contract works claims, a frequent dispute – for both insurers and insureds – is precisely where to draw the line between cover for new “damage” and excluded construction defects. The damage and defects are often interlinked and untangling the issue involves technical evidence.
Read MoreFor anyone treating the upcoming Contracts of Insurance Act (‘CoIA’) as a box ticking exercise, the FMA’s open letter to insurers last week is a clear warning. The FMA expects insurers to be actively preparing for CoIA now, and has confirmed that implementation will form part of its ongoing monitoring and enforcement activities.
Read MoreTrustees are personally responsible for expenses and liabilities during their trusteeship. However, it is a fundamental entitlement of every trustee that they have a right to be indemnified from the trust’s assets for those expenses and liabilities, where they have been reasonably incurred. Although personally liable, they are not required to pay out of their own pocket. This right has been recently endorsed and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, and is enshrined in the Trusts Act 2019.
Read MoreOn 13 May 2026, the Supreme Court granted leave to the RH & JY Trust and its trustees to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision in RH & JY Trust v WorkSafe New Zealand [2026] NZCA 12. The approved question is whether a trust and/or the trustees of a trust acting collectively is a “person” within the meaning of section 16 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA).
Read MoreLessons from Ahmed and Others v White & Co (UK) Ltd and Another
The UK Commercial Court’s decision in Ahmed and Others v White & Co (UK) Ltd and Another [2025] EWHC 2399 (Comm) provides a timely and helpful restatement of the principles governing notification of claims and circumstances under claims‑made insurance policies, and the limits of so-called “Hornet’s Nest” style notifications.
Read MoreA Firm v LCRO & Ors [2026] NZHC 1039 (22 April 2026)
The High Court has overturned a decision of the Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO) concerning when a lawyer must cease acting under rule 13.5.2 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules, on the grounds that a member of the lawyer’s firm “is to give evidence of a contentious nature”.
Read MoreIn December 2024, we reported on the District Court decision in Maritime New Zealand v Gibson, which marked the first time a chief executive of a major New Zealand company, namely Ports of Auckland was convicted for failing to comply with officer due diligence duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA). You can find our article, and the facts of the case, here: Maritime New Zealand v Gibson [2024] NZDC 27975 - Insurance law in New Zealand
Read MoreFee Langstone is delighted to announce the appointment of two new partners to the firm, Melissa Bell and Angus Wakeman, effective 1 April 2026.
Read MoreFor this year’s Client Function we celebrated 10 years of Fee Langstone with a glamorous night in Hollywood! Thanks to everyone for another great night.
Read MoreBody Corporate 423900 v. QBE Insurance [2025] NZHC 3015
Pacific Tower is a 22-storey, mixed-use building in Christchurch, managed by Body Corporate 423090. The building was insured by QBE Insurance during the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES) beginning in September 2010. The Body Corporate made various insurance claims for earthquake damage. QBE accepted those claims and funded repairs totalling over $16,000,000 between 2011 and 2013. A Code of Compliance was issued for the Pacific Tower on 21 October 2013.
Read MoreIn litigation, time can be everything. Limitation periods set strict deadlines for bringing claims – if a plaintiff is out of time, the claim may be thrown out, even if the claim is strong.
Read MoreThe New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants (NZICA) Disciplinary Tribunal has issued its decision in relation to the complaint against chartered accountant, Nicola Adam, for her actions following the collapse of the Du Val Group.
Read MoreWe’re proud to celebrate a decade of Fee Langstone — ten years of growth, collaboration, and great work.
From major events, industry shifts to everyday wins, we’ve had the privilege of working with fantastic clients and an exceptional team. Your support has helped shape who we are today.
Thank you to everyone who’s been part of our journey. Here’s to the next chapter — and many more milestones to come!
The Resource Management (Consenting and Other System Changes) Amendment Bill passed its third reading on 14 August 2025 and will introduce a significant shift in the statutory liability landscape. While the Government’s broader RMA reform agenda targets planning and consenting efficiencies, two enforcement provisions stand out for their direct impact on insurers and insureds alike.
Read MoreMarket overview
New Zealand's insurance sector comprises both private and government-owned insurers. In the private sector, about 59% of business is general insurance, followed by 28% life insurance and 13% health insurance.
Read MoreThe Supreme Court has released its much-awaited decision of Routhan v PGG Wrightson Real Estate Ltd regarding how damages should be measured where a professional has negligently supplied critical information that induces a commercial transaction. Crucially, the decision comments on the relevance of the SAAMCO principle in New Zealand law, an issue of great interest to liability insurers and their clients.
Read MoreThe test for unfairness, which will apply in New Zealand once the Contracts of Insurance Acts changes are implemented is almost identical to the test that has applied to insurance contracts in Australia since 2021. As a result, cases decided in Australia will provide important guidance for New Zealand insurers as they start to review their policy wordings for potentially problematic terms.
Read MoreAt Fee Langstone we’re experts in the field of insurance law. We are a team of skilled litigation lawyers, able to work with you to provide strategies and robust solutions, fast.
The District Court has imposed fines totalling $1.104 million on Brand Developers Limited (BDL), trading as TV Shop, following convictions on 13 charges under the Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA). The decision is a significant recent penalty judgment and provides useful guidance on how the courts assess culpability for misleading conduct affecting consumers.
The Health and Safety at Work Amendment Bill has been reported back by the Education and Workforce Committee. The Committee has recommended, by majority, that the Bill be passed with amendments.
The Bill is intended to make the health and safety regime clearer and more focused on serious risks. It does this by introducing the concept of “critical risk”, changing some duties for smaller businesses, clarifying officer and landowner responsibilities, strengthening Approved Codes of Practice, and addressing how the Health and Safety at Work Act interacts with other laws.
In Candida Trustee Co Ltd v Teak Construction Group Ltd (in liq) [2026] NZHC 1352, the High Court considered whether a claimant creditor could compel liquidators to disclose a company’s professional indemnity insurance information prior to the claim being resolved.
In contract works claims, a frequent dispute – for both insurers and insureds – is precisely where to draw the line between cover for new “damage” and excluded construction defects. The damage and defects are often interlinked and untangling the issue involves technical evidence.
For anyone treating the upcoming Contracts of Insurance Act (‘CoIA’) as a box ticking exercise, the FMA’s open letter to insurers last week is a clear warning. The FMA expects insurers to be actively preparing for CoIA now, and has confirmed that implementation will form part of its ongoing monitoring and enforcement activities.
Trustees are personally responsible for expenses and liabilities during their trusteeship. However, it is a fundamental entitlement of every trustee that they have a right to be indemnified from the trust’s assets for those expenses and liabilities, where they have been reasonably incurred. Although personally liable, they are not required to pay out of their own pocket. This right has been recently endorsed and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court, and is enshrined in the Trusts Act 2019.
On 13 May 2026, the Supreme Court granted leave to the RH & JY Trust and its trustees to appeal the Court of Appeal’s decision in RH & JY Trust v WorkSafe New Zealand [2026] NZCA 12. The approved question is whether a trust and/or the trustees of a trust acting collectively is a “person” within the meaning of section 16 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA).
Lessons from Ahmed and Others v White & Co (UK) Ltd and Another
The UK Commercial Court’s decision in Ahmed and Others v White & Co (UK) Ltd and Another [2025] EWHC 2399 (Comm) provides a timely and helpful restatement of the principles governing notification of claims and circumstances under claims‑made insurance policies, and the limits of so-called “Hornet’s Nest” style notifications.
A Firm v LCRO & Ors [2026] NZHC 1039 (22 April 2026)
The High Court has overturned a decision of the Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO) concerning when a lawyer must cease acting under rule 13.5.2 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules, on the grounds that a member of the lawyer’s firm “is to give evidence of a contentious nature”.
Auckland
Level 18, 51 Shortland Street
Auckland 1010
Tel. +64 9 373 0050
reception@feelangstone.co.nz
Christchurch
Level 1, 83 Lichfield Street
Christchurch 8011
Tel: +64 3 371 4622
