The Building Amendment Bill proposes a significant change to the way liability for defective building work is allocated in New Zealand.  At the centre of the reforms is a move away from joint and several liability towards proportionate liability for building defect claims.

Birchfield v Birchfield [2026] NZCA 477 is an interesting decision commenting on the limits of costs arising from Judicial Settlement Conferences.

The High Court ordered $22,848.67 in wasted costs against a party following an unsuccessful JSC.  Essentially, the Judge considered that the party had failed to engage meaningfully in the process by refusing to shift from his pre-JSC position.

A few months ago, the London Engineering Group (LEG) announced that it will be publishing revised LEG clauses later this year to provide greater clarity for the construction insurance market.  The announcement follows the 2023 U.S. Federal Court decision in South Capitol Bridgebuilders v Lexington Insurance in which LEG 3 was described as “ambiguous—egregiously so” and “internally inconsistent and bordering incomprehensible”.  This does not surprise us.  We have encountered similar concerns with LEG 3 in the context of large construction projects in New Zealand. Despite these longstanding issues, the clause remains widely used, making the proposed revisions a welcome development.

We turned up the volume for this year’s Client Function with a night of glam rock! A fantastic night spent with clients and friends of the firm. Thanks to everyone who joined us and helped make it such a great evening.

The Star Entertainment Sydney Properties Pty Ltd v Buildcorp Group Pty Ltd [2026] NSWSC 27

The boundary between defective work and “property damage” is regularly a disputed issue in a construction insurance context.  Under a liability policy, the builder’s liability for damage will ordinarily trigger the policy’s insuring clause.  However, the policy will usually exclude cover for the builder’s defective work, or perhaps only provide cover to a limited extent.

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.

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.

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.

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”.

In 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

Fee Langstone is delighted to announce the appointment of two new partners to the firm, Melissa Bell and Angus Wakeman, effective 1 April 2026.

For 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.

Body 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.