A trustee’s right to be indemnified – it’s complicated

A trustee’s right to be indemnified – it’s complicated

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.

Read More

Supreme Court to Consider Whether Trusts Can Be “Persons” Under the HSWA

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). 

Read More

Stirring the Hornet’s Nest – When Notification of Circumstances Falls Short

Stirring the Hornet’s Nest – When Notification of Circumstances Falls Short

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. 

Read More

Gibson v Maritime New Zealand – Appeal Decision

Gibson v Maritime New Zealand – Appeal Decision

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

Read More

Property Insurance – Elasticity, functionality and waiver

Property Insurance – Elasticity, functionality and waiver

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.

Read More

Fee Langstone is 10!

We’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!

Statutory Liability in Flux: RMA Reforms Redefine Coverage Boundaries

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 More

Supreme Court Refines Measures of Damages Test for Negligent Misstatement - Routhan v PGG Wrightson Real Estate Ltd 

Supreme Court Refines Measures of Damages Test for Negligent Misstatement - Routhan v PGG Wrightson Real Estate Ltd 

The 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 More

Preparing for Contracts of Insurance Acts and Unfair Terms in Insurance Contracts – Recent Lessons from Australia

Preparing for Contracts of Insurance Acts and Unfair Terms in Insurance Contracts – Recent Lessons from Australia

The 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 More

Attention trustees and fiduciaries: is it time for a change to the non-profit rule and duty to account?

Attention trustees and fiduciaries:  is it time for a change to the non-profit rule and duty to account?

A fiduciary, including a trustee, is under a duty not to profit from their office.  Where a fiduciary is in default, equity requires them to account to their principal for any profit made. 

A recent decision of the UK Supreme Court has considered whether the non-profit rule and the duty to account are due for a change.  This is a particularly important issue for professionals, such as lawyers and accountants, who regularly act as trustees and provide other services as fiduciaries.

Read More

New Zealand courts say ‘yes’ to Common Fund Orders in representative proceedings

New Zealand courts say ‘yes’ to Common Fund Orders in representative proceedings

In the recent decision of Simons & Ors v ANZ Bank New Zealand Limited & ASB Bank Limited, the Court of Appeal approved the High Court judgment of Venning J, in which it was held that the High Court has jurisdiction to issue a common fund order (CFO) – the first authority of its kind in New Zealand.  CFOs “are a mechanism which provide a way of sharing the costs of bringing a class action between all class members, regardless of whether they have signed the funding agreement” with the litigation funder.

Read More

Duty of fair presentation of the risk – who has knowledge of a company’s circumstances?

Duty of fair presentation of the risk – who has knowledge of a company’s circumstances?

As insurers start preparing for the implementation of the Contracts of Insurance Acts, underwriters, product teams and brokers will be considering how the new duties of disclosure will operate in practice.  The new New Zealand non-consumer duty of fair presentation of risk is almost identical to the duty in the UK Insurance Act 2015, so decisions by Courts in England and Wales will be very persuasive in New Zealand. 

Read More