Client Function 2025: A night in Hollywood
/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.
At 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 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”.
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
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