On February 1 2009 a new set of High Court procedural rules came into effect. Although there are relatively few substantial changes, the significant amendments for international practitioners include changes to the rules on service of persons outside New Zealand and the court's increased powers to grant interim measures in support of overseas judgments.

The High Court is established under the Judicature Act 1908, which preserved for the court all the legal, equitable and probate jurisdiction held by the superior UK courts in 1860. This jurisdiction was originally vested in New Zealand courts by the Supreme Court Act 1860. The High Court has civil and criminal jurisdiction; the civil procedures are governed by Schedule 2 of the Judicature Act 1908, known as the High Court Rules.

The rules have been significantly revised several times. The principal aim of the recent reworking was not to introduce major procedural changes, but rather to make the rules more logically organized, more accessible and easier to understand. The rules are now presented in 33 parts and are numbered by reference to both part and rule number. They have been expressed in plain English - Latin phrases such as ex parte have been replaced by their English equivalents. References to legal principles by their founding cases, such as Browne v Dunn and Anton Piller, have also been removed.

The new rules apply to new and ongoing proceedings. The changes include the following:

• There is a new obligation to file a reply to an affirmative defence (Rule 5.62). If a plaintiff fails to file a reply, it is held to have accepted the defence.
• Where a party pleads a particular interpretation of a contract, the other party cannot merely deny the interpretation, but must assert its own interpretation (Rule 5.19).
• Provision has been made for the filing and service of certain documents by email.
• A person may be served outside New Zealand without leave of the court in the circumstances set out in Rule 6.27. The grounds are largely unchanged, but some have been clarified or expanded. The joining of a 'necessary or proper party' under Rule 6.27(h) now requires that a real issue exist between the plaintiff and the defendant to be served. Rule 6.27(j) allows service outside New Zealand when a claim arises under a statute and:
  • an act or omission occurred in New Zealand;
  • loss or damage was sustained in New Zealand; or
  • the enactment expressly or by implication applies to the act or omission outside New Zealand or confers jurisdiction.
  This greatly increases the circumstances in which a foreign national may be served overseas on a claim arising under an enactment, particularly in light of the approach previously taken by the New Zealand courts in interpreting the phrase 'conduct in New Zealand'.
• When a defendant protests the court's jurisdiction under Rule 6.29, the court must dismiss the proceeding unless the party effecting service without leave can show that the claim falls within one of the grounds in Rule 6.27 and that New Zealand is an appropriate forum for the dispute. If service outside New Zealand was made with leave of the court under Rule 6.28, the serving party must show that leave was properly granted - New Zealand being an appropriate forum - in order to avoid the proceeding being dismissed upon a protest to jurisdiction.
• An addition to Part 7 allows the court to grant certain forms of interim relief in support of overseas judicial and arbitral proceedings (Rule 7.81). In order to make such an order, the court must be satisfied that there is a real connecting link between the subject matter of the relief and the court's territorial jurisdiction.
• Summary judgment can no longer be obtained for only a part of a claim, but the ability to obtain summary judgment on liability only is retained. Judicial review proceedings may be brought as ordinary proceedings or as claims in equity under Part 18, which allows evidence to be given by agreed statement of facts or by affidavit.
• More detailed rules have been introduced in Parts 32 and 33 relating to freezing and search orders (ie, Mareva injunctions and Anton Piller orders).
• The forms specified by the rules have been updated.

The main guiding principle of the changes appears to be improving access to justice, as evidenced by the logical reorganization for greater clarity, the use of plain English and the plan to improve case management in future. The new rules are the first stage in a comprehensive review of High Court procedures and more substantive changes in relation to case management, evidence and judicial review are expected soon.