header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
28 March 2013 / Georgia Dunphy , Andy Glenie
Issue: 7554 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Kicking off in Kiwi courts?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Andy Glenie & Georgia Dunphy explain how to go about enforcing your judgment in New Zealand

Many British people will, when they think of New Zealand, picture a distant grassy field dotted with a few large rugby players, the odd little hobbit, and rather too many sheep. British lawyers will know that New Zealand has a legal system very similar to their own, with many inherited statutes and rules of common law. That shared heritage should reassure those who are from time to time called upon to have judgments of their own courts enforced against defendants with assets in New Zealand.

There are three routes by which a foreign judgment can be enforced by the High Court of New Zealand (High Court):

  1. under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934 (NZ) (the 1934 Act), which was based on the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 (UK);
  2. under s 56 of the Judicature Act 1908 (NZ) (the 1908 Act);
  3. at common law.

In addition, foreign arbitral awards may be enforced

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll