Actions DECEMBER 2025
Class actions in New Zealand: 2025 round-up
Class actions continue to be a major feature of the litigation landscape in New Zealand, and a growing risk for businesses who engage with large numbers of customers.
In this brief report, we look back at class action developments in 2025 and outline:
• New claims filed, evidencing the growing primacy of “opt out” claims.
• Whether any new class actions have been given Court approval.
• Attempted class actions that were not given Court approval, which show that the Court will not necessarily grant representative orders even if there is a common interest among the proposed class.
• A significant procedural decision relating to litigation funding.
• Class action settlements approved by the Court.
Bell Gully is acting in most of the claims noted.
New class actions filed in 2025
Purported class Opt in / opt out1
Purchasers of Codral, Sudafed or Benadryl branded oral cold and flu medicines containing phenylephrine between 2005 and 2025
Defendant(s) Claim type Claim summary
Opt out Johnson & Johnson entities
Product liability
Businesses in the Northland region who suffered losses as a result of a power outage on 20 June 2024
Purchasers or lessees of Hino trucks
Opt out Transpower and Omexom Negligence
The claim alleges breaches of the Consumer Guarantees Act and Fair Trading Act in relation to the effectiveness of the active ingredient phenylephrine for the relief of nasal congestion.
At the time of writing, judgment is pending as to whether representative orders will be granted.
Bell Gully acts for the defendants.
Opt out Hino Motors (Japanese manufacturer) and the New Zealand Hino distributor
Product liability
The claim alleges negligence in connection with a transmission tower that fell to the ground on 20 June 2024, causing a power outage.
The claim alleges misleading and deceptive conduct regarding fuel efficiency and vehicle emissions claims for Hino trucks.
Bell Gully acts for the second defendant, who is the distributor of Hino trucks in New Zealand.
Rejected representative orders
Certain owners of buildings with Alucobond cladding
Commercial entities that produce greenhouse gas emissions greater than ordinary citizens – as a class of defendants rather than plaintiffs
Owners of homes damaged by the Canterbury Earthquake sequence
Class actions certified in 2025
Opt in Manufacturers and importers / distributors / suppliers of Alucobond cladding
Product liability
Universal (i.e., with no ability to opt out)
Several large industrial companies
Unspecified Southern Response Earthquake Services
Climate change
The claim alleges negligence and breach of the Fair Trading Act regarding certain characteristics of Alucobond cladding. This was the second attempt to obtain representative orders. The Court held that, while there were common issues between the building owners who sought to be represented, they had not established that a representative proceeding would be suitable as an efficient use of the Court's resources.2
Bell Gully acts for the first defendant, 3A Composites GmbH.
The claim alleges public nuisance and breach of duty in relation to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change.
Some of the defendants sought orders that they be representative defendants for the proposed class. While the threshold of a common issue had been established, the High Court rejected the application. Among other things, it would force the plaintiff to sue parties he did not wish to sue.3
Bell Gully acts for one of the defendants, Genesis Energy.
Insurance
Investors in the Du Val Property Group
Unspecified Financial Markets Authority (FMA)
Regulatory
The claim alleges misrepresentation and breach of the Fair Trading Act regarding insurance payments for earthquake damage.
The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an earlier judgment declining to grant representative orders. The Court of Appeal declined to hear the appeal.4
The claim alleged breaches of tortious and statutory duties by the FMA by “effectively approving” a restructuring plan relating to the Du Val Property Group.
The FMA successfully applied to strike out the claim, apparently before representative orders were considered, on the basis that the FMA did not owe any relevant duty to investors in the Group.5
We are not aware of any new class actions being certified this year, up to 2 December 2025.
Significant procedural issues
Protective costs order
In Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd (the climate change case referred to above), the plaintiff applied for orders that costs could not be ordered against him, any third party litigation funder, or any of the defendants (a “protective costs order”). This was on the basis that, among other things, the lawyers representing him are acting pro bono, he is bringing the proceeding in the public interest, and the risk of costs was hindering him from obtaining litigation funding.
The High Court declined the application for a protective costs order. Among other things, the high threshold of “necessity” and “exceptional circumstances” had not been established because the claim would continue without any order being made, costs would be unlikely to be ordered against a “pure funder” who had no commercial interest in the outcome of the litigation, and there was no detail about any particular funder who might benefit from the order.
Settlements
Class Opt in / opt out Defendant(s)
Investors in Intueri Education Group Ltd
Opt in The promoter, AWN Holdings Ltd, and various directors of AWN Holdings and Intueri
Securities
The claim alleged misstatements in relation to an initial public offering (IPO) of shares in a tertiary education provider, Intueri, and inaccurate continuous disclosure.
On 17 February 2025, the High Court approved a distribution methodology of the settlement proceeds, following a settlement of the claim in August 2024.6
The methodology involved a pro rata distribution to the investors according to the loss allegedly suffered by each investor, being the difference between the price paid for all shares purchased by the investor and the price at which they sold those shares (if they were sold).
Bell Gully acted for the promoter of the IPO, and one of the defendant directors.
The claim related to alleged failure to make required disclosure under the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 when borrowers made changes to their loans.
A settlement has been reached in principle, under which ASB will pay $135,625,000. The settlement is subject to approval of the High Court.
related claim continues against
A
ANZ. Bell Gully acts for ANZ.
Endnotes
1. An “opt in” proceeding requires people who share the same interest as the representative plaintiff to proactively elect to become part of the class by a certain date. An “opt out” proceeding includes all people who share the same interest in the class unless and until they take a positive step to remove themselves.
2. Body Corporate Number DPS 91535 v 3A Composites GmbH [2025] NZHC 1524.
3. Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd [2025] NZHC 940.
4. Ressels v Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd [2025] NZCA 116.
5. Lindeman Investment Ltd v Financial Markets Authority [2025] NZHC 1909.
6. Re Tetro [2025] NZHC 189.
DDI +64 9 916 8668
+64 21 899 619
sophie.east@bellgully.com
+64 9 916 8843
+64 21 190 3968
jesse.wilson@bellgully.com
+64 9 916 8356
+64 22 521 2289
alix.boberg@bellgully.com
+64 21 318 684
sam.hiebendaal@bellgully.com