Originally from Enforcement of Money Judgments

In New Zealand, the effects of increasing globalisation are being felt in a number of respects, one of which is the increasing importance of private international law—that body of law which governs transnational private obligations. The enforcement of foreign money judgments in New Zealand, as one aspect of the wider field that is conflict of laws, occurs comparatively frequently. The New Zealand courts are also regularly faced with other conflict of law issues, including jurisdictional challenges, choice of law, interim relief in support of overseas proceedings and the gathering of evidence from overseas for use in domestic proceedings (and the inverse scenario). The focus of this chapter is narrowly on the enforcement of foreign money judgments in New Zealand. This system has deep colonial roots, and in many ways displays its English heritage, including through its respect for the case law and enactments from other common law jurisdictions. The New Zealand legal system, however, has been prepared, in the right circumstances, to strike its own antipodean path.

I.  PRESENT ATTITUDE TOWARD ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN MONEY JUDGMENTS

A. Describe the receptiveness of your government (including courts) toward enforcement of foreign money judgments.

Foreign judgments, without more, do not have direct force in New Zealand.  Instead, a person that has obtained a foreign judgment may be able to enforce it pursuant to one of: the common law; the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1934 (“REJA”); the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (“TTPA”); or the Senior Courts Act 2016 (“SCA”). 

New Zealand has had legislative arrangements for enforcing foreign money judgments for over eighty years.  Following the enactment of the United Kingdom’s Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933, New Zealand passed into law the REJA, which has changed little in this time and remains a primary method of enforcement of foreign money judgments for countries other than Australia.