.nz Dispute Resolution Scheme – Annual Report release 

Speed as a baseline

In today’s online digital environment, .nz domain names are valuable, active, commercial assets.  

When disputes arise, resolution needs to move at the pace of commerce — not the pace of traditional legal processes. Businesses need certainty quickly. 

This report highlights how binding outcomes can be reached in a fraction of the time typically associated with Court proceedings.  

On average, expert determination under the scheme results in a decision within 6 weeks from start to finish. In most cases, the .nz domain name is transferred to the claimant. 

Mediations are typically completed within two weeks and allow for an agreed outcome. 

While mediation needs both parties to agree to participate, expert determination provides a binding outcome regardless of whether the other party participates. 

“Domain names are often critical business assets, so when disputes arise it’s important that parties have access to processes that are timely, practical and fit for purpose. The Scheme is designed to provide accessible pathways to resolution, within a commercially realistic time frame.” Barbara Pearse, Domain Name Commissioner 

The scheme is also accessible and cost-effective: mediation is free to the parties, funded by the Domain Name Commission. For expert determination, the claimant pays the fixed fee (currently $2,000 plus GST). 

Accessibility is further supported by culturally responsive approaches, ensuring that processes are not only efficient and cost-effective but also appropriate to the environment in which disputes arise. 

The 2025/26 Annual Report demonstrates that the scheme performed strongly over the financial year, providing certainty to parties quickly so that business can continue. 

The report also includes interesting case studies that provide insights into the types of issues that can be addressed through the scheme. 

Read the full Annual Report → https://dnc.org.nz/assets/DocumentLibrary/NZDRC-.nz-Dispute-Resolution-Scheme-report-2025-26.pdf 

Other resources you might like

If you found this article helpful and are interested in learning more, there is a wealth of other resources available on our website. We have a wide array of articles and guides on a variety of topics, each designed to provide you with a deeper understanding of the subject matter. We encourage you to explore these resources and deepen your knowledge.

The parties began by playing cricket but then switched to baseball: English Court of Appeal decides whether reinsurance dispute should be heard in London or New York.

AI Transforming Legal Practice: Highlights from GAITC 2025 Law & AI Forum 

The Law & AI Forum, held in Hangzhou, China, was a key feature of the Global Artificial Intelligence Technology Conference (GAITC). Centred on the theme “Digitalisation of the Rule of Law and Legalisation of the Digital World,” the forum brought together more than 260 legal professionals, scholars, and technologists for in-depth discussions on the evolving relationship between artificial intelligence and the legal domain. An additional 6,000 participants joined the event online.

The forum was hosted by the Chinese Association for Artificial Intelligence (CAAI), and co-organised by the Digital Laboratory of Rule of Law at Zhejiang University, the CAAI Artificial Intelligence Logic Committee, PKULAW,[1] and Huazhong University of Science and Technology Press.
A woman sits at a desk in a modern office, holding and examining papers. She is dressed in professional attire, with a laptop, notepad, and documents spread out in front of her. Amidst the shelves, plants, and framed certificates, she scrutinizes contract clauses for wilful breaches.

Wilful Breaches of Contract – Do Exclusion Clauses and Liability Caps Still Work?

Can deliberate or wilful contract breaches still benefit from clauses that limit or exclude liability? The English High Court recently considered this issue in Mott Macdonald Ltd v Trant Engineering Ltd,[1] which confirmed that clauses limiting or excluding liability for claims will be given effect on their plain and ordinary meaning. If any limitation or exclusion is not intended to apply to a deliberate or wilful action, clear wording to that effect is required.

Get in touch

Contact our team today to see how we can help

Contact us

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.