.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.

Australian Hague Rules: party to shipping dispute rails against arbitration clause

In Carmichael Rail Network Pty Ltd v BBC Chartering Carriers GmbH & Co KG, [1] the High Court of Australia assessed whether engagement in arbitration in a foreign jurisdiction could contravene law designed to protect cargo owners. The decision is an illustration of the stability of arbitration as a method of dispute resolution.
Aerial view of a suburban neighborhood featuring houses with yards, driveways, and cars parked on paved driveways. The street is lined with tall trees casting long shadows, and the homes have varied roof colors and styles, with greenery surrounding them.

Expert “evidence” needs to be more than just bald assertions to win the day

Leakage issues in a building can be a real dampener. A recent decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) which considered conflicting expert evidence on water ingress issues in a newly built property highlighted the importance of having sufficient and specific expert evidence to support the denial of a claim. It also emphasised the essential role this plays in the outcome of a matter.
A person wearing blue jeans and a white shirt holds several coins in their right hand, with their left pocket turned inside out, against a plain background.

Where do directors’ duties lie once insolvency looms?

Hong Kong Court refuses to set aside arbitral award over claim lawyer couldn’t read witness’ body language in virtual hearing.

In BTI 2014 LLC v. Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25, the UK Supreme Court handed down its judgment which examined the role of directors when a company becomes, or is likely to become, insolvent. The decision looked at when directors were to consider the overriding interests of the company’s creditors when dealing with insolvency.

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.