HINO MOTORS CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT APPROVED BY HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

Shine New Zealand’s fast-growing class action team has had its first ever court-approved settlement of a representative action.  On 16 June 2026, Blanchard J of the High Court of New Zealand approved the NZD 10.9 million settlement of the Hino Motors Class Action, appointing Shine as Settlement Administrator [Sillsco Ltd v Hino Motors Ltd [2026] NZHC 1697 [16 June 2026].  

Registrations for the settlement reflected approximately 70% of relevant vehicles.[1]

As representatives of a trans-Tasman practice, the authors of this paper consider that our Australian colleagues should follow New Zealand developments with interest.   

Hino Class Action

The facts of Sillsco Ltd v Hino Motors Ltd may be familiar to readers given the equivalent Australian proceeding, McCoy v Hino Motors Ltd [2025] VSC 447.  In the New Zealand action, the claimants alleged that Hino Motors Ltd misreported engine performance data in relation to emissions and fuel efficiency for a range of diesel vehicles manufactured and exported to New Zealand between 2010 and 2022. The claim also alleged that Hino failed to meet its obligations under consumer protection laws by not adequately disclosing these issues. Hino denies these allegations.  

Shine filed the claim in March 2025.   By 10 December 2025, the parties had already conditionally agreed to settle the claim for NZD 10.9 million.  This agreement was formalised in a deed of settlement executed on 9 February 2026, with the settlement being conditional on the Court making representative orders (which occurred on 23 March 2026), and approval orders.   

New Zealand’s Representative Action Regime as applied in Sillsco Ltd v Hino Motors Ltd

The New Zealand representative action regime is entirely based around Rule 4.24 of the High Court Rules 2016. This is distinctly different from Australia, as a New Zealand proceeding generally requires an application for representative orders to become a “class action”.

The rule is also silent as to procedure, making class action jurisprudence dependent upon case law, as the court is given significant discretion in relation to the conduct of class action proceedings (Rule 4.24(b)). This lack of regulation makes New Zealand representative actions a fascinating and developing field for specialist class action litigators, and an attractive market for international funders.

What the court held

When applying r 4.24 in this case, Blanchard J held that the legal test for the settlement of opt-out representative proceedings concerns whether the settlement is a fair and reasonable compromise, undertaken in the group’s interests, both between plaintiffs and defendants and amongst plaintiffs.   

The settlement arrangement should be broadly fair, treat like members alike, and be as cost-effective as possible.  It is not for the Court to second-guess decisions of plaintiffs’ legal representatives: the Court must simply be satisfied that both the agreed settlement and the distribution are within a reasonable range of decisions in the circumstances.

Blanchard J noted that the parties reached an arms-length settlement relatively early, saving the plaintiffs costs.  The proceedings being funded on a conditional fee agreement by Shine rather than by a litigation funder “significantly advantaged” the plaintiffs.  The potential disadvantage to the plaintiffs of not having reviewed discovery was offset by the facilitation process and the warranty provided by Hino Japan. 

Only 1.6 % of responding class members had elected to opt out of the settlement, and only two objections were received (the objections being that the settlement sum was too low).  The loss formula created a principled basis to distribute the settlement sum, without unduly complicating matters.

All in all, Blanchard J found the settlement to be fair and reasonable both between parties and amongst group members, and found that Shine had the capacity and expertise to be appointed as settlement administrators.

A Trans-Tasman View

In making his decision, Blanchard J noted that the settlement could be seen as “no less favourable” than the equivalent Australian settlement,  accounting for the New Zealand quirk of parallel imported vehicles that made up 24% of the class.  Further, His Honour noted that the principles for approval of a class action as set out by Delany J in McCoy v Hino Motors are essentially the same as the principles adopted in New Zealand.   However, Blanchard J did not apply some Australian procedural steps (a confidential opinion was not required, merely a limited confidential submission as to the reasonableness of the settlement, and the court was satisfied there was no need for a contradictor or costs referee).

This indicates New Zealand’s trajectory of applying Australian developments while accounting for Aotearoa’s on-the-ground realities.  The New Zealand courts also have a decision as to which Australian jurisdiction to follow: New Zealand’s adoption of common fund orders has made the jurisdiction more attractive to funders,  yet the jurisdiction is far from moving towards the Group Costs Orders popular in Victoria, such as were obtained in the Australian Hino class action.

But it is not just New Zealand that has something to learn from Australia.  On attending the approval hearing, Australian team members were pleasantly surprised by the efficiency of both the hearing (completed without so much as a tea break) and of the proceeding as a whole. Perhaps Australia too has something to learn from our smaller neighbours.

Over the last few years settlement approval processes in Australia have generally become more complex, drawn out and expensive, which ultimately means a longer wait for group members to receive payments and less compensation in hand.

Conclusion

Finally, to state the obvious, many businesses have a presence in both Australia and New Zealand, executing similar business strategy in both jurisdictions.   This, apart from anything else, makes developments in New Zealand class action law very relevant to Australian litigation practitioners.   Colleagues on both sides of the ditch should take notice. Article reference below.

Authored by Craig Allsopp, Head of Class Actions (Shine Sydney CBD) and Caro Coates, Senior Associate (Shine Auckland)  

Click to connect

As the Head of Class Actions, Craig has almost 20 years of experience in class actions and large-scale litigation in both private and public sectors. He has worked on some of Australia’s highest-profile shareholder class actions, including a claim against Worley Limited - the first shareholder class action to go on appeal in Australia. In 2022, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia delivered a ground-breaking judgment in favour of Worley shareholders.

Craig and his team have commenced several shareholder and financial services class actions in the Federal Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of Victoria.

Through these claims, he strives to obtain justice for thousands of people impacted by the misconduct of corporations, the big banks and major financial service institutions.

Craig has also held a number of senior roles including Principal at ACA Lawyers, Principal and Director at Allygroup Legal Consultants and Senior Lawyer/Legal Manager at the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).

Click to connect

Caro Coates is a Senior Associate with Shine Lawyers’ Auckland office.   

Before joining Shine Lawyers, Caro began her career in a leading litigation practice, working initially as a Law Clerk and, following her admission in 2018, as a Solicitor. She later practised as a Senior Solicitor specialising in immigration law, where she assisted individuals and families with complex and high-stakes immigration matters. Her work included helping people come to or remain in New Zealand, as well as advising small businesses seeking to employ skilled migrant workers. She subsequently worked in London as a contractor for a government legal department, conducting judicial review litigation. 

As part of Shine Lawyers’ representative actions team, Caro brings years of experience, combined with a genuine commitment to plaintiff-focused advocacy. Caro advocates for New Zealanders in the: 

• Toyota DPF Action   

• Edgecumbe Flood Action

• Hino Motors Action Investigation

Caro’s career highlights include her work as a plaintiff-side immigration lawyer, where she helped clients achieve life-changing outcomes. Of particular significance was her pro bono work assisting family members of victims of the Christchurch terrorist attack to apply for Special Directions to reunite with their families in New Zealand, work that continues to have a lasting impact on her both professionally and personally. 

Caro has also acted on significant commercial and construction litigation matters, achieving settlements and major judgments for her clients in complex proceedings, and bringing this depth of experience to her work in representative actions. 

While studying law at The University of Auckland, Caro was a Pro Bono Researcher for the Equal Justice Project and was awarded a Prime Minister’s Scholarship for Latin America, representing New Zealand while completing her final semester of law at the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. 

Caro is a member of the New Zealand Law Society and holds a Bachelor of Laws (Honours) and a Bachelor of Arts, majoring in Politics and International Relations. She was admitted to practice of the High Court of New Zealand in 2018. 

[1] Note that there may be multiple claims pertaining to the same vehicles: this is not yet clear.