MinterEllisonRuddWatts

Send us your feedback
For show notes and additional resources visit minterellison.co.nz/podcasts

Send us your feedback
In this episode, Partner Richard Wells and Senior Associate Sarah Redding from our Corporate and Commercial team discuss Heads of Agreement (HOA) and Letters of Intent (LOI), examining why parties turn to them, what can go wrong, and steps to take to ensure these preliminary documents work for you, rather than against you.
[01:09] Richard and Sarah explain how HOAs and LOIs function as preliminary documents, typically used in situations where there is commercial urgency to quickly define the parameters of a transaction, setting out the key commercial terms of a deal before the parties negotiate a full long form agreement.
[03:06] Sarah considers the commercial appeal of these types of documents - how their speed, flexibility, and ability to signal commitment can rapidly build deal momentum, but notes that this can come at a cost. She then highlights the major risk: the “gap problem,” where such high level drafting leaves out essential terms, creating uncertainty and exposing parties to unforeseen issues further down the track.
[04:19] Richard talks about the confusion that can arise around which parts of an HOA or LOI are legally binding and how this is legally determined.
[05:28] They discuss how signing an HOA or LOI can often slow momentum toward a full formal agreement, as early performance can create a “deal feels done” mindset. This can result in these preliminary documents governing the parties’ relationship for much longer than originally intended and a risk that they are locked into arrangements that were never intended to be the final word.
[07:43] Sarah outlines practical steps parties can take to protect themselves when entering into such documents, including evaluating whether an HOA or LOI is actually necessary in the first instance, being explicit about binding terms, using sunset clauses, and involving lawyers early.

Information in this episode is accurate as at the date of recording, 24 February 2026.

Please contact Richard Wells or our Corporate and Commercial team if you need legal advice and guidance on any of the topics discussed in the episode. 
And don’t forget to rate, review or follow MinterEllisonRuddWatts wherever you get your podcasts. You can also email us directly at [email protected] and sign up to receive technology updates via your inbox here.  
For show notes and additional resources visit minterellison.co.nz/podcasts

Send us your feedback
In this episode, Technology Partner Tom Maasland and Litigation Partner Andrew Horne examine AI through an insurance risk lens, discussing what insurers are most concerned about, how those concerns are evolving, and what professional firms and businesses need to do to stay insurable as AI use becomes mainstream.
[01:07] Tom and Andy reflect on how recent insurer conversations have shifted from traditional cyber security concerns to AI taking centre stage, with insurers increasingly focused on how AI related risks translate into real world liabilities and claims exposure.
[02:51] Andy talks through insurers’ concerns that professionals may place reliance on AI generated work without adequate human oversight, highlighting cases where hallucinated outputs have resulted in court sanctions, regulatory referrals, reputational harm, and financial loss.
[06:35] They then examine other examples of AI failures beyond the legal profession, noting some high profile examples from consulting, health, and retail where poorly supervised AI tools or use of AI has caused harm, embarrassment, or safety risks, reinforcing insurers’ fears about unintended consequences when AI systems lack adequate guardrails.
[09:44] Tom and Andy consider what happens when confidential and privileged information is entered into generative AI systems from an insurance risk perspective, prompting discussion on data training, contractual protections, enterprise grade closed circuit AI tools, and the growing risk of IP infringement or third-party confidentiality breaches.
[12:17] Andy discusses insurers’ expectations for clear AI guidelines and policies, staff training and human oversight, noting that despite increasing AI adoption, many New Zealand businesses are still well behind on risk frameworks and compliance as reported in Datacom’s 2025 State of AI Index Research Report.
[13:55] Lastly, they consider how AI insurers might assess AI risk in the future, highlighting that they are likely to follow the cyber insurance model, asking increasingly detailed questions about AI purpose, governance, security, provenance, and regulatory awareness, with potential impacts on premiums, exclusions, and coverage availability.
 
Information in this episode is accurate as at the date of recording, 30 January 2026.
 
Please contact Andrew Horne, Tom Maasland or our Litigation team if you need legal advice and guidance on any of the topics discussed in the episode. 
And don’t forget to rate, review or follow MinterEllisonRuddWatts wherever you get your podcasts. You can also email us directly at [email protected] and sign up to receive technology updates via your inbox here. 
 
Additional resources
Datacom's 2025 State of AI Index Research Report 
MinterEllisonRuddWatts publication: AI risks: Wh
For show notes and additional resources visit minterellison.co.nz/podcasts

Send us your feedback
In this episode, Technology Partner Tom Maasland is joined by Senior Associate Oliver Sutton from our Litigation team to examine how the rapid adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) is affecting the application of legal privilege.
[01:20] Oliver outlines the three most common forms of legal privilege encountered in practice: solicitor client privilege, litigation privilege, and privilege for settlement negotiations, explaining the fundamental interplay with confidentiality.
[02:58] Oliver discusses both intentional and inadvertent waiver of legal privilege, including disclosures made during litigation, information sharing with third parties, and accidental disclosures through emails or document handling errors.
[04:49] Tom and Oliver then consider whether inputting privileged material into AI models can amount to a waiver of legal privilege. Oliver notes that while the issue is ultimately fact-dependent, there are key differences between inputs into public AI tools versus enterprise grade AI platforms that are likely to be relevant in this setting.
[06:16] They discuss recent examples illustrating how AI usage can expose confidential information, including instances where public AI chat data became searchable online, highlighting the real and practical risks for legal teams
[07:40] Oliver considers whether AI prompts and responses could be discoverable under the High Court Rules.
[11:00] Lastly, they discuss various practical considerations for businesses in the adoption and use of AI tools in a legal context, highlighting the importance of enterprise grade AI, carefully reviewing terms and conditions, taking a privacy by design approach, and implementing strong AI governance. 
 
Information in this episode is accurate as at, 19 January 2026.
 
Please contact Tom Maasland, Oliver Sutton or our Litigation team if you need legal advice and guidance on any of the topics discussed in the episode. 
And don’t forget to rate, review or follow MinterEllisonRuddWatts wherever you get your podcasts. You can also email us directly at [email protected] and sign up to receive technology updates via your inbox here.
 
Additionaly resources
Our approach to generative AI 
For show notes and additional resources visit minterellison.co.nz/podcasts

Send us your feedback
In the first episode of our new Election 2026 series, Litigation and Public Law Partner, Briony Davies, Special Counsel Daniel Fielding and Senior Associate Mark Calderwood, explore New Zealand’s waka jumping legislation and what it means for MPs under the MMP system. They explain how an MP’s seat can be vacated, how the courts have interpreted proportionality, and why legal challenges to party decisions are so difficult to sustain.
[01:40–03:40] Briony introduces the topic of waka jumping and asks Mark to explain what the term means in legal terms. Mark describes waka jumping as the informal label for provisions introduced by the Electoral Integrity Amendment Act 2018, which were designed to preserve public confidence in the electoral system and maintain proportional representation in Parliament under MMP. He explains that New Zealand previously had similar legislation between 2001 and 2005 following significant party defections after the first MMP election, but that no such rules applied between 2005 and 2018. During that gap, MPs were able to leave their parties and remain in Parliament as independents without losing their seats.
[03:40–05:39] The discussion then moves to the mechanics of how an MP’s seat may be vacated under the current legislation. Mark explains that one pathway arises when an MP voluntarily notifies the Speaker that they have resigned from the party for which they were elected, in which case the seat is automatically vacated. He notes that this requirement is applied strictly, as demonstrated by the controversy surrounding Meka Whaitiri’s resignation. Mark then outlines the second pathway, where a party leader may notify the Speaker that an MP’s conduct has distorted or is likely to distort proportionality, provided procedural requirements are met, including notice to the MP, internal party support, and compliance with party rules. He explains that list MPs are replaced by the next person on the party list, while electorate MPs trigger a by‑election, using Jamie Lee Ross departure from the National Party as an illustrative example of how this could have played out.
[05:39–09:19] Attention then shifts to the courts’ interpretation of proportionality, with Briony explaining the significance of the Supreme Court’s decision in Prebble v Huata. She outlines
For show notes and additional resources visit minterellison.co.nz/podcasts