Plain language law

New Zealand law explained for everyone

Parliament Act 2025

Parliamentary privilege - Protected communication of proceedings in Parliament - Qualified immunity

27: Effect and operation of qualified immunity

You could also call this:

"What is qualified immunity and how does it work in court?"

Illustration for Parliament Act 2025

You have a defence called qualified immunity in court cases about what you said or wrote. This defence helps you if someone is suing you or taking you to court for something you communicated. You can use this defence if you plead it or raise it in court. You cannot use this defence if the other person proves you did something wrong when you communicated. This includes if you acted in bad faith or were mean to someone on purpose. You also cannot use this defence if you took advantage of the situation in a wrong way. You can look at section 18 of a previous law for comparison.

This text is automatically generated. It might be out of date or be missing some parts. Find out more about how we do this.

View the original legislation for this page at https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/link.aspx?id=LMS804159.

This page was last updated on — View changes

Topics:
Crime and justice > Courts and legal help
Previous

26: Communications protected by qualified immunity, or

"Sharing info about Parliament is protected by law"

Next

28: Other laws unaffected, or

"This law does not change other laws that protect people from being sued."

Part 2Parliamentary privilege
Protected communication of proceedings in Parliament: Qualified immunity

27Effect and operation of qualified immunity

  1. Qualified immunity is a defence to any civil or criminal liability in proceedings that relate to the relevant communication if it is pleaded, or otherwise raised as a defence, by or on behalf of the defendant.

  2. However, the defence is unavailable if the plaintiff or prosecutor proves that, in communicating the matter that is the subject of the proceedings, the defendant has abused the occasion of communication.

  3. Without limiting subsection (2), the defendant has abused the occasion of communication if the defendant acted in bad faith or predominantly with malice towards any person or otherwise took improper advantage of the occasion.

Compare