About Community Governance Open source Publish
Membership Become a member Always free

Act · 2006 · Tier 2

Evidence Act 2006

Also known as: the Evidence Act

Last verified against legislation.govt.nz on 17 April 2026.

What it is

The Evidence Act 2006 is the New Zealand statute that governs what evidence can be produced in court proceedings and how. It replaced the Evidence Act 1908 and a patchwork of specific evidence statutes with a single modernised framework. It codified the hearsay rule, the propensity rule, expert-evidence standards, and the admissibility of documents and digital material.

For homeowners, the Act matters in one specific way: the records you keep during a property transaction — emails, text messages, WhatsApp exchanges, signed documents, photographs, digitally signed records — may later become evidence in a dispute, a complaint, or litigation. The Act governs whether and how those records can be used.

What it covers

  • The fundamental principle (section 7) — evidence must be relevant to be admissible, and its probative value must not be outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, misleading the court, or wasting time.
  • The hearsay rule (sections 16 to 22) — statements made out of court are generally inadmissible (s.17), with defined exceptions (ss.18–22).
  • Business records (section 19) — a specific exception to the hearsay rule for records kept in the ordinary course of business.
  • Documentary evidence (sections 126 to 149) — authentication, presumptions about public documents, and rules about electronic and mechanically produced documents.
  • Expert opinion (section 25) — rules about when expert evidence is admissible.
  • Presumptions about published documents — rules that let certain kinds of documents be admitted without further proof of authenticity.

What it gives you

  • A framework for when your records can be used as evidence. Understanding the framework helps you keep records in a way that makes them useful if needed later.
  • The right to use your own records. Emails you sent, texts you received, and records you kept of conversations are generally admissible where relevant, subject to the rules on hearsay and authenticity.
  • Rules that protect against unreliable evidence. Hearsay from absent speakers is generally excluded; unreliable records can be challenged.

Key sections and how they work

Section 7 — Fundamental principle that relevant evidence admissible

"(1) All relevant evidence is admissible in a proceeding except evidence that is — (a) inadmissible under this Act or any other Act; or (b) excluded under this Act or any other Act."

Our reading: The starting point is that relevant evidence is admissible. Exclusions operate as exceptions. For homeowners, this means that records of conversations, emails, and documents relating to a property transaction are generally admissible if relevant to the dispute — unless a specific rule excludes them.

Section 8 — General exclusion

Section 8 gives the court discretion to exclude evidence where its probative value is outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, misleading the court, or wasting time. This is a balancing test, not a per-se exclusion.

Section 17 — Hearsay statement generally not admissible

Section 17 is the default rule: a hearsay statement is not admissible except as provided by sections 18 to 22, by any other Act, or by a rule of this Act. "Hearsay" for Evidence Act purposes is a statement made otherwise than by a witness giving oral evidence at the hearing, tendered in the proceeding to prove the truth of its contents.

For a homeowner, this matters because things the agent said that were not written down are potentially hearsay if you later want to rely on them. Written records — emails, texts, messages — are generally stronger evidence than recollections of conversations. This is a practical reason to conduct important communications in writing.

Section 18 — General admissibility of hearsay

Section 18 is the main exception: a hearsay statement may be admitted where (a) the circumstances relating to the statement provide reasonable assurance that it is reliable, and (b) either the maker of the statement is unavailable as a witness, or requiring the maker to be a witness would cause undue expense or delay. This is the route through which, for example, a written communication from an absent third party can be placed before a court.

For a homeowner, this matters because things the agent said that were not written down are potentially hearsay if you later want to rely on them. Written records — emails, texts, messages — are generally stronger evidence than recollections of conversations. This is a practical reason to conduct important communications in writing.

Section 19 — Business records exception

A hearsay statement contained in a business record is admissible without having to separately satisfy the reliability test of section 18. Business records include records made in the ordinary course of a business's activities. For property transactions, business records may include agency records, solicitor's records, and bank records.

Not all records a party keeps are "business records" for this purpose. A vendor's personal diary entries are not business records; a licensee's agency log is.

Section 129 — Admission of reliable published documents

Certain published documents (government gazettes, regulations, official reports) are admissible without further proof of authenticity where they are manifestly reliable.

Sections 126 to 149 — Documentary evidence

The documentary-evidence provisions cover authentication (proving a document is what it claims to be), the presumption that a copy is accurate if produced in a reliable manner, and rules about machine-produced documents. These provisions apply to electronic documents, digital photographs, and records stored on a computer.

For records stored on a device or produced by a machine, the Act allows admission where the device was operating properly and the process was reliable. For digitally signed records — records with a cryptographic signature that detects tampering — the signature can support authenticity, though the signature alone does not prove the underlying content was true at the time of signing.

How the Act is applied in practice — for homeowner disputes

Few residential property disputes reach a courtroom; most are resolved through the Real Estate Authority's complaints process, the Disputes Tribunal, or negotiation. The Evidence Act still matters because those processes generally follow a similar logic of relevance and reliability.

Practical implications for a homeowner keeping records:

  • Written is stronger than verbal. Emails, texts, and messages are direct evidence of what was said; oral recollections are more vulnerable to challenge.
  • Timestamps matter. A record that shows when it was created and whether it has been modified is more reliable than one without that provenance.
  • Chain of custody matters. A record that can be traced from its creation to the evidence offered in proceedings is stronger than one with gaps.
  • Records in the ordinary course are stronger than records made specifically for dispute. A WhatsApp exchange contemporaneous with a transaction is more credible than a memo written later recalling what was said.
  • Corroboration helps. Two independent records of the same fact (email + diary entry + bank statement) are harder to dismiss than a single record.

Digital records and blockchain-anchored records

The Evidence Act is technology-neutral. Digital records (emails, text messages, PDFs, digital photographs) are admissible on the same relevance-and-reliability principles as paper records. Where provenance and integrity can be demonstrated, digital records are strong evidence.

Blockchain-anchored records — where a cryptographic hash of a record is published to a public ledger at a defined moment — can support evidence of non-tampering from that moment forward. The hash on chain proves that the record now matches the record that existed at the time of anchoring. What blockchain anchoring does not prove is that the underlying content was true at the time of anchoring. A party could create a false record and anchor it; the chain would attest to the record's integrity from that point, not to its truthfulness.

For homeowner.org.nz's transaction-record product, this distinction is important. Blockchain anchoring is a useful tool for tamper-evidence. It does not convert a record into court-admissible evidence on its own. The admissibility of any record still depends on relevance, reliability, authenticity, and the specific rules of the proceeding.

Common misuses

"A screenshot isn't admissible"

Screenshots, like any document, are admissible if relevant and authentic. Challenges to screenshots usually go to weight and authenticity, not outright admissibility. A screenshot supported by the original source (e.g., the email in the sender's sent folder, the text message on the phone) is usually sufficient.

"You can't use text messages in court"

Text messages are documentary evidence. They are admissible if relevant and authentic. The party seeking to admit them may need to produce the device or a forensic copy.

"Blockchain anchoring makes a record legally binding"

Blockchain anchoring demonstrates integrity; it does not convert a record into evidence that is automatically accepted as true. The Evidence Act's standard tests still apply.

When you might cite this Act

  • When deciding what records to keep during a transaction. Emails and texts are stronger than oral recall; keep everything in writing.
  • When preparing a Disputes Tribunal claim or an REA complaint. The evidentiary principles of relevance and reliability apply in those processes as well as in court.
  • When a counterparty challenges your records. Authentication, chain of custody, and the business-records exception are the frameworks for pushing back.
  • When evaluating claims about "tamper-proof" evidence. The Act's standards — not a technology's marketing — determine what is admissible.

Related rules

Authoritative sources

Our guides that use this Act