Edmonds Judd

Business Ethics

Property Briefs

Business Ethics, First Job, House, Media, Politics & Government, Social Media, Trusts
0

Healthy home standards compliance from 1 July 2025

First introduced in 2019, healthy home standards are the minimum legal standards expected of rental properties in New Zealand. These include:

  • Heating (provision of functioning and fixed (not portable), heaters in the main living room)
  • Ceiling and underfloor insulation, and
  • Adequate ventilation (functioning doors and windows, and extractor fans in the kitchen and bathrooms).

From 1 July 2025, all landlords are responsible for ensuring their rental properties comply with healthy homes standards (and continue to comply with them over time). Landlords who do not comply will be in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and can be penalised up to $7,200 per breach. Landlords who are ignorant of these changes or disorganised will not be excused.

Landlords in new or renewed tenancy agreements must include a signed statement detailing the property’s compliance with the standards. Failing to do so can result in a penalty. There are also penalties to the landlord if they provide misleading information in compliance statements.

If you are a tenant and you are concerned that your rental property does not comply with healthy homes standards, we recommend having a friendly chat to your landlord first. Failing that, please contact us and we can help you explore your options.

On the other hand, if you are a landlord and are concerned about your obligations under the healthy homes standards, please come and see us for advice.

Sunset clauses – the new bill introduced into Parliament

The Property Law (Sunset Clauses) Amendment Bill was introduced to Parliament on 9 April 2025 and is tracking towards its first reading. The bill is aimed at restricting sellers developing vacant plots of land from using ‘sunset clauses’ to cancel sale and purchase agreements. It also provides an extra layer of protection to buyers who, in good faith, have made the commitment to purchase the property.

In this context, a ‘sunset clause’ is a provision added to an agreement for the sale and purchase of a plot of land in development which allows the seller or buyer the option to cancel the agreement if the development is not complete by the specified date.

There have previously been situations in which sellers have used these clauses to cancel an agreement, where there have been delays in development, only to then go and list the property at a higher price.

This legislation would require the seller to obtain the buyer’s written consent to cancel the agreement under a sunset clause. There would also be the requirement to give sufficient notice of, and reasons for, the proposed cancellation to the buyer in advance. This is the extra layer of protection given to the buyer.

If the buyer does not consent to the agreement being cancelled, the seller would need to apply to the High Court for an order permitting the cancellation. On the seller’s application, the court would only make the order if it is satisfied that its making would be ‘just and equitable in all the circumstances.’ The court would consider various factors including whether the seller has acted unreasonably or in bad faith, the reason for the delay in completing the development, whether the land has increased in value and the effect of the cancellation on the buyer.

If this law is passed and you are a seller or buyer who seeks to activate a sunset clause, please get in touch with us – we would be happy to assist you.

Real estate agent commission – claim or not to claim?

Before a real estate agent lists a seller’s property, the parties enter into a ‘listing agreement’ or ‘agency agreement,’ authorising the agent to sell the property on the seller’s behalf.

The real estate agent receives a commission (a percentage of the sale proceeds) for introducing the buyer to the property. The real estate agent usually takes their commission out of the deposit the buyer pays when the agreement for sale and purchase becomes unconditional.

However, there are some situations in which an agent is not entitled to be paid their commission:

  • Where there is no listing agreement in place
  • If an agreement for sale and purchase does not become unconditional and is cancelled, and
  • If the property is pulled from the market and the seller cancels the listing agreement (but note that the agent may still charge a fee).

If you are considering selling your property and have any questions about entering into a listing agreement, please come and see us for advice first.

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Property Speaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Property Speaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2022.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected].       Ph: 029 286 3650

 

Business briefs

Business Ethics, Fair Trading, Resource Management Reform, Tourism Risk Management, Workplace Regulation
0

Misleading and deceptive conduct

The Commerce Commission has filed criminal charges against HelloFresh New Zealand, alleging that the meal-kit delivery company misled former customers when reactivating cancelled subscriptions.

 

The charges relate to conduct where customers were allegedly offered discount vouchers via cold calls without being clearly informed that accepting the voucher would reactivate their subscriptions and result in charges to their account.

 

Commerce Commission Deputy Chair, Anne Callinan, stated that the alleged conduct may have breached the Fair Trading Act 1986, which prohibits misleading and deceptive practices. Given the prevalent use of subscription-based services, the Commerce Commission is focused on tackling ‘subscription traps,’ where consumers may be unwittingly signed up for ongoing service contracts.

 

While the allegations have yet to be tested in court, the case serves as a reminder for businesses to ensure their sales practices are clear and transparent, and for consumers to remain vigilant.

 

Misleading or deceptive conduct, even if unintentional, can result in significant penalties and reputational damage. The Commerce Commission has signalled that enforcing fair trading laws in the online subscription space is a priority.

 

Whakaari Management Limited conviction overturned

In previous editions of Commercial eSpeaking, we have reported on the conviction and sentencing of Whakaari Management Limited (WML). The District Court convicted WML under section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 for failing to ensure the safety of tourists visiting Whakaari/White Island following its December 2019 eruption that killed 22 people and severely injured 25 more.

 

Section 37 imposes a duty on those who manage or control a workplace to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that their workplace is without risks to the health and safety of any person.

 

The High Court has since overturned WML’s conviction.[1] Central to this decision was the interpretation of ‘management or control of the workplace.’ WML’s role was limited to granting access to Whakaari – it did not actively direct or oversee activities on the island. This lack of operational control meant WML did not manage or control the workplace in the sense contemplated by section 37.

 

The High Court found that the risk of people being on Whakaari during an eruption stemmed from the work activity controlled by the tour operators, not WML’s business operations. WML had imposed health and safety obligations on the tour operators and relied on regulatory guidance in respect of the risk. As a result, the High Court was satisfied that, even if section 37 had been triggered, WML had taken all reasonable steps to discharge such a duty.

 

Although this decision may be a relief to many business owners, we urge continued caution. Neglecting to exercise power or control does not exempt a business from its duty under section 37. A practical and fact-specific exercise should be undertaken to assess whether the business can actively control or manage the workplace. Businesses must continue to identify circumstances where a duty may be owed and ensure appropriate steps are taken to discharge this.

 

The Resource Management Act 1991 to be replaced with two new acts

The government recently announced that the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) will be replaced by two new acts: the Planning Act and the Natural Environment Act. This is the final stage of the government’s three-phase resource management reform. It follows the repeal of the Labour government’s RMA replacement legislation, amendments to the RMA and implementation of the Fast-Track Approvals Act 2024.

 

The dual act approach aims to minimise duplication between laws and regulations, and to provide a more concise framework for managing the effects on the natural environment. The Planning Act will focus on land-use planning and regulation, while the Natural Environment Act will address the use, protection and enhancement of the natural environment.

 

Key proposed changes include:

  • Nationally standardised land use zones: the new resource management system will have one combined plan per region. Each plan will include environmental, spatial planning and planning chapters
  • Resource consent: resource consents will still be required. However, with the new nationally standardised land use zones, there will be more permitted activities, leading to fewer resource consents being required, and
  • Compliance and enforcement: a national compliance and enforcement regulator will be established to ensure consistency and reduce variability in compliance and enforcement activities. This will be done in a separate legislative process.

 

The government has indicated that it intends to introduce the new legislation to Parliament by the end of 2025, put it before the select committee in 2026, and pass it into law before the general election at the end of 2026.

[1]  Whakaari Management Ltd v WorkSafe New Zealand [2025] NZHC 288.

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Property Speaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Property Speaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2022.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected].       Ph: 029 286 3650