Edmonds Judd

Commercial

Business briefs

Commercial, Employment, News, Your Own Business
0

Companies Act reforms announced

The government has announced a suite of changes to the Companies Act 1993 aiming to improve fairness and the ease of doing business in New Zealand. The reform is expected to take place in two phases.

 

Phase One: The first phase focuses on the modernisation and simplification of the Act to better reflect a more evolved business and technological landscape.

 

Specific proposed changes include:

  • Providing a process for reducing the share capital of a company that does not require court approval
  • Amending the definition of ‘major transaction’ to exclude transactions relating to the capital structure of a company and clarify that a series of related transactions are captured by the definition
  • Adding additional types of transactions that can be approved by unanimous shareholder consent
  • Allowing companies to mingle unclaimed dividends with other funds after two years
  • Assigning unique identifiers to directors to prevent ‘phoenixing’ (where a new company is registered to take over an insolvent or unsuccessful one), and
  • Allowing directors and shareholders to have their residential addresses removed from the Companies Register, resolving safety and privacy concerns.

 

Further insolvency law amendments are also being proposed, including extended claw back periods, preference for long service leave and greater honouring of gift cards.

 

Phase Two: The second phase will involve a Law Commission review of directors’ duties and related issues such as director liability, sanctions and enforcement.

 

The bill introducing Phase One is expected to be introduced in early 2025 and Phase Two will closely follow.

 

 

Siouxsie Wiles employment decision

In July, the Employment Court ruled that the University of Auckland had breached its health and safety, and good faith obligations to Associate Professor Siouxsie Wiles.[1]

 

Dr Wiles was prominent in the media during the Covid pandemic, communicating complex Covid information in an understandable way to the public. Dr Wiles received harassment and abuse, both online and offline, from those who disagreed with her. She sought help from the university, but was told that it was not part of her academic duties and that she should minimise further public statements until a security audit had been completed.

 

Although the university was commended for the actions it did take, ultimately, those actions were insufficient. The Employment Court was critical of the university’s delay in responding to safety concerns and the university’s misplaced focus on Dr Wiles’ outside activities. The court found that the onus was on the university to obtain the right health and safety advice, and proactively put a plan in place. By failing to do so, the university was not acting in good faith and was breaching its contractual obligations to be a good employer.

 

This ruling serves as a good reminder that employers, especially those in the public sector or that engage with the public, should consider health and safety risks in relation to employees’ work-related activities, including where those activities pose a risk of harassment. Employers may also be responsible for work related activities occurring outside of an employee’s work premises and normal working hours.

 

 

New bill to improve consumer data rights

Parliament is currently considering the Customer and Product Data Bill – a bill designed to increase consumer control over their data. It is currently with the select committee. If passed, the legislation will create an obligation for businesses that possess customer data to provide, on request, that data to those customers and certain third parties.

 

The bill will help consumers access their data to compare services and change providers, making it easier for new or smaller businesses in an industry to compete with the ‘big players.’ The bill introduces hefty fines for non-compliance, including a fine of up to $50,000 for failing to respond to a data request and a fine of up to $5 million for making an unauthorised data request. Initially, the bill will only apply to the banking, electricity, and telecommunications sectors.

 

 

Changes to insurance industry coming

The Contracts of Insurance Bill, that awaits its second reading, will make significant changes to the rights of policyholders and insurers to promote confidence in the insurance market and ensure that insurers operate fairly. The bill proposes several changes to insurance contracts legislation, including:

 

  • Disclosure duties: The bill draws a distinction between consumer policyholders (where the insurance contract is for personal, domestic or household purposes) and non-consumer policyholders. Consumer policyholders will have a duty to take reasonable care not to make a misrepresentation to the insurer.
    Non-consumer policyholders will have a duty to make a fair representation of the risk. This shifts the burden on insurers to ask the right questions to reveal all the information they need
  • Unfair contract terms: The bill removes the existing exception for standard form insurance contracts from the unfair contract term provisions in the Fair Trading Act 1986. In other words, the unfair contract terms regime will apply more widely to insurance contracts, meaning insurers must make sure that the provisions of their insurance contracts are fair.
    There are still some exceptions in insurance contracts that will not be subject to the unfair contract terms regime, including event, subject or risk insured, sum insured, the basis for settling claims, excess, and exclusions or limited liability in certain circumstances, and
  • Proportionate remedies: Insurers will no longer be able to avoid an insurance contract for any failure or misrepresentation of a policyholder. Instead, insurers will have proportionate remedies based on how it would have responded if it had known the relevant information, such as reducing the amount paid on a claim.

 

Uber appeal dismissed: drivers are employees

In 2022, the Employment Court made a landmark ruling against Uber when it found four Uber drivers were employees and not independent contractors.[2] Uber appealed the decision, and the Court of Appeal issued its decision in August.[3] The Court of Appeal criticised the Employment Court’s approach, stating that the first step should be to look at the parties’ agreement governing the relationship, rather than whether the individual is vulnerable or suffering from an imbalance of power. Ultimately, however, the focus should still be on the parties’ mutual rights and obligations, interpreted objectively.

 

Despite these criticisms, the Court of Appeal still dismissed the appeal affirming the finding that Uber drivers are employees. This means Uber must provide the drivers with employee benefits, including minimum wage, leave entitlements and holiday pay.

 

The decision only applies to the four Uber drivers, but it has implications for all businesses that engage contractors, particularly for those operating in the gig economy. It is a timely reminder for businesses that rely on contractor workforces to ensure their contracts accurately reflect the nature of the relationship with their workers.

 

The Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden has indicated that the coalition government intends to amend the Employment Relations Act in 2025 to increase certainty and clarity for contractors and businesses regarding employment status of workers. The changes will provide a four part gateway test which, if met, would mean a worker is a contractor. More information on the government’s announcement can be found here.

 

If you would like to know more about how any of the items in Business briefs may affect you and your business, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

[1] Wiles v University of Auckland [2024] NZEmpC 123.

[2] E Tū Inc v Rasier OperaAons BV [2022] NZEmpC 192.

[3] Rasier OperaAons BV v E Tū Inc [2024] NZCA 403.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Commercial eSpeaking 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 Commercial eSpeaking 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

Embracing Tikanga Māori in your commercial contracts

Commercial, Employment, Your Own Business
0

Seeking ways to respect and incorporate differences into business practices

In recent years, there has been a growing recognition of the importance of incorporating – and (more importantly) the desire to incorporate – Tikanga Māori into commercial contracts.

 

To some extent, this shift is due to the growing appreciation that contracts should not only be robust and enforceable, but also culturally inclusive and reflective of our collective New Zealand heritage. Many people, however, particularly those not brought up in Te Ao Māori (the Māori culture), can find this daunting and maybe a little scary.

 

What is Tikanga Māori?

Tikanga Māori refers to Māori customs, values and practices. The word ‘Tikanga’ comes from the word ‘tika’ that means ‘correct’ or ‘right’; essentially, it is the ‘right way’ to do things.

 

In the context of commercial contracts, Tikanga can cover a range of concepts, from the way you manage relationships, to how you carry out your obligations. However, Tikanga is not a one-size-fits-all concept; its meaning and application can vary depending on the region, the iwi (tribe) and the parties involved.

 

For non-Māori businesspeople who are used to clear, documented processes, this can be challenging, especially if you are worried about putting a foot wrong. Integrating Tikanga into commercial contracts, however, generally just involves the careful blending of Māori and Pākehā perspectives to create agreements that are long-term, community-focused and ethically grounded. Tikanga acknowledges the differences between Māori and Pākehā approaches but also actively seeks ways to respect and incorporate these differences into commercial practices.

 

Why incorporate Tikanga Māori?

There are several reasons we should consider incorporating Tikanga Māori elements into our contracts. These include:

 

  • Relationships: As Tikanga Māori places a high priority on relationships, emphasising trust, mutual respect and reciprocity, incorporating these values into contracts can help to strengthen the bonds between businesses and Māori partners, which can ensure longer-term, sustainable partnerships
  • Cultural competence and respect: Incorporating Tikanga Māori into contracts can help to show your business’ commitment to understand and respect Māori culture. This may not only enhance your reputation, but also help build trust within Māori communities and stakeholders
  • Enhanced dispute resolution: Tikanga Māori offers alternative dispute resolution methods, focused more on restoring harmony and balance than penalising/default mechanisms. This can lead to more agreeable and lasting solutions if there is disagreement, and
  • Alignment with Te Tiriti o Waitangi: One of the aims of Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi) is to preserve the partnership between Māori and the Crown. Incorporating Tikanga Māori into contracts may help to demonstrate your commitment in upholding these values.

 

Looking ahead

If any of the above resonates with you, consider doing some of the following in your business:

  • Think longer time frames: In Te Ao Māori (the Māori worldview), time is often considered in generations rather than years. Māori organisations frequently plan with a longer-term perspective, focusing on the wellbeing of future generations rather than immediate short-term gains. This longer-term approach means that your contracts should ideally consider the broader implications, looking beyond the immediate benefits and considering longer-term issues such as community goals and sustainability, and
  • Focus on relationships: We tend to concentrate on our own individual obligations and financial outcomes when negotiating contracts. In a Tikanga Māori approach, however, the focus is more on relationships — both between the parties and with the wider community. This means that contracts should seek to prioritise, among other things, mutual respect, collective responsibility and the ongoing relationship between the parties.

 

You could consider including provisions that acknowledge the importance of whakapapa (genealogy) and manaakitanga (hospitality and respect), seeking to ensure that the contract strengthens, rather than undermines, relationships:

  • Consult with experts: Engage with Māori advisors, legal professionals or kaumātua (elders) while preparing your contracts. Their insights can ensure that the incorporation of Tikanga Māori is both authentic and appropriate in the context
  • Use Te Reo Māori: Where relevant and appropriate, consider including Te Reo Māori (Māori language) as part of the contract – whether as bilingual clauses or simply incorporating Te Reo Māori alongside the English words – as we have done in this article, and
  • Tweak your disputes clauses: Standard commercial contracts often include formal arbitration or court processes as dispute resolution mechanisms. Māori dispute resolution, however, leans more towards consensus and the restoration of harmony, as well as the concept of kanohi ki te kanohi (face-to-face) discussions rather than battling it out through lawyers or email. Incorporating these processes into contracts can help ensure that disputes are resolved in a manner consistent with Tikanga.

 

Using Tikanga Māori principles is advantageous

Incorporating Tikanga Māori principles into commercial contracts is a growing practice in this country. Doing so can result in agreements that are not only legally robust, but also culturally inclusive and ethically grounded. This approach can be beneficial to all parties, enhancing the relationship and supporting longer-term, sustainable partnerships.

 

Whaowhia te kete mātauranga:

Fill the basket with knowledge.

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Commercial eSpeaking 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 Commercial eSpeaking 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

Voidable transactions

Commercial, Your Own Business
0

Liquidator can claw back payments

The number of companies going into liquidation in New Zealand is on the rise after a Covid lull. According to Centrix,[1] 642 companies were placed into liquidation during the second quarter of 2024. This represents a year-on-year increase of 19%.

 

Most people in business know there is a substantial risk of not being paid by a company that goes into liquidation unless they have a secured debt. However, a payment made by a company before it goes into liquidation may also be at risk.

 

The liquidator can ‘claw back’ a payment made by the company to a creditor up to six months before the company was placed into liquidation by its shareholders or liquidation proceedings were filed in the High Court.[2] The liquidator may claw back the payment if it was made at a time when the company could not pay its debts, and the payment enabled the creditor to receive more than they would have received in the liquidation. Such a payment is known as a ‘voidable transaction.’

 

Pari passu rule

If a company has insufficient assets to meet all its debts, its available assets should be divided between its creditors in proportion to the debts they are owed. This is known as the pari passu rule.

 

There are several limits on the liquidator’s power to unwind voidable transactions. These are intended to strike a balance between upholding the pari passu rule and the conflicting objective of encouraging businesses to continue to trade out of their difficulties when facing financial problems.

 

Running account exception

The running account exception is one significant limitation on the liquidator’s power to claw back voidable transactions. It requires the liquidator to consider the net effect of a series of transactions between a creditor and the company, and to treat this as a single transaction.

 

In practice, if a company has a trading account with your business before it goes into liquidation, then any amount your business receives during the six months prior to liquidation that exceeds the value of any goods or services supplied during this period may be treated as a voidable transaction. For example, suppose your business supplies $10,000 worth of goods to a company during the six months before it is placed into liquidation, and you receive payments totalling $15,000 during the same period. Of that $15,000, $5,000 of the money you received went towards the debt that existed before the start of the six-month period. In that case, it is possible that a payment of $5,000 to your business was a voidable transaction, but the rest is safe.

 

The effect of the running account exception is that your business can keep any payment received for any goods or services supplied during the six months before liquidation.

 

Section 296 defence

This section[3] contains a ‘good faith’ defence available to creditors facing a claim to repay a voidable transaction. This statutory defence has three elements that must be satisfied:

 

  1. The creditor must have acted in good faith
  2. There was no reason for them to suspect the company was insolvent, and
  3. They gave something of value for the payment or changed their position due to the payment. The value does not have to be provided at the same time as the payment.

 

The claw back procedure

The Companies Act sets out the procedure a liquidator must follow when seeking to claw back a payment.

 

If the liquidator cannot resolve the issues through correspondence with the creditors, the liquidator may issue a formal notice to set aside the transaction. The recipient has 20 working days to respond to the notice. If they do not respond, the payment automatically becomes a voidable transaction at the end of this period and must be paid back. If the recipient does respond, then the liquidator may still apply to the court to set aside the payment.

 

It is difficult to fully protect your business from claw backs for voidable transactions. One option is to seek a security or personal guarantee at the start of any trading relationship. You should talk with us before continuing to trade with a company you suspect may have financial difficulties,

or if you are contacted by liquidators seeking to claw back a payment.

[1] Centrix August 2024 Credit Indicator Report.

[2] Section 292, Companies Act 1993.

[3] Section 296, Companies Act 1993.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Commercial eSpeaking 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 Commercial eSpeaking 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

Are Uber drivers employees and why does that matter for you?

Commercial, Employment, First Job, Uncategorized, Your Own Business
0

A case from the Court of Appeal on Monday acts as an urgent reminder that you can’t contract out of the Employment Relations Act (the Act) and that includes by calling the relationship an independent contract when it is not. The case involved four Uber drivers and the companies that own and run Uber Drive and Uber Eats.

Uber argued that they were not employers but provided an introduction service. Interestingly, adapting to new ways of working, the Court held that the drivers were all employees when they were logged in to the Uber Drive App.

Using an independent contractor rather than taking on an employee is attractive because it cuts out a whole swathe of costs, paperwork, responsibility and inconvenience: holidays, sick leave, termination issues and PAYE to name a few.  If you get the nature of the relationship wrong however, it can have an enormous impact on the employer: investigation, prosecution, fines and penalties, PAYE arrears, holiday pay arrears and much, much more.

So how do we know when a relationship is actually employment if we can’t rely on what the parties themselves agree in the contract? The answer is section 6 of the Act. Section 6 requires the court to focus on the realities of the parties’ mutual rights and obligations. In particular: how is the relationship working in practice (especially if that differs from the contract)?

Three key issues that the Court must weigh up are:

  • the extent of the control over the worker,
  • the degree of integration of the worker into the business, and
  • the “fundamental test” of whether the worker is carrying on their own (independent) business.

 The Uber case in particular emphasised Uber’s control of the workers which included Uber controlling fare setting and performance management, and right to discipline. They looked at the practice as it varied from the contract: even though the drivers could theoretically choose when and where they worked, they were penalised for not working regularly. They were not an independent business as the drivers were restrained by Uber from expanding their business. For example, there was a ban on contacting clients independently.

This situation might not be substantially different from many ‘independent contracts’ on our farms or in a small business setting.

If you have an independent contractor and that worker only works for you (perhaps because you do not permit subcontracting or them taking on other jobs, or simply because the job takes up all available time), if you can dictate what that worker must do from day to day and how they do it, if you can discipline them, if they work on your site and you provide most of the equipment, then it might be time to take a second look and seek independent professional advice.

Nicolette Brodnax
Nicolette Brodnax, Special Counsel

Preparing your business for sale

Commercial, Your Own Business
0

Whether you’re retiring, pursuing new ventures or looking to cash in on your hard work, selling a business is a significant milestone and one that needs careful planning and preparation.

To ensure the greatest return on your investment, your business should be at its best when it goes on sale. Building value in your business is important in attaining an optimum result.

 

 

Strengthening operations

As a starting point, you should ensure the business can operate successfully without you. All its operations and processes should be well-implemented and running smoothly.

It’s important to delegate responsibilities to capable managers early on. Work to reduce the business’s reliance on you and have a management succession plan in place detailing who will support the incoming owner and what pre-settlement training will be provided.

 

Sales are critical to the success of any business. It’s therefore important that before you put your business up for sale, you focus on increasing the volume of sales. Tighten up on all expenses and eliminate any shrinkage.

Give your premises a thorough clean. Ensure all physical and digital assets are in good condition, and that sensitive data is secure. Tidy your database and ensure you have favourable terms in place with suppliers, or consider the need to transfer distributor or dealership rights if that’s applicable. Damaged and obsolete stock should be disposed of and not included in the sale.

 

Collate the information concerning the business’s website, phone numbers, social media information, passwords and an up-to-date client database. Consider compiling this into a ‘starter’ document (operations manual) that will make it easy for the buyer to be up and running early on.

A potential buyer will want to see that the business has an existing marketing strategy for the next year and beyond. This will add value and may lead to a quicker sale.

 

Although this is a matter for the buyer of your business to consider, you should think about your current employees. Are they likely to be transitioned across to the new owner or will there be redundancies? Good communication with the buyer is important in respect of all employment issues. Existing employees are not likely to be notified of the sale until after the sale and purchase agreement is signed and/or it becomes unconditional.

 

Discuss with the buyer how customers will be notified of the business sale. The retention of customers is a major part of the goodwill of a business; to ensure a smooth transition, thought needs to be put into this process. Both parties should work together and plan on how your customers will be notified of the change of ownership. In the case of significant customers or clients or referrers of work, it may be necessary to arrange for personal introductions.

 

 

Marketing your business

When marketing your business to prospective buyers, you want to showcase its unique selling points. Engaging the services of independent professional advisors who specialise in business sales will be very helpful and provide invaluable assistance.

Considering who your potential purchasers are and negotiating with them can be very time-consuming. Professional advisers understand the market, can identify prospective purchasers, will assist with marketing your business and advise you on the sale process.

It is important to establish the right sale price. Advisers will look at the nature of the business including the value of its assets and its profitability to ensure an appropriate price is set.

If an inflated price is set at the outset, this will deter potential buyers.

 

 

Finance

Buyers will want to review the historical performance of your business to ensure they are buying a sound and profitable operation. The sale price should reflect the financial position of the business.

Financial statements and tax returns of the business should be formally reviewed by your accountant rather than being generated in-house to ensure their accuracy and to address any red flags. This will make the due diligence process easier for buyers, who will be assured that records are accurate.

 

Buyers’ lenders will be interested in cash flow and the ability to service any loans a buyer may have or need.

In preparation, formalise deals with customers and suppliers, and update your business forecasts. Search the Personal Property Securities Register to identify security interests registered over your business assets. Seek the removal of any that are no longer required and others that can be removed as part of the sale process.

 

Give some thought to work in progress/partially completed projects; we will include provisions in the sale contract to cover this situation. It may be that payments made by customers and clients following settlement could be apportioned between the parties. If you have issued gift vouchers and they are redeemed after the sale, a mechanism should be included in the sale agreement to cover this.

Sometimes when selling, a proportion of the sale price is contingent on the performance of the business following its sale. This is often referred to as an ‘earn-out.’ If this is the case, there should be a carefully worded formula included in the sale agreement. This will often include the involvement of an independent assessor. We will help draft any necessary clauses.

 

Check with your accountant about any taxes, GST and other obligations that may affect the sale. Your options when selling can differ depending on the business structure you have. Getting this wrong can lead to an unexpected tax bill; advice from your accountant is essential.

 

 

Legal

When selling your business, there are many legal considerations. You should talk with us early to ensure there are no complications down the line. You do not want any issues to arise with the buyer that have the potential to lead to a dispute.

Review your existing contracts, leases and any business compliance obligations. Make sure any trademarks and copyrights are updated, and that patents and licenses are secured and transferrable. You may want to renew these as their expiry could devalue your business. Completing an audit of your intellectual property and legal obligations reduces any risks for buyers, and for you.

 

The information provided to prospective buyers that relates to your business’s processes, finances and intellectual property is important and should be protected. Entering into a non-disclosure agreement with them will ensure that any confidential information about your business remains secure even if a sale falls through.

It is likely that the buyer will insist on a restraint of trade clause in the agreement. You should consult with us to ensure it is worded correctly and will not significantly impact your future plans.

 

Finally, it is important to keep your business running well when it is on the market as it may take time to sell. Be honest and realistic in your dealings, and keep up the marketing. Investing effort into thorough planning will increase the likelihood of achieving a successful outcome.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Fineprint 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 Fineprint 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

Commercial leases

Commercial, Property, Your Own Business
0

Reinstatement obligations for tenants

There are many rights and obligations that affect both tenants and landlords at the beginning, during and at the expiry or earlier termination of a commercial property lease.

 

The obligations on a tenant to reinstate the premises are usually set out in clause 20.1 of the ADLS Deed of Lease[1] and are important terms for both tenants and landlords to understand. Essentially the tenant is obligated to return the premises to the landlord in the same condition and state that it was at the beginning of the lease.

 

 

Tenants be careful before undertaking work

It is crucial that tenants understand their obligations before undertaking any work, and that your landlord must approve any alterations in writing. Having written approval does not mean that you won’t be required to remove any fixtures or alterations that have been made to suit your business needs or use of the space.

 

However, it is not an automatic requirement for you to reinstate the premises. Only where your landlord requires it to be reinstated does this obligation apply to you.

 

If your landlord does require reinstatement of the premises, you have a number of things to consider when deciding whether to make any alterations to complete a customised or business-specific fitout. These include the cost of potentially having to remove fixtures or reverse alterations, the benefit that any such alterations or fitout will have for your business, the length of your lease and/or how many rights of renewal there may be. These aspects of the lease are essential for you to consider before you complete any works given that you may be required to reinstate the premises.

 

As a tenant, you also need to understand that any reinstatement is entirely at your cost, and any fixtures or fittings you do not remove by the expiry or termination of the lease may become your landlord’s property without any need for them to compensate you.

 

Further to this, any cost that your landlord incurs in removing your fixtures or fittings or carrying out reinstatement work you have not completed can be recovered from you by your landlord.

 

Finally, you must also repair any damage caused in the process of removing your fixtures and fittings from the premises. This can be problematic if you have completed significant structural alterations where reinstatement may be difficult or even impossible to complete without causing some damage to the building or premises you are vacating.

 

Disputes

Where a dispute arises about the cost or compensation claimed by either party to the lease for reinstatement or damage caused in the process, the default position in the lease is that the parties submit the dispute for arbitration.[2]

 

Arbitration can be a costly and drawn-out process so having a firm grasp on obligations around reinstatement either at the beginning of the lease or before undertaking any fitout works or alterations is absolutely essential. This is particularly important if you are considering significant alterations that could be costly to remove to reinstate the premises.

 

Take care

The proposed lease should be carefully reviewed. This includes the standard terms of the deed of lease[3] as they relate to reinstatement and the dispute resolution process and any specific terms or variations to the default terms which may reduce liability or impose stricter obligations on both parties.

 

Commercial leases can be tricky things and it’s essential to get advice to avoid costly mistakes.

 

If you are a prospective tenant or landlord, we will work with you through this process.

[1] ADLS Deed of Lease Sixth Edition 2012 (5).

[2] Clause 43.

[3] Clauses 20 and 43.

 

 

 

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

Commercial, News, Uncategorized
0

Five companies sentenced over Whakaari/White Island eruption

In our Summer 2024 edition published in early February, we wrote on the Whakaari/White Island prosecutions brought by WorkSafe; in this Winter issue we report on the court’s late February sentencing.

Almost five years after the Whakaari/White Island eruption that left 22 people dead and 25 others severely injured, the District Court delivered its sentence for safety failings under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.[1]

Five companies were collectively fined $2 million for failing to assess and mitigate risk, and three of the five have been ordered to pay a collective total of $10.21 million in reparations to victims and their families. GNS Science was also fined $54,000 for failing to adequately communicate risk to contractors.[2]

Whakaari Management Limited (WML), one of the five companies sentenced and responsible for managing access to the land, was held liable for a significant portion of the penalties. WML has claimed it is unable to pay the penalties as it has no assets or bank account, even though evidence at trial indicated WML received about $1 million annually from island tours. The judge acknowledged he cannot make orders against WML’s shareholders, but appealed to their ‘inescapable’ moral duty to advance the necessary funds – even if this means reaching into their own pockets.

These penalties are a strong reminder for businesses to take seriously their health and safety obligations or risk hefty penalties.

 

Navigating financial distress

What should you do if your business is in rough financial waters? If you feel financial strain creeping into your business, it is important to take action early to address the situation rather than hoping it improves on its own. Below we suggest some options to help you navigate financial distress.

  • Engage with lenders: Communicate transparently with your lenders early on. This will maximise available options and strengthen your relationship. Most lenders are willing to agree to an approach where borrowers are transparent and can demonstrate a plan

 

  • Reach out to suppliers and customers: Have open conversations, where appropriate. Clarity around payment timeframes, late payment fees and other expectations will provide certainty for all parties involved

 

  • Review business contracts: Understand the terms of your business contracts, what obligations are owed and the implications if you default

 

  • Keep directors’ duties in mind: Ensure you are complying with your director duties, including avoiding trading recklessly or incurring obligations the company is not able to perform. You can be found personally liable if you breach your director duties. Maybe you have to make the difficult decision of winding up your business to avoid breaching your duties, and

 

  • Seek professional advice: Speak to your accountant or financial advisor to assess the financial position and solvency of your business. We can also advise on your options at any stage.

 

Commerce Commission win over Viagogo

In a recent judgment, the High Court provided useful guidance on misleading and deceptive conduct, and unfair contract terms under the Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA). The decision followed a six-year legal battle between Viagogo and the Commerce Commission.[3]

The Commission commenced proceedings against Viagogo in 2018 after receiving thousands of complaints by consumers who had purchased event tickets from Viagogo, only to be refused entry at the events because their tickets were not authentic.

The High Court found that Viagogo had misled consumers in breach of the FTA by:

  • Failing to adequately disclose its status as a resale platform
  • Guaranteeing customers’ tickets to events, when in practice it often refunded invalid tickets after a customer had already missed the event
  • Creating a false sense of urgency for prospective purchasers seeking tickets
  • Disclosing additional ticket fees at a late stage of the purchase process, and
  • Stating it was an official or authorised source of tickets when it was not.

A clause in Viagogo’s terms and conditions requiring customer disputes to be resolved in Switzerland was also found to be unfair and unenforceable.

Viagogo was ordered to correct the misleading information on its website and update its terms and conditions.

This judgment emphasises the importance of using honest and fair trading practices, and ensuring your terms and conditions comply with the FTA.

Viagogo has appealed the judgment.

 

CCCFA update

The government recently announced changes to the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 (CCCFA) as part of a larger, two-phase financial reforms package to address concerns about the accessibility of credit and burdensome obligations on lenders.

Phase 1: Already underway, this phase includes the removal of overly prescriptive requirements around loan affordability assessments, and exemptions for local authorities and providers of non-financial goods and services (such as certain car dealers).

Phase 2: As this phase is rolled out, it is expected the CCCFA will be updated to further streamline the lending process and continue to support more accessible lending practices.

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment will publicly consult on revisions to the Responsible Lending Code and possible amendments to the CCCFA as they become available.

[1] WorkSafe New Zealand v Whakaari Management Limited, White Island Tours Limited,
Volcanic Air Safaris Limited, Aerius Limited, Kahu (NZ) Limited [2024] NZDC 4119.

[2] WorkSafe New Zealand v Institution of Geological Nuclear Sciences Limited [2024] NZDC 4149.

[3] Commerce Commission v Viagogo AG [2024] NZHC 713.

 

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Commercial eSpeaking 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 Commercial eSpeaking 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

Can losses be recovered from a faulty building?

Commercial, Property, Your Own Business
0

Design professionals can rely on limited liability clauses

The High Court recently found that the construction and insurance sectors can rely upon limited liability clauses when defending claims for negligence or breach of contract in commercial projects.

 

Background

In 2018, the Tauranga City Council (TCC) decided to build a nine-storey car parking building with 550 car parks on land it owned in central Tauranga. However, it ended up selling the land with a partially completed car parking building two years later for $1.

The TCC used a consulting engineering firm to design the car parking building; it engaged a second firm of engineers to check the design. Construction of the building began in June 2018.

 

The failed construction process

In March 2019, when the building was 20 metres high, a steel beam twisted while concrete was being poured. A third firm of engineers reviewed the building’s structural design. The firm’s initial conclusion was that the foundations, including the basement walls, were inadequate and that 300 tonnes of reinforcing steel and 140 truckloads of concrete were needed to strengthen them.

Construction was paused while a detailed design was prepared for the required remedial work. In June 2020, the TCC abandoned the project after receiving advice that it would cost: $26.5 million to demolish the building, $55.4 million to strengthen it and $64.4 million to rebuild it completely.

 

The court case

The TCC subsequently sold the land and building for $1 and filed legal proceedings in the High Court against the two engineering firms involved in the original design of the building. The TCC sought to recover losses of more than $20 million.

 

Limitation clauses

The TCC’s contracts with both engineering firms contained limited liability clauses seeking to cap the engineers’ liability to the TCC for any faulty design work at a set figure. A key issue in the case was whether the contractual limitation clauses were legally effective. This precise issue had not been previously considered by the New Zealand courts.

There is no general legal rule that prevents parties from agreeing to limit or exclude liability for a breach of contract. However, the court needed to consider the impact of section 17 of the Building Act 2004. Section 17 states that all building work must comply with the Building Code regardless of whether a building consent is required.

The TCC’s lawyers argued that the clauses limiting the engineers’ liability amounted to an attempt by the engineers to contract out of the duty to do all building work so that it complied with the Building Code.

‘Building work’ includes the design work done by engineers. They claimed this meant that the clauses were unlawful and unenforceable.

The court held, however, that the clauses did not attempt to avoid the duty to comply with the Building Code; they merely limited the consequences of failing to do so.[1] This means that it is possible for anyone involved in the building industry to contractually limit their liability, but not exclude it entirely.

 

Fair Trading Act claim

The TCC also brought a claim against the engineers under the Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA). The TCC argued that the engineers’ incorrect design advice amounted to misleading or deceptive conduct, breaching the FTA. This type of claim could only be brought against those who provide advice, not those who do physical building work.

Claims under the FTA can be a powerful tool for parties that have suffered losses, as the general rule is that parties cannot contract out of liability under this legislation. However, the court may uphold a clause that seeks to limit or exclude liability for a breach of the FTA between commercial parties under section 5D if it considers that the clause is fair and reasonable.

The court will consider matters such as the contract’s value and the parties’ respective bargaining powers when deciding whether a particular term is fair and reasonable.

In this particular case, the court decided that the clauses in the contracts with the TCC seeking to limit the engineers’ liability were fair and reasonable, and thus enforceable.

Section 5D only applies to contracts between commercial parties. This means that it will not usually be possible for a designer to contract out of liability under the FTA for residential building work.

 

What to do?

Design professionals can limit their liability for defective design work if commissioned for commercial construction work. Your organisation cannot rely on recovering any losses caused by faulty design. This means that you need to be careful to choose a reputable design professional. It also means that it may be worthwhile having design work peer-reviewed for substantial projects.

[1] Tauranga City Council v. Harrison Grierson Holdings Ltd [2024] NZHC 714.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Commercial eSpeaking 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 Commercial eSpeaking 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

The Budget 2024

Commercial, Health Issues, News, Your Own Business
0

A no-frills outlook

Although it is clear the economic outlook is somewhat gloomy, in delivering the 2024 Budget, the Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis, said that savings across government have resulted in responsibly-funded tax relief. “Spending is targeted, effective and affordable.”

The government has promised targeted investments in public services, including healthcare, education, and law and order. Front-line services will be increased.  Having said that, the minister has admitted the Budget is “tight but realistic” and she intends to stick closely to these allocations.

 

Tax relief

The much-promised tax cuts have been delivered.

As previously signalled, the Budget will help what the government calls ‘the New Zealand squeezed middle income earner’. For the first time since 2010, personal tax brackets have been adjusted for New Zealanders earning up to $180,000 pa. Overall, average income households will have up to an extra $102 in their back pockets each fortnight.

Additional FamilyBoost payments will help around 100,000 families manage the costs of early childhood education with up to $150/fortnight.

These tax changes take effect from 31 July this year (a month later than promised) in order for payrolls to accommodate the re settings. Changes to FamilyBoost will apply from 1 July.

The government has reiterated the restoration of tax deductibility for interest on residential investment properties, as well as the adjustment to the bright-line test from 10 years back to two years from 1 July this year.

 

Health

Frontline health services have received a boost. Emergency departments, primary care, medicines and public health will get $8.15 billion additional operating and capital funding over the next four years:

  • $3.44 billion has been allocated for hospital and specialty services (including $31 million to increase security in emergency departments)
  • An additional $2.12 billion will be available for primary care, community and public health providers including GPs, Māori health services, mental health services and aged care services
  • Free breast screening will be gradually extended for 70–74-year old women (currently only available up to 69 year olds); an extra $31.2 million
  • Pharmac will receive additional funding of $1.77 billion over four years, which is said to just cover ongoing costs for additional medicines, and
  • The mental health initiative, Gumboot Friday, has $24 million to deliver services to young New Zealanders.

 

On the other side of the coin:

  • Free prescriptions have gone for most New Zealanders. However, free prescriptions will remain for those under 14 years old, people aged 65 and over and for Community Services Card holders, and
  • Promised additional funding for cancer drugs has not materialised. Since the Minister delivered the Budget, she has stated that the government aims to make an announcement on cancer drug funding this year.

 

Education

There will be increased spending on schools and early childhood education equating to $2.93 billion in extra operating and capital funding, including $440.8 million of reprioritisation. The government is allocating:

  • $1.48 billion to build new schools and classrooms and to maintain and upgrade existing school properties. This includes funding for kōhanga reo, play centres, kindergartens, kura kaupapa Māori, special schools, and intermediate, secondary and charter schools.
  • $516.4 million to support schools and early childhood education providers, plus $153.3 million to establish charter schools
  • $477.6 million to continue the Healthy School Lunches programme for the next two years
  • $67 million to support schools to use the new structured literacy approach when teaching reading, and
  • Funding is switched to allow a fees-free final year of tertiary study, rather than free fees in the first year.

 

Law and order

The government has reiterated its pledge to crack down on crime and keep communities safe. This includes:

  • Funding of $1.94 billion for more frontline Corrections officers, increased support for offenders to turn away from crime and increased prison capacity, and
  • $651 million allocated to support frontline policing (including increased pay) and for an additional 500 police officers and additional operational support staff.

 

Public services

$140 million is budgeted for an additional 1,500 social housing places, delivered by community housing providers.

$1.1 billion is allocated to ensure disabled people can access the essential services, equipment or support they need.

Hawke’s Bay and Auckland communities will receive $1 billion-plus for the rebuild and recovery from Cyclone Gabrielle and the Anniversary Day floods. $939.3 million of this is allocated for road repairs.

 

Infrastructure

The government, as it has previously signalled, is investing heavily in roading – $4.1 billion to accelerate priority roading projects including Roads of National Significance.

$200 million will be invested to support KiwiRail carry out maintenance and renewals on the national rail network.

 

Climate change

The government wants to support the country’s transition to a low-emissions economy and climate-resilient future. The minister said that around $2.6 billion of climate initiatives funded from the previous government’s Climate Emergency Response Fund will continue.

Later this year the government will consult on plans to deliver emissions reductions over the second emissions budget period. The minister confirmed that the Emissions Trading Scheme will play a vital role in reducing emissions.

 

In summary

While the Budget could not be considered an austerity plan, it is certainly a ‘no frills’ programme indicating the government will be running a tight financial ship over the next few years.

Treasury expects the economy to pick up later this year, including inflation returning to its target band of 1–3% and a fall in interest rates.

All things being equal, the government expects the country’s operating balance (before gains and losses) to head into surplus in the 2027–28 financial year.

In the meantime, however, we will all need to hold on to our hats and buckle our belts a little tighter over the next few years.

To read more detail about the Budget, click here for the Budget documents.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Commercial eSpeaking 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 Commercial eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.


Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2021.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected].       Ph: 029 286 3650

Postscript

Commercial, First Job, House, Property, Rural, Your Own Business
0

Incorporated societies: must reregister by April 2026

The clock is ticking for New Zealand’s 24,000 incorporated societies to reregister by 5 April 2026. Under the Incorporated Societies Act 2022, if your incorporated society does not reregister by this time, it will automatically cease to exist.

During the next two years, every existing incorporated society must decide whether to retain its incorporated status by seeking reregistration. If it opts to reregister, it must check that its constitution (the rules of the society) comply with the requirements of the new Act. This will almost always involve amendments being made to the constitution and, in a significant number of cases, an entirely new constitution being adopted.

There is quite a list of requirements to reregister. To learn more, go to:

www.is-register.companiesoffice.govt.nz If you need advice on any aspect of reregistering, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Minimum wage increases

 On 1 April the minimum wage increased. This covers:

  • Adult minimum wage increased from $22.70 to $23.15/hour
  • Starting-out and training minimum wage rose from $18.16 to $18.52/hour

Remember that all rates are gross and before any lawful deductions such as PAYE, student loan repayments, child support, etc.

Make sure your payroll people, HR/finance teams and your accountant are all aware of these changes.

Before you dig

Whether you want to replace a fence around your property, are a contractor installing a new cable along a street or a new gas pipe, or are working for the council in resurfacing the road, it is vital that you check there are no cables or pipes below ground.

beforeUdig is an online service which enables anyone undertaking design and excavation works to obtain information on the location of cables, pipes and other utility assets in and around any proposed dig site.

It provides a ‘one stop shop’ for contractors to communicate about their planned activities with utilities and asset owners.

To find out more, go to www.beforeudig.co.nz/home.

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Fineprint 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 Fineprint 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