+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]

Commercial

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

Personal grievances

Commercial, Your Own Business
0

Employers must act in good faith

In today’s ever-changing employment landscape, employers face a myriad of challenges. A single misstep can lead to (amongst other things) personal grievance claims, a fractured workplace culture and tainted reputations. Understanding the risk of making a blunder is essential.

If one of your employees has a complaint about their employment, they can raise a personal grievance claim against you. The grounds for a grievance are almost limitless, but common grounds include complaints about being unfairly fired, discriminated against, bullied or disadvantaged in some way.

Employees have 90 days (or 12 months in the case of sexual harassment) to bring a grievance. This begins on the date that the action allegedly occurred or came to the notice of your employee, whichever is later.

As an employer, you can agree to a grievance being raised late or you may inadvertently do so by responding to it (i.e.: it has been raised out of time, but you mistakenly legitimised it by responding to it). The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) can allow a longer period, but only in exceptional circumstances and if it is just to do so.

Good faith

As an employer, you can reduce the risk of grievances by having a sound understanding of your responsibilities. The key is to always act in good faith. This means acting reasonably and honestly, and communicating well with your employees about anything that may affect their employment.

It is not always obvious, however, what good faith requires in practice. It often goes wrong if you want to end your employee’s employment. You must be able to point to good reasons for their dismissal and demonstrate that a fair process has been followed. If you trip up on either part, a successful grievance for unjustified dismissal can result.

All employers also have a range of statutory duties that must be followed, such as:

  • Providing safe work and a safe workplace
  • Paying the agreed wages or salary, and paying at least the minimum wage
  • Providing rest and meal breaks, and
  • Ensuring you provide minimum leave entitlements.

Consequences

The consequences of getting it wrong can be severe for a business. These include:

  • Legal costs
  • Time and cost of taking part in mediation and/or a hearing in the ERA (and a potential appeal)
  • Cost of settling a grievance, including being ordered to pay compensation, lost wages, legal costs or other monetary penalties by the ERA
  • Negative publicity and reputational damage, and
  • Disruption in your workplace, and negative impacts on your workplace culture.

Compensation awards have been trending upwards in recent years. In June 2023,[1] for example, the Employment Court awarded an employee $25,000 in compensation as well as three months’ lost wages following a successful unjustified dismissal claim.

An issue in that case was their employer had included Tikanga practices and values into its employment framework but failed to comply with them when undertaking its dismissal process. The court found the failure to do so was a breach of their employer’s good faith obligations.

However, it’s not just mistakes in dismissal processes that can lead to successful grievances. In a very recent case,[2] the ERA ordered an employer to pay $13,720 to their employee; they had failed to keep accurate leave records, pay proper holiday pay and a dispute had arisen over bereavement and other leave. Their employee was unjustifiably disadvantaged.

In another recent case,[3] an employee was awarded $105,000 in compensation for bullying, unjustified suspension and unjustified dismissal. Their employer was also ordered to pay more than $32,000 for lost wages and to pay a $1,000 penalty. Although this was at the high end of the compensation awards range, this case not only shows us what can happen when an employer gets it wrong, but also the range of potential awards the ERA can make and punishments that can be imposed on an employer.

Be proactive

All employers should navigate the risks of grievances by being proactive. If you are unsure about your workplace processes and/or have a potential personal grievance claim on the horizon, do talk with us early on. That is always better than the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff.

 

[1] GF v Comptroller of the New Zealand Customs Service [2023] NZEmpC 101 EMPC 317/2021.

[2] Stringer v McBride [2024] NZERA 59.

[3] Parker v Magnum Hire Ltd [2024] NZERA 85.

 

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

Invoices not being paid on time?

Commercial, Your Own Business
0

A steer for debtors and creditors

The continued rise of input costs, finance costs, labour shortages, ongoing material shortages and compliance costs are forcing many businesses to tighten their belts. In this article we give some advice to assist both creditors and debtors with managing their business relationships and financial accounts when it comes to unpaid invoices.

Protecting your business from outstanding invoices

Terms of trade and contractual terms: Having robust terms of trade is one of the best ways your business can protect itself from bad debtors. Including clauses for default interest and the recovery of your legal costs means that you are less likely to be left out of pocket if you need to take action to recover an outstanding debt. You should also consider whether your business should take security over your customer’s personal property or land assets, or a guarantee (backed up by a security); these are highly recommended where substantial amounts are involved, or where a customer has few assets and/or extensive liabilities.

Invoicing discipline: Nobody likes getting one large invoice at the end of a contract; it also presents a risk in terms of cashflow if your debtor cannot pay you in full and on time.

Your business should regularly review its billing practices to improve the way it invoices. Do you require deposits? Can you issue interim invoices? Should you seek payment in advance and, if so, in full or in part? Are you invoicing in accordance with your industry’s best practice? And for businesses in the construction sector, are you issuing valid payment claims to take advantage of the construction contracts regime?

Accounting software is a lifesaver for businesses; it enables easy tracking of outstanding invoices and cashflow. Invoices and payments should be tracked promptly to give an accurate projection of cashflow and ensure no payments slip through the cracks. Ensuring your staff are trained in how to use your accounting software, and to report on cashflow, is just as important.

If you aren’t motivated to invoice work or chase payment in a timely manner, the chances are your customer won’t be motivated to pay on time. For creditors, invoicing your work promptly can assist in resolving issues before they arise. The longer you wait to invoice your work, the more likely your customer is to complain about receiving the invoice and it’s less likely they will have funds ready to pay the invoice by the due date.

Coordinating cashflow: Your business will rely on prompt payment from your customers to pay your own suppliers. If your business can’t afford to pay your suppliers’ invoices on time then it risks getting stung with penalties and default interest.

You should coordinate your business’s income and expenditure to reduce the risk of default. If, for example, your business has outgoing payments due on the 20th of each month then it would be sensible to require your invoices to be paid by the 15th of the month, or a certain number of days after the invoice is issued. You should also consider building up a business contingency fund to act as a buffer if your incoming invoices aren’t paid on time.

Why pay invoices on time?

Credit ratings: Missing or defaulting on invoice payments will adversely impact the credit score of your business and therefore its ability to obtain finance. Some lenders look back through years of financial reports to assess your ability to pay, so even if you don’t think you’ll need a good credit rating now, it is important to stay on top of your outstanding bills.

Business reputation: Businesses pride themselves on their reputation among customers – for quality work and/or friendly customer service. But they also need to have a good reputation in their industry. Consistently failing to pay bills on time may cause suppliers to stop working with you and, depending on your industry, word of mouth can travel fast.

Reputation is also important for creditors. If you have a reputation for litigiousness rather than acting in a reasonable manner, businesses may be hesitant to work with you. On the other side of the coin, if your business has a reputation for not chasing outstanding debts, then your customers may try to take advantage of you.

Compounding debts: The failure of many businesses can be attributable to having compounding debt – that is, invoices going unpaid for months while more invoices to be paid pile up. Having the discipline to be on top of debt by paying invoices regularly can help to keep your finances manageable and preserve your business relationships.

Disputes are costly: There is a range of legal methods available to creditors to enforce outstanding debts, including obtaining or enforcing a security interest over property, issuing a statutory demand or bankruptcy notice, or starting court proceedings (including liquidator appointments) against a debtor. Debt collection agencies might also be engaged.

Some methods (notably caveats and security interests) can have a detrimental effect on a debtor’s business operations. They can be a great bargaining chip for creditors, but potentially disastrous for debtors if enforcement of those interests is pursued. As well, a creditor’s terms of trade will often state that debt recovery costs will be borne by the debtor, so it is very much in the debtor’s interests to pay invoices on time to avoid costly legal disputes and disruption.

Be upfront: If you aren’t sure how much a job is going to cost, it is wise to ask for an estimate or quote before you enter into an agreement. If costs escalate during a contract (either from your supplier or for your customer) or you find yourself cash-strapped, it is generally best to talk with them early on about that too.

Negotiating a compromise with an element of commercial nous, such as a payment plan, rather than forcing disruptive cancellations or costly court proceedings is often a better outcome for both sides.

Possible reform

In 2023, the Business Payment Practices Act 2023 was passed that would have required large public and private entities to publish information about how long it takes them to pay their invoices and their payment terms.

The new government, however, has repealed the Act and will replace it with a voluntary code to ensure SMEs are paid in a timely manner. While we are unlikely to see the effects of these changes for some months, the impact of large market players paying invoices on significantly extended payment terms appears to be front of mind for politicians. We are also likely to see improvements in the way public service entities pay their invoices, resulting in quicker payment times for suppliers. Businesses should be mindful of possible changes being implemented in the future.

Need a hand?

If you find yourself being pulled into a dispute or are unsure how to protect your business then it is always best to talk with us, whether it be in relation to developing or reviewing contractual documents, or with initiating or defending a claim for payment of money. Your accountant or financial planner will also be able to help with any cashflow issues or with advising how best to manage your finances.

 

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

Do I still need a trust?

Commercial, Estate, House, Property, Retirement, Rural, Trusts, Your Own Business
0

Thousands of Kiwis have, over the years, established family trusts for a variety of reasons. However, it’s well worth considering whether those reasons are still relevant today and evaluating whether your trust may have outlived its usefulness.

You may have established your family trust for:

  1. Avoiding estate duty: before 1992 it was common for high value assets (such as farms) to be transferred to a trust so your personal estate would not have to pay estate duty
  2. Eligibility for the residential care subsidy: trusts were often settled to increase the likelihood of being eligible for the residential care subsidy; the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) only considered assets you owned personally when considering eligibility for the subsidy
  3. Minimising tax: Fluctuating tax rates over the years have sometimes provided a lower tax rate for trusts than the highest rate of personal tax
  4. Creditor protection: Transferring your personal assets to trust ownership means that your personal creditors may have more difficulty accessing those assets to recover personal debts you owe
  5. Estate planning: Children may make claims against their parents’ estates where they believe their parents have made no, or inadequate, provision for them. Transferring assets to a trust during one’s lifetime leaves little or nothing for children to claim against on your death. Trusts also allow assets to be ring-fenced to help with the care of differently abled children
  6. Relationship property: settling a trust, either before your relationship is ‘in contemplation’ or afterwards (provided a contracting out agreement is also signed), is one way to help remove assets from the potential pool of relationship property that would be available for division if your relationship ends.

Things have changed

These days, however, estate (and gift) duty is no more, the top personal tax rates will soon be realigned with trust tax rates, and MSD takes a closer look at trusts when considering residential care subsidy applications. There has also been increasing court action on trusts where it is believed they may have been used to avoid creditors, claims by children and relationship property claims.

In addition, there are further consequences in settling trusts in New Zealand if you are an American citizen, from the UK (even though you may be tax resident in New Zealand), or if you are tax resident in Australia.

Notwithstanding the above, trusts are still very useful vehicles, particularly for creditor protection, estate planning and relationship property purposes.

Trust deeds, however, should be carefully drafted and have the correct documentation in place around them. Excellent legal, accounting and tax advice is needed to ensure that your trust will do the job you want it to.

If you have a family trust that may no longer be fit for purpose, or you think you need an asset protection plan, please talk with us about the options available to you.

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 leasing and landlord consent

Commercial, Property, Your Own Business
0

Tenants wanting to alter the premises or their use

If you are a landlord owning commercial property, you may want to know how your tenant can make changes to the premises, or its use of the premises, without speaking to you about it first. If you are a tenant, you may want to know what you can do without being in contact with your landlord.

Tenants under commercial leases generally have fairly broad rights for the use and enjoyment of the property under the lease, but there are some limitations to what tenants can do without your consent. These include changing the business use of the property, assigning the lease or altering the premises. When considering any tenant’s request for consents under the lease, you must act reasonably.

 

Change of business use of the property

The deed of lease usually records the business use of your tenant in the first schedule. Your tenant cannot use the premises for anything other than the business use without your prior written consent. Provided the proposed use is not in substantial competition with the business of any other occupant of the property, reasonably suitable for the premises and compliant with any applicable statutory provision relating to resource management, you cannot unreasonably withhold consent to your tenant’s request to change the business use of the premises.

 

Alterations or additions

Your tenant cannot make any alterations or additions to the premises, or alter the external appearance of the premises, including affixing signs or advertising on the exterior of the building, without your prior written consent. In the case of signs, you cannot unreasonably withhold consent if the sign is to describe your tenant’s business.

If your tenant wants to make alterations or additions to the premises, or alter the premises’ external appearance, they must provide you with plans and specifications for the proposed works. They will also need to comply with all statutory requirements when completing the works, including obtaining any necessary building consents and/or compliance certificates. You cannot unreasonably withhold or delay your consent to these additions or alterations.

If you require it, your tenant (at their own cost) must reinstate the premises and repair any damage caused by the alterations or signs by the end of the lease. If the additions or alterations are not removed by the end of the lease, you may elect to retain ownership of these without any compensation payable to your tenant.

 

Assignment of the lease

Your tenant cannot assign the lease or sublet any part of the premises or carparks without your prior written consent. Again, you cannot unreasonably withhold consent. There are certain conditions which your tenant must meet, otherwise it will be considered reasonable for you to withhold consent. These include:

  • Your tenant can demonstrate to your satisfaction that the proposed assignee or subtenant is respectable, responsible and has the financial resources to meet their own commitments under the lease
  • All rent has been paid by your tenant and they are not in breach of the lease
  • Your tenant and assignee have (or will) signed and delivered to you a deed of assignment of lease
  • If the assignee is a company, you are entitled to request a deed of guarantee to be executed by the principal shareholders of that company, or a bank guarantee from a registered bank to be delivered to you as a condition of your consent, and
  • Your tenant agrees to pay your reasonable costs and disbursements in respect of the approval and the preparation of any documentation you require. These costs are generally payable whether or not the assignment or sublease ultimately proceeds.

 

Under the more recent versions of the ADLS standard lease, any change in the legal or beneficial ownership of a tenant company which results in the effective management or control of the company changing, such as the majority shareholder selling its shares, is treated as a deemed assignment and also requires landlord consent.

While landlords and tenants can generally work through issues of landlord consent at a commercial level by themselves, occasionally there can be problems, particularly if a landlord does not want to consent to the request or the request results in substantial changes to the lease.

 

It is a requirement of the lease that any landlord consent granted is recorded in writing, and we recommend for both landlords and tenants that you comply with this requirement. Any conditions to the consent, or changes to the lease which may result from the consent, should also be recorded in writing.

Whether you are a landlord or a tenant negotiating through a consent request, we recommend early contact with us. We can assist with advising what is and isn’t reasonable from each party in the circumstances, and can help to ensure that what you have agreed is correctly recorded, to reduce the chances of disputes in the future.

 

 

 

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, Your Own Business
0

Cartel conduct: New Zealand’s first ever criminal cartel prosecution

The Commerce Commission recently filed criminal charges against two construction companies and their directors for alleged bid-rigging of publicly funded construction contracts. This is New Zealand’s first ever criminal prosecution for alleged cartel conduct under the Commerce Act 1986.

 

Bid-rigging, or collusive tendering, occurs where some or all the bidders collude to pre-determine who will win the bid or tender. This is a form of cartel conduct that is prohibited by the Act.

 

The case is currently before the court so information is limited but, if found guilty, the companies and their directors could face serious penalties. Each company could be fined up to $10 million, three times their commercial gain from the cartel conduct or 10% of their turnover per year per breach. Each director could be imprisoned for up to seven years and/or fined up to $500,000.

 

The Commission’s willingness to bring criminal proceedings for cartel conduct is a warning for all businesses to understand their obligations under the Act and have adequate processes to avoid engaging in cartel conduct.

 

New privacy rules for biometrics

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) has announced it will release a draft policy code early this year regulating the collection and use of biometric information. The code will have direct implications for any businesses dealing with biometric information.

 

Biometric information is any information about a person’s biological or behavioural characteristics, such as fingerprints, face, voice or eyes. It is increasingly common for businesses to collect and use biometric information to verify people’s identities online, enhance retail security, control access to devices or physical spaces, or to monitor attendance at a site or a work place.

 

While the use of biometrics has significant benefits for businesses, it also increases the risks of profiling, discrimination, bias, and lack of transparency and control to individuals.

 

The OPC has proposed three categories of rules that businesses must comply with when collecting and using biometric information. These are:

  1. Proportionality assessment: Businesses must undertake a proportionality assessment to ensure that the reasons for collecting biometric information outweigh the risk of privacy intrusion
  2. Transparency and notification: Businesses must be open and transparent with individuals and the public about the collection and use of their biometric information, and
  3. Purpose limitations: The collection and use of biometric information will be restricted for certain purposes.

 

The public will have an opportunity to provide feedback on the code before it is implemented.

 

New reporting obligations for large businesses

The Business Payment Practices Act 2023 will come into effect on 25 May 2024. It will require large businesses to publicly report information on their payment practices to the Business Payment Practices Register.

 

The legislation applies to businesses with more than $33 million in annual revenue and $10 million in third party expenditure. The information that must be reported on includes:

 

  • The average time to pay supplier invoices
  • The percentage of invoices paid in full within the required timeframe, and
  • A description of the business’s standard payment terms (if any).

 

If a business fails to comply with its reporting obligations, it could be fined up to $9,000. If a business intentionally provides false or misleading information, it could be fined up to $500,000.  The Act is designed to address payment delays that can have significant impacts on the cash flow for New Zealand’s small and medium-sized businesses.

 

If you would like more information or advice on any of the above topics, please feel free to contact us.

 

 

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

Whakaari/White Island eruption

Commercial, Latest news, Property, Your Own Business
0

Health and safety lessons

The eruption of Whakaari/White Island on 9 December 2019 was a tragedy. Of the 47 people on the island when it erupted, 22 people were killed. The other 25 people were severely injured, many with life-changing injuries. The last of the prosecutions brought by WorkSafe due to the eruption concluded on 31 October 2023. We look at the lessons landowners and company directors can learn from these prosecutions.

 

After the eruption, WorkSafe brought charges against 13 parties under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. These included charges against tourism operators, two government agencies responsible for advising on volcanic risks and the landowners. The charges against the landowners are the most legally significant.

 

Whakaari Management Limited

Whakaari/White Island has been in the Buttle family since 1936. The family currently owns it through the Whakaari Trust; the trust leased the land to Whakaari Management Ltd (WML). The directors of WML are three members of the Buttle family. WML used to contract with tourism operators to allow them to conduct tours on the island. WML had no presence on the island and its staff did not work there.

 

Charges brought against WML and its directors

WorkSafe charged WML under sections 36 and 37 of the Act. Section 36 requires employers to ensure that, as far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of their employees. Section 37 requires an employer to take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure the safety of anyone who enters a workplace controlled by the employer, whether they work for the employer or not.

 

WorkSafe also charged WML’s directors under section 44. Where an employer is a company, section 44 requires directors to take reasonable steps to ensure that their company complies with its obligations under the Act.

 

The court’s decisions[1]

The charge against WML under section 36 was dismissed. The court held that section 36 only applied to the employer’s business activities, and WML did not carry out its business on the island. Section 36 will generally only apply to an employer’s premises or anywhere else its staff are working.

 

WML was convicted[2] under section 37 because Whakaari was a workplace that it controlled, and it had failed to obtain expert advice on the risk posed to visitors by a volcanic eruption. The court found that WML could exercise control over the activities of tour operators on the island and that it had been involved in managing their activities in the past as it had actively engaged with the tour operators regarding their operations. WML could also control the workplace by terminating, or threatening to terminate, its agreements with tourism operators that allowed them to access the island.

 

Implications for landowners

If you are a landowner and allow other parties access to your property for commercial purposes, you may have health and safety obligations as WML did on Whakaari. Section 37 will not usually apply if you operate solely as a landlord because a landlord will not usually have sufficient control to meet the section 37 requirements. Section 37 also contains a specific exemption to prevent the section from applying to farmers who allow people onto their farms for purely recreational purposes such as walking or hunting.

 

The charges against the directors of WML under section 44 were dismissed, despite WML being convicted under section 37. The court held that it could not conclude that any directors had breached their personal duty under section 44 based on the company’s failure to meet its obligations as it had no information about how the directors had made their decisions. For example, one director could have argued that WML should have sought expert advice on the risk of volcanic eruption but was outvoted by the remaining two directors.

 

What directors need to do

Following the Whakaari/White Island decision, WorkSafe will likely seek full disclosure of all board documents before bringing similar future prosecutions.  To avoid any potential criminal liability, any company director who is uncomfortable with their fellow directors’ stance on a health and safety matter should ensure that their dissenting view is recorded.

 

As a company director, if you are concerned about any decisions that your board proposes to make, or has made, about a health and safety matter, it would be useful to talk with us to clarify your position.

[1] WorkSafe New Zealand v. Whakaari Management Ltd [2023] NZDC 23224.

[2] Sentencing will take place in late February.

 

 

 

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

Trial periods vs probation periods

Commercial, First Job, Your Own Business
0

Both are useful for employers

Many New Zealand business owners know they can offer a trial period (usually 90 days) when hiring a new employee. A trial period is designed to ensure a new employee is a good fit for their employer.

An alternative to a trial period is a probation period. This is designed to set expectations clearly between you and your employee including the terms of the hire and when a final decision about the suitability of their employment is decided.

We explain the differences between trial and probation periods to enable you to better understand your options.

 

Trial period

A trial period, if successfully included in an employment agreement, will allow you to terminate the agreement in the first 90 days of employment without your employee being able to raise a personal grievance for the dismissal. Trial periods can, however, only be used in limited circumstances.

Until 23 December last year, using a trial period was only available to employers who had fewer than 19 staff. Now, under the new coalition government, this limitation was removed and trial periods can be used by all employers, regardless of size, for new employees.

 

Key requirements of a valid trial period are:

  • Only for new employees, not current or prior employees
  • 90 days maximum length
  • Must be documented in the written employment agreement, signed before your employee starts work and must contain a valid notice period, and
  • Must only be included in the agreement and exercised in good faith.

 

When exercising a right to terminate under a 90-day trial clause, you are not obliged to provide any reasons for the termination. It is important to note that your employee can still raise a personal grievance against the business if there are other causes for grievance during their employment, such as (but not limited to) discrimination or bullying.

 

Probation period

Unlike a trial period, probation periods have a much wider application in employment law.  Probation periods are an ideal way for employers and employees to ‘try out’ a new or expanded role while setting clear expectations that this may only be a temporary employment change, and what to expect if it does not work out.

Some of the common reasons you may want to use a probation period include making sure a staff member is appropriately skilled for their role, or to allow an existing employee to accept a promotion or lateral move in the business and to show they can do the job.

Key characteristics of a valid probation period are:

 

  • Can be used for existing OR new employees
  • The probationary period can be for any length of time, as long as it is clearly defined in writing, is reasonable considering the role’s complexity, and has an appropriate agreed notice period
  • The written agreement includes what may occur at the end of the probation period (termination, reversion to their former role and responsibilities, etc), and
  • That you as the employer must provide adequate support and training.

 

Throughout the probationary period you must be able to show that you have taken reasonable steps to support your employee in achieving success in their role. This includes frequent performance-based conversations, providing adequate training and support on new skills and tasks, discussing any areas for improvement and setting clear expectations of what ‘success’ looks like for their role.

Unlike a trial period, if you decide at the conclusion of the period to terminate the employment agreement, you must explain how you have fairly assessed your employee’s performance, why their performance was not sufficient for the role and your intention to end the employment relationship.

Your employee must then have sufficient time to respond. Any response must be considered before making a final decision to terminate the employment agreement. Unlike a trial period, your employee can still bring a claim for unjust dismissal if they feel you have not followed due procedure and come to a fair conclusion.

It is also critical to note that probation periods cannot follow after a trial period for the same or very similar role. If your employee moves multiple times within your business, on each subsequent role change you may be able to apply a new probation period.

Regardless of whether you are considering a trial period or probation period, it is important you talk with us before incorporating it into your employment agreements. To be effective and defensible against a personal grievance, both trial periods and probation periods must be documented correctly throughout the period’s lifecycle, from the employment agreement pre-commencement all the way through to the end of the period. Please don’t hesitate to contact us if you are considering a trial or probation period for any of your employees.

 

 

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

Get in touch today, we’d love to talk.

+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]