Edmonds Judd

Latest news

Water Services Act 2021

How does this affect the rural sector?

Water has been very much in the news lately, particularly with the government’s proposed Three Waters Reform Programme. The Three Waters Reform generally deals with the transfer of water infrastructure (drinking water, wastewater and stormwater) to four new water service delivery entities.

What hasn’t been in the news as much is a very important piece of legislation with regard to water that will impact on the rural community: the Water Services Act 2021. This came into force on 15 November 2021. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that ‘drinking water suppliers’ provide safe drinking water to consumers. Previously, responsibility for drinking water was dealt with under the Health Act 1956 but, as a result of the water contamination issues in Havelock North in 2016 and the subsequent inquiries that resulted from that, it was determined that the supply of safe drinking water was so critical that it needed its own legislation and regulator — Taumata Arowai.

What is a ’drinking water supply’?

A ‘drinking water supply’ means the infrastructure and processes used to abstract, store, treat or transport drinking water for supply to consumers or to another drinking water supply. It includes the point of supply, any endpoint treatment device and any backflow prevention device, but does not include a temporary drinking water supply or a domestic self-supply.

Who is a ‘drinking water supplier’?

The Act defines a supplier as a person who supplies drinking water through a drinking water supply but does not include a ‘domestic self-supplier’. Therefore, the legislation applies to private water schemes as well as any public water supply.

A ‘domestic self-supplier’ means ‘a stand-alone domestic dwelling that has its own supply of drinking water’. So a single farm house with its own water supply will be exempt from complying with the legislation. A large farm, however, that might supply several houses and other buildings such as woolsheds or milking sheds that have staff rooms with kitchens from the same source through a private water system, would be subject to the provisions of the Act.

Similarly there are a significant number of rural water schemes where one water source supplies several properties (particularly where there have been lifestyle-type subdivisions). Sometimes these schemes are administered by virtue of the easements that were created in the subdivision. Occasionally, however, they are administered by companies that own the water infrastructure with all the landowners being shareholders in the company and shares being transferred at the same time as the land.

Drinking water suppliers must have a plan

If the Act applies to your situation, you are required to have a multi-barrier approach to water safety including:

  • Preventing hazards from entering the water
  • Removing particles and hazardous chemicals
  • Killing or inactivating pathogens by disinfection, and
  • Maintaining the quality of water distribution systems.

Each supplier must have a water safety plan that must include elements of international best practice, be proportionate to the scale of the water supply, and be subject to risk-based auditing and monitoring by Taumata Arowai.

What to do next?

The legislation requires a drinking water supplier to register its water supply. The registration must include certain information such as the legal name and contact details of the owner, the location of the supply, the area the drinking water supplies, the estimated number of consumers, a description of the water supply and any other information required by Taumata Arowai. As usual, the application must be accompanied by the fee or levy prescribed by regulations made under the Act.

Water suppliers registered with the Ministry of Health prior to 15 November 2021 will automatically have their registration migrated to the Taumata Arowai register.

Next you must prepare a drinking water safety plan to be lodged with Taumata Arowai. You also must implement the plan and ensure that the drinking water supply is operated in accordance with the plan. You can comply with your operational obligations by employing or engaging a third party to do this for you.

If you are already registered as a drinking water supplier, you must have your plan registered before 15 November 2022.

If you are an existing supplier and not currently registered, you have until 15 November 2025 to register and until 15 November 2028 to submit your plan.

If you are a new supplier, supplying water for the first time after 15 November 2021, you must register as a drinking water supplier and register your plan before you operate your supply.

For more detailed information, Taumata Arowai has what you need here.

The Act has teeth

What all this means in practical terms is more compliance, more cost and more responsibility in relation to water supply. There are penalties for failing to comply with the Act, including some criminal offences such as recklessness or negligence in the supply of unsafe drinking water or allowing contamination of the drinking water.

As you can see, the Act has teeth and it is now incumbent on both public and private suppliers to comply with the new regime — or face the consequences.

If you need help in working your way through this new legislation, please don’t hesitate to contact us.



DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Rural 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 Rural 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

No fault is necessary

Many of us are familiar with the tort of negligence — an act or omission by one party that causes loss to another party. Inherent in a negligence claim is the concept of ‘fault’. A recent case[1] illustrates why nuisance, a tort similar to negligence except that fault is not necessary, is still relevant.

Forest trees causing nuisance

Nottingham Forest Trustee Limited (NFT) owned land on which it had planted a commercial forest. Over a period from December 2010 to August 2016 pinus radiata trees growing in the forest, which had been planted many years earlier, fell onto two electricity lines owned and operated by Unison Networks. Unison’s customers experienced power outages while repairs were carried out, and Unison incurred costs as it repaired the damage.

Unison sued NFT both in negligence and in nuisance and sought damages to cover the cost of repairs and also an injunction to prevent future falls of trees.


Unison’s electricity lines crossed over the land while it was a sheep and beef farm, and the power lines were present when NFT acquired the land and planted the forest. In planting the forest, NFT left a corridor under each of the lines approximately 30 metres wide where it didn’t plant trees. The nearest tree to the power line at any point was about 15 metres away.

Over time, however, the trees on the edge of the corridor grew to a height that was greater than the distance from the line. Pinus radiata can grow to 30 metres high. In the High Court proceedings the judge found that by 2010 the trees planted on the edge of the corridor had grown taller than the full distance between those trees and the lines. In those circumstances, there was what the High Court judge described as “a very good chance” that the lines would be hit and damage caused if a tree fell; that started to happen from about December 2010 and again in July 2011. In 2013, a tree fell in a storm causing $20,000 worth of damage to a structure on the line and there were further outages as a result of tree falls in April 2012 and November 2014. In Unison’s view, NFT was liable for the recurring damage (this was in 2015) and wrote to NFT asking that the trees be cleared to prevent further damage. This was resisted by NFT, unless Unison agreed to pay compensation for the loss of the trees.

More tree falls in September 2015 and August 2016 resulted in further damage, with Unison writing to NFT again claiming significant repair costs. This was once again resisted by NFT. NFT’s response was basically that growing trees was a natural use of land; liability for tree falls required fault in tree management and as NFT had complied with the regulatory regime and conducted regular inspections and so on, NFT was not at fault.

Indeed the negligence claim was quickly dismissed by the High Court as Unison  was unable to prove any particular fault on the part of NFT. Unison was, however, successful in its nuisance claim which in essence means if proven ‘strict liability’ follows, there is no need to establish fault. Both parties appealed the findings against them. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s original decision.

About nuisance

A nuisance is defined as ‘any ongoing or current activity or state of affairs that causes a substantial and unreasonable interference with a plaintiff’s land or their use or enjoyment of that land.’ Unison obviously didn’t own any land in the vicinity. It simply owned the power lines that ran over the land. The court, however, held that since a statutory right constituted an interest in land and as the owner of utility works it has the exclusive right to occupy the portion of the soil where the works lie to the exclusion of all others and as such the right was greater than a right given by virtue of easement or licence.

Further, the court said, even if an interest in the land couldn’t be proven, as a matter of policy the existence and importance of works must mean that Unison had sufficient interest to found an action in nuisance. In particular, the court found that NFT created a state of affairs that caused unreasonable and continuing interference with the lines, and was therefore strictly liable even if NFT took reasonable precautions.

What is important to establish in nuisance is to show that a landowner has changed the state of affairs on their land which then causes a loss or damage to either other land or someone with an interest in other land. In this particular case, the change was the planting of the forest where lines already existed on a sheep and beef farm.

A similar case would be, for example, where a landowner interfered with a waterway that resulted in flooding downstream. If the landowner hadn’t interfered or changed the path of the waterway and flooding occurred downstream, there could be no liability under nuisance because that was a natural state of affairs, but by interfering with that natural state of affairs, a nuisance is created.

This case serves as a warning that even where you are not at fault, if you do something on your land that alters its natural state and somebody else’s land (or operation) is affected, you could be liable.

[1] Nottingham Forest Trustee Limited (NFT) v Unison Networks Limited (Unison) [2021] NZCA 227


DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Rural 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 Rural 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

Over the fence

2021 resident visa pathway for migrant workers

A new pathway for migrant workers to gain residency was introduced on 29 September 2021 by Immigration Minister, the Hon Kris Faafoi. This is a one-off resident visa that is targeted for up to 165,000 migrants — including around 9,000 primary industry workers.

In order to comply, a worker must have been in New Zealand on 29 September 2021 and be already subject to an eligible visa or have an application for an eligible visa submitted to Immigration New Zealand by this date. They must also meet one of the following three grounds:

  1. ‘Settled’ worker: lived in New Zealand for at least the past three years
  2. ‘Skilled’ worker: earn the median wage ($27 per hour) or above, or
  3. ‘Scarce’ worker: their role is on a scarce role list.

Since 1 December 2021 migrants who have already applied for residency under certain applications will be eligible to apply under any of the above three categories; these applicants will be notified by Immigration New Zealand. From 1 March 2022 all other eligible migrants can apply.

The pathway is particularly targeted at the primary sector to reflect the difficulties in recruiting workers due to Covid.

It is important to note that this is not a permanent resident visa. An eligibility checker is available on Immigration New Zealand’s website here. Applications will be prioritised and, as a result, Skilled Migrant Expressions of Interest will be frozen until 31 July 2022 when the 2021 resident visa pathway closes.

Covid on the farm

Prevention plans

With the ever-changing nature of Covid, prevention plans are key to keep the virus off your farm. When developing a prevention plan, it’s important to communicate and involve all parties. This includes discussions with your staff, contractors and suppliers so everyone can understand the risks involved and the procedures in place to negate them.

Communication should not stop when a plan is formed, it should be regularly revisited and adjusted if required. It is important to have a plan that reflects the new traffic light system that began on 3 December 2021.

What to include

The plan needs to consider both the people involved and animal welfare. It is important to consider ways to minimise contact between individuals, both within your workplace and with people outside of your workplace. Cleaning procedures, physical distancing, and the physical and mental health of your employees must all be considered when implementing a prevention plan.

What if Covid gets onto the farm?

If one of your workers, a member of their immediate family, or you or your family test positive for Covid or are considered a close contact there should be procedures in place so that your farming operations can continue. This includes ensuring livestock and crops are still cared for should any of your team members be required to self-isolate in a quarantine facility. This is why splitting shifts and creating work bubbles could be beneficial. The Ministry for Primary Industries is available to help co-ordinate services to provide for your animals’ welfare should that be needed.

All farmers must notify their suppliers and contractors should someone on your farm test positive.

Vaccinations and employee rights

In late November the Covid-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Act was passed; this has significant implications on the rights of employees. Employees can now be subject to vaccine mandates by either working in an employment sector required to be vaccinated against Covid by government orders, or working for a business or farm that introduces a company policy mandating vaccination.

Employers must follow certain procedures when introducing a vaccine mandate. You must consider a number of factors when determining what roles require a vaccinated employee. These are expected to include the risk of exposure, transmission, proximity and whether the risk can be mitigated. For some rural sector businesses, interaction with customers and with other staff members is limited and therefore the risk is minimal; this may differ vastly to another business. Therefore the risk associated with a role will be dependent on its responsibilities and the nature of the business itself.

Workers whose role requires vaccination, and who choose not to have the vaccination, still have rights. Employers must exhaust all other avenues before termination including considering redeployment elsewhere. If it is no longer possible to carry out work without being vaccinated, a minimum of four weeks’ paid notice is required.

If one of your unvaccinated employees decides during this time to get vaccinated the notice will then be cancelled, unless it would unreasonably disrupt your workplace. Your employee will not be prevented from the standard entitlements granted on termination if they decide to remain unvaccinated and is able to bring a personal grievance against the business.

The situation around Covid matters is ever-changing; therefore we recommend that you check the government’s Covid websites regularly or talk with us.

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Rural 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 Rural 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

Not that straightforward when it comes to property

You may have heard that ‘Marriage is betting someone half your stuff that you’ll love them forever’. But what happens about the ‘stuff’ you own before you formally say “I do”?

The law providing equal sharing of relationship property automatically begins after three years in a de facto relationship. However, what a de facto relationship looks like, and when it starts, isn’t always obvious and is often the subject of a dispute.

We take a closer look at de facto relationships as defined in the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA for short). This is key if you and your partner separate and have a dispute over property.

Harry and Kahurangi

If Harry and Kahurangi had been dating casually for a while before moving in together, we’d all agree their relationship evolved into a de facto relationship when they set up home as a couple. But what if Harry and Kahu were flatmates first? Would we assume they were in a de facto relationship from their first kiss?

The landscape changes again if Harry and Kahu each own their own home and want to keep their independence, or if Harry lives in Auckland away from Kahu in Tauranga? Does it matter that Harry hasn’t told Kahu about his significant credit card debt? Or that Kahu’s children think Harry is a ‘friend’?

Partners in relationships come with their unique experiences and backgrounds, forming bonds in any number of ways. Determining when a relationship becomes de facto requires an analysis of many factors.

The easy parts

A de facto relationship is a romantic relationship between two adults, who are not married or in a civil union, who live together as a couple. Many de facto relationships start when couples begin living together, as the legal term suggests. However, when couples have other commitments such as children or jobs in different cities requiring them to live apart, the science of determining when two people start living together as a couple becomes harder.

Living together as a couple

The PRA sets out nine factors to consider when determining whether two people are living together as a couple. The simplest factors are whether the couple lives together, the duration of the relationship and if a sexual relationship exists. Exclusivity is not a requirement of a de facto relationship: partners may be in more than one relationship or be having a sexual relationship with other people.

The nature and extent of the relationship must be taken into account. You should think about whether you would rely on your partner in an emergency and the level of dependency you have on your partner. A couple may date for many months or years before considering themselves to be serious or update their social media relationship status. It is also relevant whether the relationship is public or known to family and social circles of the couple when looking at whether a de facto relationship exists.

There are practical considerations: do the partners care for and support their partner’s family or children? Do they look after their partner’s home, including performing household chores and cooking? Entering a relationship with children from a previous relationship provides layers of complexity — deciding when to introduce partners to children, and navigating living arrangements, further complicates things.

The analysis of whether a de facto relationship exists also looks at whether there are financial commitments together such as owning joint property or bank accounts, and any support provided from one partner to the other. Some de facto partners retain separate accounts for their independence or security, but this alone will not stop a relationship from becoming de facto.

Ultimately, it is the degree of commitment and investment that each partner has to their shared life that is the tipping point of whether they are living together as a couple. They do not need to own property together and, on the other side of the coin, they can live in the same property without living together as a couple.

Why the fuss?

Many couples do not consider it relevant to define their relationship; and for many this is perfectly fine.

If, however, a couple is living in a property that was owned by one partner before the relationship began it will be classified as relationship property after the couple reaches its three-year anniversary, or earlier in some situations. If they separate, the property will be divided equally, rather than remaining the property of the original owner.

Protecting personal assets from a relationship property division is best done before reaching the three-year threshold, but can be done at any time. This is called ‘contracting out’. Independent legal advice for both parties is essential and should be obtained before entering into any formal agreement.


It is never too late to define your relationship with your partner. Whether you are introducing your partner to your family or buying some furniture together (or a house!), take a moment to consider whether you think you may have crossed into de facto, and potentially equal sharing, territory.

Whatever the stage of your relationship, it is wise to think about the longer-term impact this could have for both your futures.


NB: The Property (Relationships) Act 1976 has been reviewed by the Law Commission which recommended significant changes to this piece of legislation. However, in late November 2019, the government responded by stating it would not implement nearly all of those recommendations until the Commission has carried out a review of succession law.


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

For many of us the recent lockdown brought a sense of déjà vu. Once again, a number of us were back juggling Zoom calls while supervising school work from the confines of our own homes. The landlords and tenants amongst us were again grappling with the issue of how the lockdown affects lease obligations.

Businesses which were not deemed ‘essential’ were prohibited from accessing their premises during Alert Level 4, and for some of you this meant your business could not earn any income during that period or revenue was severely reduced.

Is rent relief available?

The first place to look for rent relief options is in your lease itself. The most common form of commercial lease is the Auckland District Law Society (ADLS) lease. If you’ve entered into an ADLS lease in or after 2012 it is likely to contain clause 27.5 which deals with situations where tenants are unable to gain access due to an ‘emergency’.

Although this clause was originally introduced as a result of the Christchurch earthquakes and tenants being unable to enter undamaged premises which were in the locked down ‘red zone’, the term ‘emergency’ includes epidemics such as Covid. Clause 27.5 states that if a tenant is unable to gain access to their premises in an emergency ‘to fully conduct the tenant’s business’ due to a restriction on occupation by a competent authority then a ‘fair proportion of the rent and outgoings shall cease to be payable’ during the period they are unable to access their premises.

What is a ‘fair proportion’?

Eighteen months after the first Covid lockdown, there is still no guidance from the courts as to what a ‘fair proportion’ is as disputes between landlords and tenants have either been resolved through agreement or by arbitration. While fairness is ultimately in the eye of the beholder, the following factors should be considered:

  • Fairness to both parties: Both the landlord’s and tenant’s situations should be taken into account in determining the extent to which a reduction is ‘fair’. While the income of most tenants will be impacted by a lockdown, many landlords will also have mortgages and other outgoings and rely on the rent to meet those obligations.
  • Nature of a tenant’s business: Businesses will be affected differently by the lockdown. At one end of the scale there are ‘essential businesses’ such as supermarkets which may continue to fully operate from their premises.

At the other end of the scale, cafés and restaurants will not be able to operate at all. Also in the mix are professional services businesses such as law and accounting firms where staff may be able to continue to work from home but have access to the server situated on the premises. Many businesses will have important items stored at their premises so will continue to gain some benefit from the premises during their lockdown. The proportion of the rent reduction is likely to be affected by the benefit the business gains from the premises.

Rent relief period?

Clause 27.5 applies to situations where a tenant is not allowed to access their premises due to an emergency ‘to fully conduct the tenant’s business’. If a tenant can access the premises, but still can’t fully operate, they may claim an abatement of a ‘fair proportion’ of the rent and outgoings for as long as they cannot access the premises to fully conduct their business due to the emergency.

The clause is not intended to deal with situations where a tenant’s turnover has been affected by a market downturn which is not related to access to premises.

Resolving rental issues

We recommend that landlords and tenants attempt to negotiate an acceptable outcome for both parties in good faith. If an agreement cannot be reached it is likely that the lease will require the dispute to be resolved by mediation, and then arbitration if mediation is not successful.

It is in the interests of both parties that tenants survive this difficult period and that they maintain a good relationship.

Lease does not provide for rent relief?

An early November 2021 amendment to the Property Law Act 2007 effectively inserts a new clause similar to clause 27.5 into those commercial leases which do not currently have a rent relief clause. The deemed clause took effect (retrospectively) from 28 September 2021 and only applies in relation to epidemics. The new law does not define ‘fair proportion’, so there will still be a need for negotiation, then possibly arbitration.

The legal doctrine of ‘frustration’ also provides a potential legal argument in favour of tenants.

It is important that any agreement on rent relief is properly documented. We will be happy to assist you with this, and help you with any negotiations with either your landlord or tenant during these Covid times.


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

Working from home

Tax status of allowances

Most, if not all, employers and employees will now be familiar with the once illusive and distant concept of working from home (WFH). Since Covid reached our shores, flexible working practices have evolved with more employees now preferring to work remotely in any alert level, either on a full-time or part-time basis.

WFH brings unique challenges that are otherwise not encountered in an office environment. One commonly-faced situation by both employers and employees is the blurred line around work and home life. This is more than just a decrease in the ability to switch off from work; it also relates to work use of a household’s power, internet and phone.

Both employers and employees should be aware of the tax implications of such costs of WFH. Employees cannot personally claim a tax deduction for costs incurred in carrying out their employment duties, such as WFH costs. If employers wish to contribute to their employee’s WFH expenses and compensate them accordingly, in some circumstances that compensation will be taxable income for the employee; in some circumstances, it will be tax-exempt. Inland Revenue has provided a simplified way for employers to determine whether, and to what extent, such a payment is taxable or not; it recently extended this method for the period from 1 October 2021 to 31 March 2023.

Inland Revenue has a great deal of information about WFH; to read this go here 

If you have specific enquiries about WFH tax obligations, do contact your accountant. Employers may also want to draft a WFH policy that outlines their expectations about this new way of working; we can help you with that.


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

Since the launch of government-funded Digital Boost in late 2020, more than 40,000 small businesses have signed up. Digital Boost is a joint initiative between the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) and the private sector. Its purpose is to get small businesses to not only acknowledge, but also to use, the benefits that come from digital tools and technologies.

Adding to its existing toolbox, Digital Boost recently launched a new Digital Boost Live app. MBIE says that it wanted to make Digital Boost content more accessible to people who work more from their mobile phones and to give businesses up-to-date digital information “in the palms of their hands”.

Features include:

  • More than 500 short three-to-five minute learning videos including how to use digital marketing to increase sales
  • Podcasts with business owners
  • Hundreds of downloadable learning summaries
  • Case studies featuring Kiwi small business owners, and
  • Live Q&A sessions.

Digital Boost Live is available free at the App Store or Google Play. For more about Digital Boost go here


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

Could it happen in New Zealand?

The American entertainer Britney Spears’ conservatorship has recently been in the headlines. She is asking American courts to reconsider the conservatorship which has been in place for some years.

A conservatorship is like a guardianship in New Zealand — a court puts a legal arrangement in place to give a third party control over a person’s affairs if they lack mental capacity in some way.

Britney has claimed that her conservatorship has:

  • Forced her to work, against her wishes, for a number of years
  • Enriched her conservators, who are paid a substantial income, and
  • Prevented her from taking control of, or making decisions about, her own life.

In mid-August, Britney’s father stepped down from his role as conservator; he will work with the court in the appointment of a new conservator for his daughter.

Could this happen in New Zealand?

Many people in New Zealand have Enduring Powers of Attorney (EPAs) that allow them to decide in advance who will take control of their affairs if, or when, they lose mental capacity. It is when a person does not have EPAs that the Family Court will often become involved and can appoint people to make decisions on that person’s behalf. These kinds of appointments are common in New Zealand. However, there are many safeguards, as set out in column 4 of this article, that ought to prevent the kind of abuse Britney claims to have suffered.

The Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 (PPPRA) allows the Family Court to intervene in relation to a person’s personal care and welfare (where they live, medical treatment, etc) and in relation to their property. The court can only intervene when medical evidence shows that a person is unable to look after themselves, including making decisions about their future and their property.

The PPPRA contains what is known as the ‘minimum intervention principle.’ When making orders, the court is required to make the least restrictive intervention possible in a person’s life. Any orders which are made must enable that person to exercise and develop any capacity they may have, to the greatest extent possible.

Personal care and welfare

The Family Court can make specific decisions about a person’s care and welfare, such as directing that they live in a certain place or it can appoint a welfare guardian.

Appointing a welfare guardian is a significant restriction on a person’s autonomy; an appointment will only be made when a person wholly lacks capacity or does not have the ability to communicate, and when there is no other satisfactory way to ensure decisions are made. If a person only partly lacks capacity and can communicate their preferences, the court can only make specific orders about their welfare, such as an order that they live in a certain place or receive certain medical treatment. It cannot appoint someone to make all decisions.


The Family Court may appoint a property manager when a person wholly, or partly, lacks capacity to manage their own affairs in relation to their property. However, s25 of the PPPRA, states that a person does not lack capacity simply because they make, or intend to make, imprudent decisions in relation to their property.

When appointing a property manager, the court considers the minimum intervention principle. It can appoint a manager in relation to only some part of the person’s property, rather than in relation to all the property the person holds. It can also give limited powers to a property manager. There are a number of restrictions on a manager making decisions about property worth more than $120,000.

Unless the court approves, property managers are not allowed to be paid. If a fee is paid, this would usually be very limited, even for a professional manager, such as a trustee corporation.

A property manager or welfare guardian cannot force a person to work, and if either of those people signed a contract requiring the person to work against their wishes, the person could ask the court to review that decision and/or appoint different managers.


The PPPRA has a number of safeguards built in to protect the person. Each time an application is made to the Family Court for orders under the PPPRA, the court must appoint a lawyer (usually state-funded) to represent that person’s interests. That lawyer has duties to:

  • Contact and meet with the person
  • Explain the nature and purpose of the application
  • Ascertain that person’s wishes, and
  • Evaluate possible solutions, including the minimum intervention principle.

The appointed lawyer represents a significant safeguard, and is present every time a PPPRA case is before the court. They report to the court on what the person wants and their capacity.

They can propose a new capacity assessment if, for example, they think the person has become capable of managing their own affairs.

In addition to this, welfare guardianship and property orders must be reviewed every three years (in some cases, every five years). The court reviews the matter, usually obtains an updated capacity assessment, and appoints a lawyer to act for the person and reports back to the court.

Britney in New Zealand?

It seems less likely that someone in this country would end up in Britney’s position. If Britney lived in New Zealand and was subject to the PPPRA, the court would review her situation every few years, and her views would be put forward by an independent lawyer. If Britney thought she had capacity, the court could order a medical review. If Britney wanted control of her own affairs, or a different person in charge, the court would be obliged to take this into account. There are a number of safeguards built into the New Zealand system which would help prevent Britney’s current situation in the US from arising.

Over the fence

Climate Change Commission: carbon farming

On 31 May, the Climate Change Commission provided Parliament with its final advice on the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme before the government sets the first of three emissions budgets later this year. In this advice there was significant consideration on land use and the impacts of afforestation.

The Commission recommended the Emissions Trading Scheme be amended to manage exotic afforestation and provide assistance for local government in mitigating the local impacts of afforestation.

If the government implements the Commission’s recommendation, carbon farming returns for planting exotic trees, such as Pinus, will decrease, while the carbon farming returns for planting native forest blocks will either remain constant or increase.

With a large proportion of carbon sinks across New Zealand planted in Pinus, this will have an impact on both existing forestry blocks and blocks that will be planted in the future. The Commission has instead shifted its focus to reduce gross carbon dioxide which is largely produced by burning fossil fuels.

We will watch how the Commission’s recommendations progress during the year, and will provide more information as it comes to hand.

Dairy worker border exception process

In order to address an acute shortage of experienced dairy sector workers, in June the Minister of Agriculture approved a Class Border Exception for 200 migrant dairy farm workers, along with their families, to enter New Zealand. There were 150 positions available for herd managers or assistant farm managers and 50 farm assistants. In addition, 50 general practice vets (and their families) were granted exemptions to enter New Zealand.

An assistant farm manager must earn over $92,000pa and have at least two to four years’ work experience; herd managers must earn above $79,500pa. Farm assistants must earn above the median wage which is classified as $27.00/hour and roles must be in regions that have acute shortages of dairy sector workers.

All workers must come into New Zealand before April 2022. Employers must make a commitment to pay the costs for Managed Isolation and Quarantine (MIQ) and pay their worker’s salary whilst they are in MIQ.

It is estimated that the workers will be on the farm approximately 17 weeks from the initial application.

What is a ‘state of emergency’?

In late May, the mayors in mid-Canterbury declared a local state of emergency due to the significant flooding affecting the region. Then, in mid-July, a local state of emergency was declared in the Westport area. Many people are curious about what this entails and to understand the powers given to the authorities in a local state of emergency. We explain…

The Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002 defines a local state of emergency as a declaration by an authorised person, such as a mayor or the Minister of Civil Defence, that an emergency has or is likely to occur within an area. A local state of emergency lasts for a minimum period of seven days from the date and time of the declaration.

The local civil defence group (which includes emergency services, police and volunteers) is then deployed who may, for example, set up first aid posts, provide shelter to those affected and assist with the rescue of people in danger. In a nutshell, a local state of emergency allows the authorities to protect people and the community.

Most importantly, the leader of the civil defence group has the power to enforce the evacuation of an area, authorise entering a premise to save lives and enforce road closures; all of these were implemented when Ashburton’s stock banks were at risk of breaching the township and Westport was flooded.


Mature workers toolkit

The government’s business website has launched a ‘Mature workers toolkit’ to help employers to get workers aged 50 years-plus into small to medium-sized businesses.

The toolkit has a range of guidance, support tools and resources that employers can use to help attract, recruit and retrain mature workers. It includes:

  • A worksheet to help write compelling job advertisements
  • A build-your-own-policy for on-the-job learning
  • Tips on leading and working with mature workers, and
  • Case studies.

With more people working later in their lives, it’s important that the skills and knowledge of mature people are retained in our workforce. Seek NZ’s May Employment Report shows the demand for staff continues to increase. “Job ads increased by 5% month-on-month and are almost triple the volume that they were this time last year,” reports Seek NZ.

Fifteen per cent of our population is aged over 65; this is expected to increase to 20% over the next 20 years. It is important that the value this group of people gives to business is acknowledged not only by employers, but also by their staff.

To find out more, go here and search for Mature workers toolkit.

Bright-line test extended to 10 years

In March the bright-line test was extended to 10 years.

The bright-line test was established in 2015 to tax the profit made on selling residential property where sold within two years of purchase. The bright-line period was extended to five years for properties purchased from 29 March 2018.

Now, if you have a binding agreement to purchase on or after 27 March 2021 and you sell the property within 10 years, any profit will be subject to income tax.

For residential properties that are ‘new builds’ the five-year period still applies. Rules are currently being developed about which new builds qualify for the shorter bright-line period.

Do note however, in most (but not all) circumstances your family home is exempt from the bright-line test. The March 2021 announcement also saw changes as to how the family home exemption is calculated for properties subject to the bright-line test.

To know more about the bright-line test and how it may affect you, please feel free to contact us.