Edmonds Judd

Latest news

Budget 2024

Latest news, News, Rural
0

What was in it for the rural sector?

On 30 May 2024, the Minister of Finance, Nicola Willis, presented her first Budget. The government is focussed on rebuilding the economy, easing the cost of living, delivering better health and education services, and restoring law and order.

Of course, within all those subsections, there is an underlying reliance on agriculture, the highest contributing sector to our economy. So, what did the Budget provide for the rural sector, and is there anything that farmers can look forward to over the next three years?

 

Drilling down to detail

After the Budget was presented, the Minister of Agriculture, Todd McClay said, “[It] places our trust back in farmers and growers by cutting public spending and reducing red tape, while also driving the efficiencies required to increase value and place the sector’s success at the forefront of New Zealand’s economic recovery.”

 

Practically speaking, the government intends to do that by:

  • Doubling exports by delivering strong frontline services, cutting red tape and reducing regulatory costs
  • Minimising the administrative burden on farmers caused by duplication, red tape and regulatory blocks on things such as irrigation, water storage, flood protection schemes and stock exclusion rules
  • Replacing the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2020 (Three Waters) and delivering better resource management legislation for the primary sector
  • Taking an independent review of agricultural biogenic methane science by providing clear advice on New Zealand’s domestic 2050 methane targets
  • Committing $27 million for the removal of woody debris in Tairawhiti that will restore and help prevent further damage to vital infrastructure in local communities in the region
  • Committing $36 million over four years to catchment groups that back farmers’ efforts to improve land management practices, and
  • Driving innovation that will ensure farmers and growers remain global leaders in challenges, including reducing on-farm emissions.

 

The government considers its Budget will back the sector’s continued growth by providing support and professional resources to the frontline, and boosting research and innovation.

 

Should we be optimistic?

No one would expect the rural community to feel particularly inspired by this Budget and its overuse of words ‘innovation’ and ‘growth’ that do not necessarily translate to practical implementation.

The Budget is clearly focusing more on the bigger election promises such as infrastructure, education, and law and order. Although the Budget was more or less neutral on agriculture, the sector will nonetheless be pleased to see a focus on legislative repeal that was going to create a suffocating amount of red tape and make farming financially unviable (for some) in the near future.

It was a tight Budget that intends to put New Zealand’s books back into the black. The deficit is forecast to continue through to 2025 with a surplus expected to be reached in 2027–28. The government will continue to rely on revenue from the rural sector, but it seems unlikely that those at the farm gate will notice any positive economic changes for several years.

 

 

 

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

Live animal exports

Latest news, News, Property, Rural, Your Own Business
0

Government intends to lift the ban

In April 2023, following intense pressure from animal welfare organisations, the Labour government banned live animal exports. The basis of the ban was centred on an independent review that New Zealand’s international reputation was being damaged by its live animal export programme because of animal welfare standards being breached.

The government’s plan

With the ongoing pressure from SAFE (Save Animals From Exploitation) and other animal welfare organisations, the government is proceeding with caution. It intends to introduce amendments to the Animal Welfare Act 1999 that will impose strict regulations and ensure a ‘gold standard’ of care. This includes fit-for-purpose live export ships and certification regimes for the livestock and their destination country. The government believes these regulations will protect animal welfare and safety.

The government has not indicated the timing for these proposed legislative changes.

 

The good . . .

The answer is obvious – revenue. In 2022, before the ban on live animal exports, revenue of $524 million was generated for the farming sector. Reports say the ban resulted in a loss of between $50,000– $116,000/year per farm[1] that, in the current economic climate, is significant to those who have lost this source of revenue. The return of live animal exports may bring some financial relief to farmers. With the level of red tape involved, the actual benefit of live animal exports is unclear.

 

The bad . . .

No animal, except of course those of the aquatic variety, is designed to sustain long journeys by sea. Exporting live animals to China, for example, can take anywhere between 15–40 days and, during that time, the animals have endured rough seas, long periods of standing in their own excrement, heat stress and injuries. The conditions during the journey are aggravated further because once the ship docks, there are no assurances of continuing animal welfare and safety on land. Many importing countries lack the minimum welfare standards that New Zealand enforces.

And the ugly

While petitions have been submitted and lobbyists are in full force in New Zealand, elsewhere in the world live animal exporting continues to be practised. Earlier this year, 2,000 cattle and 14,000 sheep spent two weeks enroute from Perth to the Middle East, only to be turned around and returned to port at Fremantle where they remained on the ship for almost six weeks while the exporter attempted to obtain a new export permit. The Australian government is now under immense pressure to follow through with its own election promise to ban live animal exports.

Will our government follow through on lifting the ban?

That remains unknown. Each side of the argument will continue to pressure the government to make what that side believes is the right decision.

There remains a strong belief that live animal export represents such a small share of agricultural revenue (0.2%)[2] since 2015 that the damage to New Zealand’s ‘clean’ reputation is far worse than the benefit of the export receipts.

What farmers can certainly expect is that if the live animal export ban is overturned, there will be stricter regulation and more red tape, and the costs associated with those increased regulations may be onerous. Farmers can expect an update to this process this year.

[1] Livestock Export New Zealand.

[2] Ibid.

 

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, 2022.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected].       Ph: 029 286 3650

Significant Natural Areas

Latest news, News, Property, Rural
0

Suspended while government overhauls RMA

Associate Minister for the Environment, Andrew Hoggard, announced on 14 March 2024 that the government will suspend the Significant Natural Areas (SNAs) requirements while it overhauls the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). It comes as a timely announcement after the Greater Wellington Regional Council’s (GWRC) unsuccessful prosecutions[1] of two rural landowners due to the council having wrongly identified wetlands on private farmland.

So what are SNAs, how do they currently affect our rural landowners and how will they be addressed in the future?

Defining an SNA

SNAs are areas containing ‘significant indigenous vegetation’ and ‘significant habitats of indigenous fauna’ that must be protected to ensure ongoing biodiversity. The basis for defining and identifying SNAs is in section 6 of the RMA:

‘6 Matters of national importance

In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall recognise and provide [our emphasis] for the following matters of national importance:

. . .

(c) the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna: . . . ’

 

While the RMA is nearly 33 years old, it was only in August 2023, when the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity came into force, that a mandatory standardised approach and criteria were introduced to protect SNAs under s6. In practical terms, the Policy Statement required regional councils to identify and map SNAs within their territory (including on private land) and include them in their district plans by August 2028.

 

Implications for rural landowners

Once an SNA has been identified, it means that the area is noted on the council’s records. The use to which that land can then be put is more controlled. That doesn’t necessarily mean that existing uses of that land will be stopped – although it could. It does mean, however, that generally speaking existing activities are unlikely to be able to be intensified and new activities are likely to be subject to tighter controls – if permitted at all.

There is no direct government compensation for a landowner who has an SNA identified on their land. The SNA identification process has been somewhat controversial. This is partly because the RMA does not define ‘significant’ and, as a result, it has been left to each council to interpret this, largely using case law and ecological guidance.

Regional councils’ interpretation and identification of areas to protect under the RMA has recently been highlighted by the GWRC’s two unsuccessful prosecutions of rural landowners, one of which has been labeled by the Court of Appeal as a ‘miscarriage of justice.’

In both cases, the GWRC was found to have incorrectly identified wetlands on private farmland. Although the GWRC’s prosecutions were unsuccessful in both cases, they illustrate how severe the penalties can be under the RMA. In one case, Mrs Crosbie was fined $118,742 as the owner of the property, and Mr Page was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment (which he had already served prior to the Court of Appeal hearing).

The future of SNAs

The message from this government has been very clear – stop mapping and imposing SNAs for three years while it reviews the RMA. Mr Hoggard has said that quickly suspending the SNA requirements was to ensure councils did not waste resources and efforts on requirements that were likely to change. He has also asked officials to review existing SNAs.

The suspension, however, will not change the need for councils to protect areas of national importance under s6 of the RMA. Arguably, regional councils could still identify areas on private land to protect, and they may impose restrictions on private landowners on the use of such land. Nevertheless, with the clear message from the government to not waste resources in this area, it is unlikely that we will see regional councils identifying new areas to protect until the government provides further guidance to those councils or new resource management laws are passed.

[1] Page v Greater Wellington Regional Council [2024] NZCA 51 and Greater Wellington Regional Council v Adams [2022] NZEnvc 025.

 

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, 2022.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected].       Ph: 029 286 3650

Postscript

Latest news, News, Uncategorized, Your Own Business
0

Holidays Act 2003 to be overhauled

 

Both employers and employees will be relieved that the government is prioritising overhauling this legislation.

“Change has been a long time coming, and I know there are many who are frustrated with the Holidays Act. We need an Act that businesses can implement, and that makes it easy for workers to understand their entitlements,” said the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, Brooke van Velden.

 

The government will develop an exposure draft of the new legislation for consultation. It has indicated that the previous government’s decision to double sick leave entitlements for all eligible workers has caused difficulties to some businesses and increased the disparity between part-time and full-time workers. As well, employers have long struggled with apportioning annual leave; an accrual system is mooted, rather than the current entitlements system.

 

It is expected that the exposure draft of the Holidays Bill will be released for targeted consultation in September. “I believe it is important to hear from small businesses in particular, given small businesses will adopt a range of working arrangements and often do not have the same payroll infrastructure as larger organisations,” the Minister added.

 

Although registration for targeted consultation closed on 8 July, we will keep you up-to-date with how this new legislation progresses.

 

Roadside drug testing to be rolled out

 

In May, the Minister of Transport, Simeon Brown, indicated the government will introduce legislation that will enable roadside drug testing to improve road safety.

 

“Alcohol and drugs are the number one contributing factor in fatal road crashes in New Zealand. In 2022, alcohol and drugs contributed to 200 fatal crashes on our roads. Despite this, only 26% of drivers think they are likely to be caught drug driving,” said the Minister.

The legislation is likely to be introduced mid-2024 and passed towards the end of the year.

 

 

 

Visual artists will receive royalties when work on-sold

Long-awaited legislation that comes into force on 1 December 2024 will allow New Zealand’s visual artists to receive royalties when their work is sold on the secondary market.

 

Passed in August last year, the Resale Right for Visual Artists Act 2023 will enable the collection of a 5% royalty each time an eligible artist’s work is sold on the secondary art market. The scheme is for artworks that sell for $1,000 or more. The collection agency, Copyright Licensing New Zealand, will deduct a percentage of the royalty as an administrative fee.

 

 

 

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

Avoiding scams

Latest news, News, Uncategorized
0

Tips to protect yourself

Every year thousands of people fall victim to scams through emails, phone calls and text messages. Scams are fraudulent schemes designed to deceive you and steal your money or personal information.

 

The danger of scams lies in their ability to look and sound genuine – at least until it’s too late. Scammers are becoming more cunning, often using technology and psychological manipulation to trick you. Fortunately, there are a few easy steps that can help you.

 

 

Phone scams

Scammers often try calling and pretending to be from your bank. They usually create a sense of urgency, claiming there are issues with your bank account such as unusual account activity or overdue fees; scammers will make you think that the matter needs immediate attention.

 

To spot a phone scam, be wary of unexpected calls that ask for personal information such as your account details or your passwords. Most organisations do not request sensitive information over the phone. An easy way to verify if the call is genuine is to hang up and call back using the official number.

 

 

Text message scams

Text scams are when you receive messages designed to trick you into providing personal information or clicking on malicious links. These messages might say they’re from your bank, a courier company or even your insurer. They often contain urgent requests to verify your account, claim a prize or resolve a problem.

 

To protect yourself from text scams, never click links or respond to messages from unknown numbers. If you receive a message claiming to be from an organisation, call them directly and check.

 

 

Email scams

Email scams, or ‘phishing’ emails, are a common way scammers try to steal personal information. These emails, similar to texts, appear to be from your bank, a courier or even a shop. Like many scams, they are often ‘urgent’ and ask you to update your account information, reset your password or review suspicious activity.

 

Don’t click on links or download attachments from unknown or suspicious emails, especially if you’ve never heard from them before. Organisations will never ask (or should not ask) for sensitive information by email.

 

 

Key points

We are exposed to scams more and more in today’s world. To keep yourself safe:

  • Be suspicious – who is contacting you and why?
  • Don’t trust any unexpected contact
  • Resist the urge to act immediately, despite what the message says
  • Never open attachments or links if you’re not sure where they’ve come from, and
  • Trust your instinct! If something doesn’t feel right, it probably isn’t.

 

Staying vigilant and informed is crucial in protecting yourself from scams.

If you think you’ve received a text or email that you think is a scam, you can report it to the Department of Internal Affairs, following the instructions on its website (www.dia.govt.nz).

 

 

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

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

Generative AI and copyright

Commercial, First Job, Latest news, Your Own Business
0

Are you taking the right precautions?

Many businesses have been using artificial intelligence (AI) for a long time to gather insights into their data and make strategic decisions. Recent generative AI improvements, however, have brought the power of AI into the public’s hands like never before. As a certain spider[1] once said: With great power comes great responsibility.

 

Generative AI technologies can now be used to create almost any type of content you can imagine; everything from a poem about pineapples to music in the style of Mozart and even three-dimensional models of motorbikes. However, the legal and human issues these technologies create are far less inspiring.

 

At its core, generative AI models are trained on large datasets of predominantly human-generated works to generate new works, that are ‘inspired’ from works within the training dataset. This approach raises several important legal questions, including:

  • Are companies allowed to train an AI model on content which they do not own? This is particularly significant considering much of the content is not in the public domain and is, arguably, covered by copyright
  • Once a model has been trained, who owns the content the model produces, and can it be used without infringing the intellectual property (IP) of others, and
  • Can you own and protect the output from an AI model?

 

There are also the ethical and fairness issues of using the creative works of others without compensation.

 

Many of these topics are currently being litigated in courts around the world, and while it would take a lengthy article to cover each issue in detail here, we discuss three key issues below.

 

  1. IP laws vary from country to country
    While there are international agreements on copyright provided under the Berne Convention, there are still significant differences in copyright law in different countries. This is particularly important when it comes to issues such as relying on ‘fair use’ as a defence to copyright infringement.

    Copyright is also only a small piece of the puzzle. Depending on how you use AI, you may need to also consider local and international laws covering moral rights, consumer protection such as the Fair Trading Act 1986 and the tort of passing off, breach of contract, violations of the American statute Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 and unfair competition laws – to name just a few.

 

  1. AI-generated content can still infringe the rights of others
    Even if an AI is tasked with creating new content, this does not guarantee that content can be used without infringing the rights of others. Most AI models have been trained on datasets that include works protected by copyright, patents, trademarks and registered designs. Therefore, before being used, the generated outputs should be reviewed to assess potential infringement issues.

 

  1. The use of a generative AI may prevent you from asserting copyright in the generated works
    Most guidance from overseas markets at this stage is that to be copyright-eligible, the creative work requires a human author. Prompting an AI to generate content is unlikely to meet the human authorship standard. The extent to which you can claim copyright on an AI-generated work is likely to be limited to a detailed analysis of exactly what the human inputs were when compared with the computer-generated outputs.

 

What can you do to reduce risk?

Despite these above issues, you can take practical steps to help reduce your risk in using AI-generated content. These include:

  • Searching to determine how different your AI-generated content is from existing, potentially protected works
  • Ensuring that key issues such as privacy and confidentiality are not breached by your use of the AI
  • Fact checking the outputs of the AI
  • Ethical use of the AI, including not using the AI as a tool to copy or mimic the art style of another person or company, and
  • Keeping detailed records of what the generative AI was used for, including details of prompts, intermediate outputs, manual edits and so on.

 

Since generative AI technologies can be used in a seemingly endless number of different applications, your risk exposure will depend on exactly what you are using these technologies for and what precautions you can take to reduce your risk.

[1] Spider-Man said this, but it has also been attributed to Winston Churchill.

 

 

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

Mainzeal decision

Commercial, Latest news, Property, Your Own Business
0

Major implications for company directors

Taking on the responsibility of a directorship is not a decision to be taken lightly. For New Zealand directors, the magnitude of the director role has been hammered home with the decision of the Mainzeal case from the Supreme Court in late August.[1]

This decision has sent a strong signal from the New Zealand justice system that directors can, and will be, held personally liable for financial losses experienced by creditors if the directors allow the company to trade recklessly and/or trade while insolvent.

 

About Mainzeal

Mainzeal Property and Construction Limited was one of the largest New Zealand construction companies in the years leading up to its financial collapse.  In 2013, the company went into receivership and liquidation owing unsecured creditors around $110 million. The Mainzeal liquidators believed that the directors of the company had breached s135 (reckless trading) and s136 (insolvent trading) of the Companies Act 1993 and should be held personally liable for the losses of the company’s creditors.

 

Supreme Court decision

While going into the nuances of each of the court hearings is too complex for the scope of this article (the Mainzeal case has been heard in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court), it is noteworthy that each court accepted that the directors should be held personally liable to some extent for a breach of their director’s duties.

At the highest court in New Zealand, the Supreme Court, the judges found that the directors should be liable for $39.8 million plus interest payable at 5% pa from the date of liquidation (together more than $50 million). The chief executive of Mainzeal is responsible for the full sum, and the liability of the three other directors was capped at $6.6 million each plus interest.

 

Facts rather than intentions

Critically, personal liability falling on a director due to a breach of directors’ duties under s135 (reckless trading) and s136 (insolvent trading) is a matter of facts, not intentions.

The Mainzeal directors were not accused of any conflict of interest or lack of honesty, and were taken on their word that they acted with good intention while running the company. Regardless, it mattered that on the facts they permitted the company to trade in a way that was reckless and allowed the company to trade while it was insolvent.

 

Companies Act 1993 may need a refresh

Both the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court indicated that a review and update of the Companies Act will be helpful.

The Mainzeal case reinforces to directors the consequences of failing to avoid reckless or insolvent trading, however the current legislation does not provide additional guidance or safe harbour for directors and their decision-making. Adding new guidance for directors’ duties into the Companies Act could enable directors to more confidently navigate the complexities of commercial decision-making with a need for accountability to their creditors.

 

Personal liability

After the announcement of the Supreme Court decision, many directors may want to take a moment to step back and allow the lessons of Mainzeal to sink in. Becoming personally liable for a company’s debts is a significant risk associated with accepting (or continuing) a director role.

Every director of a company should ensure they feel adequately knowledgeable about all key aspects of their company and the sector in which it operates. Accepting a directorship role where there are gaps in skills, or knowledge of the company or sector, can lead to an increased risk that the director may unwittingly allow, or join their other directors in, a decision that permits the company to trade in a reckless or insolvent manner, opening up personal liability and prejudicing creditors.

If you are considering taking on a directorship, you should take independent legal and accounting advice to not only carefully assess whether your skills are a good match for the company and sector, but also to be clear on any potential personal liability.

If you would like some help in assessing whether a directorship is a good fit for you, please don’t hesitate to contact us for further guidance.

 

[1] Yan v Mainzeal Property and Construction Limited (in liquidation) [2023] NZSC 113.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Commerical 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

Business briefs

First Job, Latest news, Your Own Business
0

Fair Pay Agreements Bill on the table

The long-awaited Fair Pay Agreements Bill was recently introduced in Parliament proposing a framework for collective bargaining of fair pay agreements (FPA).

What is an FPA? An FPA is an agreement that establishes mandatory minimum employment terms (such as wages or hours of work) across an entire industry or occupation that exceed the minimum entitlements outlined in employment law. Currently, an employer and employee are free to negotiate the terms of employment without being subject to fair pay obligations, provided the minimum entitlements in employment law are met.

What is the FPA process? A union initiates the bargaining process by applying to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). If MBIE approves the application, the union begins bargaining with an employer association (that represents employers in the relevant industry).

What does this mean for employers? If the negotiation is successful, all the employers in an industry covered by an FPA would have to provide their employees with at least the minimum entitlements required by the FPA, regardless of whether the employer engaged in the bargaining process.

The Bill also proposes granting employees and unions other rights such as the right for a union to enter a workplace without an employer’s consent to meet with employees to discuss FPAs. This may be confronting to some employers, particularly smaller businesses that may be new to collective bargaining.

Next steps: Public submissions on the Bill closed on 19 May 2022, so we now await the Select Committee’s report. The Bill is expected to become law by the end of 2022.

Proposed legislation to address modern slavery and worker exploitation

The government has released a consultation paper proposing new legislation to reduce modern slavery and worker exploitation in New Zealand and internationally. As currently proposed, the legislation may have a material impact on the way businesses operate in this country.

The paper defines ‘modern slavery’ as severe exploitation that a person cannot leave due to threats, violence or deception, including forced labour, debt bondage, forced marriage, slavery and human trafficking. ‘Worker exploitation’ is behaviour that causes material harm to the economic, social, physical or emotional well-being of a person, which essentially includes non-minor breaches of New Zealand employment standards (such as providing no less than minimum wage or annual holiday entitlements).

The legislation as proposed would require:

  • Organisations to take action if they become aware of modern slavery or worker exploitation in their operations or supply chains
  • Medium and large organisations to report on steps they are taking to address modern slavery or worker exploitation in their operations or supply chains, and
  • Large organisations to undertake due diligence to prevent, mitigate and remedy modern slavery and worker exploitation in their operations and supply chains.

Although this proposed legislation is not yet law, businesses should start considering now how these changes will affect the way they operate, and the consequences associated with any breach such as monetary penalties and reputational risk.

Incorporated societies – what’s next?

After many years of consultation and deliberation, the new Incorporated Societies Act 2022 was finally passed on 5 April 2022. The Act’s changes will affect all of New Zealand’s 23,000+ societies.

The legislation puts in place a modern framework of legal, governance and accountability obligations for incorporated societies and the people who run them.

All existing societies have at least until 1 December 2025 to ensure their constitution complies with the new requirements and to apply to re-register under the new Act. Societies that do not re-register by that date will be removed from the register.

Although the Act is now in place, there are still regulations to be developed before existing societies can start the re-registration process. These regulations are expected sometime in the next 12 months.

We can help if you are unsure of your obligations under the Act or would like some help with the transition.

 

Next stage of vaping legislation coming into effect

Changes made to New Zealand’s vaping laws are being phased in, with the next changes taking effect over the coming months. The latest changes require all packaging for smokeless tobacco products and vaping products containing nicotine to include specific labels warning of the health dangers and addictive nature of the products. Critical dates for this labelling are:

  • 11 May 2022: manufacturers and importers (should be achieved by now)
  • 25 June 2022: distributors, and
  • 11 August 2022: general and specialist vape retailers.

The staged approach is to allow for stock rotation of products with non-compliant packaging.

You can find more information on vaping regulation here or don’t hesitate to talk with us if you need some help.

 

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

Gift or loan?

Estate, House, Kids, Latest news, Relationships, Retirement
0

The importance of properly documenting advances between family members

The trusty Kiwi “She’ll be right” approach is often manifested in a reluctance to formally document intra-family lending arrangements. Catch cries of “I trust the kids to sort things out between themselves after I’m gone” and “My new partner says she will never make a claim and I believe her” are common, but all too often lead to disputes down the track.

In this article, we look at three different scenarios that are based on Maddy’s story.

Maddy’s parents help out

In 2016, Maddy’s parents decide to help her buy her first home. The bank will not lend to Maddy without a 20% deposit; her parents offer to lend her $250,000 to make up the 20%. The bank’s rules also require her parents to sign a gifting certificate, confirming that they will not require repayment of the money. Despite that, Maddy and her parents agree verbally that the money is a loan, not a gift, and Maddy will pay them back when she can. This is important to Maddy’s parents, as they also want to help their younger daughter, Sarah, into her first home in a few years’ time once Maddy has enough equity in her home to repay them. Maddy takes out a bank loan, secured by a first ranking all obligations mortgage in favour of the bank and buys her first home. Exciting times.

Let’s look at three different ways in which the failure to document that loan could play out.

Scenario 1: Insolvency

Maddy also owns a hospitality business, which she operates as a sole trader. Maddy doesn’t really understand how it all works, but is pleased that having a mortgage means she gets better lending rates for the business, which improves her caé’s cash flow no end.

Unfortunately, in 2020 Covid hits. While the business manages to hang in there for some time thanks to the Covid business loan and the wage subsidy, the recent removal of all government financial assistance and the move to red level in the traffic light system tip the business over the edge. It owes more than $500,000 to the bank, as well as the debt to the government and various suppliers. Maddy’s creditors file bankruptcy proceedings.

Maddy receive a demand from the bank to pay the $500,000-plus it is owed, which means she must sell her house. There is just enough money left after doing that to repay the bank and all the unsecured creditors.

In an attempt to salvage something from the situation, Maddy argues that the amount her parents contributed to the equity was a loan and not a gift. Unfortunately, there is no documentation to support that; the only documentation is the signed gifting certificate. The creditors rightly say that there is no evidence the money was a loan, and therefore they require repayment of their debts in full.

Scenario 2: Succession

Maddy’s parents died shortly after lending her the $250,000 house deposit. Younger sister, Sarah, is shocked when the estate lawyer says that there is only a house property to divide; Sarah says that she knows her parents had more than $250,000 in the bank which they had lent to Maddy to help buy her house.

Sarah appeals to Maddy, saying that they both know their parents lent Maddy the money. Maddy disagrees, pointing to the bank gifting certificate: she says that it was clearly a gift and she refuses to pay anything back. Lacking any evidence of the arrangements between her parents and Maddy, Sarah is forced to reluctantly accept a lesser inheritance than she believes she was entitled to.

Scenario 3: Relationship property

Maddy’s boyfriend Tom moved into her new home shortly after she bought it. Their relationship broke down four years later in 2020 and Tom claims half the equity in the home under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.

Maddy accepts that the home is their ‘family home’ and that the equity must be divided equally. She argues, however, that in addition to the bank loan they need to take into account the $250,000 owed to her parents.

Tom says that is the first he heard of any loan from Maddy’s parents, and points to the gifting certificate that he found when he was cleaning out some drawers. Maddy is unable to produce any evidence to support her argument that money is owed to her parents, and has to divide the equity without factoring that in.

The lesson

In every scenario outlined above, a dispute could have been avoided, or minimised, had Maddy and her parents entered into a simple agreement recording the existence of the loan. A deed of acknowledgment of debt, prepared at the time that Maddy bought her house, could have been produced for a minimal fee, thus preventing a multitude of unintended consequences later on.

If you are lending money within your family, do contact us to ensure the loan is documented in a way that protects everyone — both now and in the future.

 

 

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