Legal Guidance

When Luke and Yassica’s daughter Mildred decided to purchase a house, Luke and Yassica were keen to support and help her. Then Mildred told Luke and Yassica that she was going to purchase with her partner Jack so that they could combine resources. They were still struggling to be able to afford the sort of house that Luke and Yassica thought they should live in. Luke and Yassica had some savings that they were happy to allow Mildred and Jack to use, so they started thinking about how they could best help Mildred and Jack.

 

After talking to their solicitor, Luke and Yassica proposed to Mildred and Jack that they would provide them with $25,000 towards their purchase. Luke and Yassica’s solicitor would prepare a simple document that would record that the payment of $25,000 would be a loan to Mildred and Jack. Mildred and Jack would not be required to pay any interest, no security would be taken, but they would need to agree that the loan could be called up at any time. This arrangement gave Luke and Yassica the comfort of knowing that they were helping Mildred and Jack to get into a lovely home, but if Mildred and Jack’s relationship ended, Luke and Yassica would be able to call for repayment of the loan, so that the benefit of their hard-earned savings was kept in the family.

Evoto


Law Commission recommendations

The Law Commission recently reviewed the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 (PPPR Act). This legislation governs how decisions are made for adults who lack capacity and can no longer make some decisions for themselves.

The PPPR Act applies widely; it includes adults who have declining capacity due to dementia, lack capacity due to intellectual disabilities or have a temporary loss of capacity (for example) due to injuries.

The Commission has made a number of recommendations for reform, particularly regarding property managers and welfare guardians who are appointed by the court to make decisions for people who cannot make decisions themselves.

 

Overall approach

The Commission recommends repealing the PPPR Act and replacing it with new legislation. The biggest shift is away from asking what is in a person’s ‘best interests’ (often considered paternalistic), and towards asking what the person’s own wishes, values and rights are, and how those can be respected.

Court-appointed decision-makers would be expected to support the person’s participation in decisions wherever possible; they would only step in to decide for them where genuinely necessary.

 

Changes to the roles of property managers and welfare guardians

The Commission also recommends renaming ‘property managers’ to ‘property representatives’ and ‘welfare guardians’ to ‘welfare representatives.’ The change reflects a shift in emphasis: these representatives would not simply make decisions they think are best, but would instead be required to represent the person’s wishes and values as far as possible.

Representatives would have clearer statutory duties. They would be required to act honestly, in good faith and with reasonable care, understand the person’s circumstances, support the person to participate in decisions, communicate in a way the person can understand, respect the person’s rights, and make decisions centered on the person’s wishes and values.

The scope of appointments might become more limited than they are currently. Representatives would only make decisions that the person lacks capacity to make and only where someone else genuinely needs to make those decisions. If a person retains capacity for some decisions, they would continue making those decisions themselves.

Property representatives would continue to have financial reporting obligations, and the existing financial limits on decisions they can make without court approval would be modified.

Welfare representatives could also be made subject to reporting requirements where appropriate. Representatives would also be expected to notify the court if significant changes occur that affect their suitability or the ongoing need for the appointment.

The court would have greater flexibility to tailor appointments. It could appoint multiple representatives, divide responsibilities, impose reporting obligations, require consultation between representatives and include safeguards where conflicts of interest exist.

Where a representative is also a spouse or partner, conflicts of interest would not prevent appointment, but specific conditions might be imposed from the outset to ensure conflicts of interest are handled appropriately.

 

Reasons for the proposed changes

Currently, many court-appointed representatives are family members with no legal training. The Law Commission found that the current duties are scattered between the PPPR Act and case law, making the roles difficult to understand. It recommends a single, clear list of statutory duties, and clearer obligations for representatives, so they are better equipped to understand their role and responsibilities.

The current law is also viewed as not sufficiently focussed on the person for whom decisions are being made. Property managers and welfare guardians are not always aware that they need to consider the person’s rights, wishes and values, rather than just making the decision they think is best.

 

Conclusion

Overall, the recommendations focus on encouraging people to participate in decisions which affect them and make as many decisions as they reasonably can make, but supporting them where needed. Where representatives are appointed, their role is to be as limited as possible and proportional to the lack of capacity in question.

If these changes become law, representatives will have clearer obligations, and will be accountable for respecting the rights, wishes and values of the person for whom they are making decisions.

The recommendations have not yet been considered by Parliament and may still evolve before any new laws are passed. It is, however, worth being aware that the roles and obligations of property managers and welfare guardians are likely to change in the coming years.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Trust 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 Trust eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Content Copyright © NZ LAW Limited, 2026.    Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]      Ph: 029 286 3650


It was a busy time at Emilio’s agri business, and Sally noticed that one of his employees, Barry, appeared to be under considerable pressure.

“You should check in with him,” Sally suggested. “If an employee is struggling, you need to take those concerns seriously. Workplace stress can become an employment issue, particularly if an employer is aware that an employee’s health may be affected.”

Employers have obligations to provide a safe and healthy workplace. While they are not expected to diagnose or treat medical conditions, they should not ignore signs that an employee may be struggling.

Where health concerns arise, an employer should listen to the employee, consider whether any support or workplace adjustments may be appropriate, and seek professional advice where necessary.

The key is to address concerns early. Ignoring signs of workplace stress or failing to respond appropriately could create greater problems for both the employee and the employer.

If you are unsure how to handle a situation involving an employee’s health or wellbeing, it is important to seek employment advice before taking action.


Lately, Sally had noticed that Emilio seemed a little distant and distracted. She asked him what was troubling him.

“Mi vida, I am so stressed. Work is so busy. We have orders to fill and my sales manager is having an argument with my chief mechanic!”

Emilio explained that his agritech business was in its peak season and orders were pouring in, but this issue meant the sales team and mechanical team could not communicate. That led to serious delays, angry customers and frustrated suppliers.

Sally suggested that Emilio might need some employment advice about New Zealand employment law.

 

Emilio called his lawyer the next morning. He learned that employers had obligations to act in good faith. He did not realise that employers could raise concerns with employees about their performance or workplace conduct, investigate the facts, and make decisions – provided these were decisions a fair and reasonable employer could make in the circumstances.

 

With guidance from his lawyer, Emilio raised the concerns with the sales manager and the chief mechanic. Quickly, the argument cooled off. Emilio met with each of the employees, and asked them for their side of events. He learned that the manager and mechanic were old friends that had different opinions about the best kind of coffee for the tearoom. The manager had asked office staff to get his favourite Kopi Luwak coffee, and had made a cup for the mechanic, telling him it was something different. The mechanic learned about the prank and was extremely upset.

 

Concluding the investigation, Emilio decided that he would give a written warning to the manager about the prank due to the effect it had on the mechanic, and gave a verbal warning to both employees about allowing the argument to affect the workplace. Since Emilio had caught it early and gave the employees plenty of opportunity to participate, they accepted the outcome and made amends, although the mechanic now brings a thermos to work.

 

Emilio went on to have his best sales season yet, meaning he could afford a holiday to Spain to take Sally to visit his abuela.

 

Jadin Hooper


To Share and Share alike

It was just another Monday, as Simon entered his law office, looking forward to slaking his thirst with a comforting cup of tea. He shrugged off his suit jacket and hung it up. While he waited for his computer to wake itself for the day ahead, he made himself a cup of tea.

 

He was just about to have a sip, when the phone rang. He put the tea down. Reception told him that someone was here to see him, no appointment in place, but it was apparently urgent. Taking a last look at his untouched drink, he went downstairs and shook hands with Reggie, who was flustered, Sally’s cousin.

 

“I’m joining someone in an engineering business, it’s all got to be done by tomorrow for some reason, and I’ve got all this paperwork to sign. In fact, I’ve already signed it and was going to hand it over, but Lory said I better come and see you first. Well, she demanded it.”

 

Simon sat Reggie down in an office, and had a look at the papers provided. Reggie was joining two other people in a company which ran the engineering business, he was going to take over from a current owner, and this all had to happen by 31 March for tax reasons. Simon went back to his room, grabbed his favourite pen, ignored the cold cup of tea on his desk, and returned to an expectant Reggie, who said: “We’re all good to go, aren’t we, can I just pay the money and get on with it?”

 

Simon put down the documents, looked at Reggie, and took a deep breath. “Reggie, there are some really important things to think about first:

 

Due Diligence – how well do you know the people you are going into business with? Do they have experience in the industry, in this company, do they have a good reputation? Are they financially sound, can they help bail the company out of trouble if necessary, have they had money problems in the past?

 

Shareholder Agreement – it is essential that you and the other owners sign an agreement which sets out expectations of each other, whether you will need to put more money into the business, who makes decisions, and when do you all have to agree.

 

You should commit to a timeframe where no one can pull out of the business, and if they do they must offer the shares to each other.”

 

Reggie’s eyes were wide open. “Thanks for this, I’ll have a good chat with the others, I won’t sign anything, and I’ll come back and see you shortly.”

 

Simon waved him goodbye, and poured himself a cup of tea. He knew that was not the end of this story.

 

 

Simon Brdanovic


Rob and Jess have been working as farm assistants for Bob for the past 3 years.

Bob is wanting to take a step back from the day-to-day running of the farm and has proposed that Rob and Jess take a big step up and share milk his farm.

This is a dream come true for Rob and Jess but it is also a bit overwhelming – there is so much to think about and organise.

They need to sign a sharemilking contract, buy cows and machinery and hire staff, as well as find a way to pay for everything!

It is all very new to Rob and Jess and they want to make sure that they are setting themselves up properly.

Rob and Jess meet with their lawyer who advised them on the sharemilking contract, drafted a stock purchase agreement and an employment agreement and assisted them with completing their financing with the bank.

This has made Rob and Jess feel much more relaxed and they can get on with their favourite part – farming!

 

Lucy Sim


A few years on from her decision to take out a reverse equity mortgage, and having enjoyed the benefits of releasing some of the capital tied up in her home, Karen is now feeling less confident about living on her own. Many of her old friends have moved away from her neighbourhood, and she is finding that she would like more support close at hand. She has decided to investigate moving into a retirement village.

This option offers several advantages. Karen would no longer need to worry about home maintenance, security, insurance, or rates. She would have ready access to assistance should she suffer a fall or other medical event. And if she feels like company, there would be plenty of like-minded people nearby.

However, Karen has been warned that there can be significant financial implications when selling a home and buying into a retirement village. To fully understand her position, she meets with her solicitor.

Her solicitor explains that most — though not all — retirement villages operate under Occupation Right Agreements (ORAs). Under an ORA, Karen would pay a capital sum in exchange for the right to live in her chosen unit. She would not own the land or building itself, and her right to occupy the unit would be subject to certain terms and conditions.

These conditions often include payment of a regular weekly fee for as long as the unit is occupied. There is also usually a deferred management fee (sometimes called an exit fee), which is deducted from the original capital sum when Karen leaves the village — whether that is because she chooses to move elsewhere or upon her death. In addition, there will be village rules governing what residents can and cannot do within their units and the wider village.

Karen’s solicitor takes the time to carefully explain the legal and financial implications, including how the move may affect the estate she intends to leave to her family. Once Karen fully understands her options, she is in a position to decide whether a move to a retirement village is the right step for her.

 

Mandy Rasmussen


Sally met up with her sister Samantha and her niece Sarah for coffee at a local café. Sally was excited to see Sarah, as she had recently landed herself her first weekend job working as a waitress in another café in town. Sarah, normally bright and chatty, barely looked up when Sally arrived.

Sally gently asked Sarah how things are going and whether she is enjoying her new job. Sarah quietly answered that she no longer worked at the café. She explained that even though she really enjoyed working at the café, her boss didn’t give her a written employment agreement recording the terms of employment that they agreed on, he never paid her, and he didn’t give her copies of her timesheets when she asked for them. Sarah was too embarrassed to keep asking her boss to give her the documents and to pay her, because he made her feel like she was annoying him and wasting his time. She started feeling really uncomfortable at her job and eventually just stopped going in and she hadn’t heard from her boss since.

Clearly annoyed by Sarah’s work situation, Samantha said that she was going to post about the café and their poor treatment on the local grapevine page.

Sally recalled an article written by Edmonds Judd dealing with defamation and recommended that Samanatha and Sarah rather set up a meeting with her lawyer at Edmonds Judd to get advice on how to resolve the issue.

The team at Edmonds Judd confirmed that Sarah is entitled to all of the basic rights that protect employees, regardless of her age and that this was her first job. Sarah’s boss breached the terms of her employment agreement.

Sarah’s boss was required to:

  • provide her with a written employment agreement;
  • pay her according to the agreement which should provide her hourly wage, frequency of pay and method of pay;
  • keep records in a written form showing for example: time records (including days and hours worked), wage records (including wages paid and how the wages were calculated), and holiday and leave records;
  • record Sarah’s age in his usual wage and time records; and
  • provide Sarah with copies of her employment records if requested.

The team at Edmonds Judd explained to Sarah that given her age and limited time working for her employer, she is entitled to the starting-out minimum wage, but that the parties should have recorded her hourly rate and terms of payment in her employment agreement.

Even though a couple of weeks had passed since she left her employment, she had the right to approach her boss about her dispute. Employees must raise their personal grievance with their employer within 90 days of the issue arising or coming to their attention. If she can’t resolve her dispute with him directly, she is entitled to apply to the Employment Relations Authority for assistance to resolve the dispute.

Her lawyer explained that the first step is to give her boss a written letter setting out what her personal grievance is and how she suggests that the parties resolve it. If communicating with her boss directly does not resolve the matter, then she can apply to the Employment Relations Authority.

Kristin O’Toole


As life moved forward, Luke’s family grew. He now had two children, including Mildred, whom he had adopted. It became important to Luke that both Mildred and his other daughter, Isabelle, were treated equally in his estate planning, so he contacted his lawyer.

Luke updated his will to reflect the new addition to his family. He ensured that his adopted child would be provided for on the same terms as his biological child, leaving no room for uncertainty. At the same time, Luke recognised that several antique items he had inherited from his late mother held special meaning for Sally and should ultimately pass to her. His will therefore specifically gifts those items to his daughter, Isabelle.

Luke appointed his brother and sister as executors and trustees, giving them responsibility for administering the estate. He also provided that the remainder of his estate be held on trust and shared equally between his two children when they reach the age of 18.

Luke also took practical steps to ensure his affairs were in order. He kept a copy of his will, his insurance policies, and a list of his bank accounts together in a secure drawer and made sure his brother and sister knew exactly where to find these important documents if anything were to happen to him. He also ensured they were aware that the original will is held securely at the Edmonds Judd office.

With everything clearly documented and the right people appointed, Luke now has peace of mind knowing his children will be looked after and his wishes will be carried out.

Georgia Willard


It had been a few years since his separation from Sally, but life was looking up for Luke. He got on well with Sally’s new partner, Emilio, and he had a great girlfriend of his own, Yassica.

Luke was co-parenting his daughter with Sally. Yassica also had a young daughter, Mildred, who Luke adored.

Mildred was the result of a happy accident between Yassica and Roy, a young dishwasher who used to work with Yassica at a local restaurant. Yassica welcomed the arrival of Mildred, but Roy had always maintained that fatherhood wasn’t for him.

Luke was aware of Mildred’s parentage, and a few years after being welcomed into Yassica’s home, he decided to talk to her about what the future holds.

“Yassica, listen”, Luke started. “I don’t really want to get married again. I feel like it’s an unnecessary expense, and I don’t need it to justify my love for you”.

“I understand completely” Yassica said. “We have better things to do with our money”.

“That being said, I have a deep affection for you and for Mildred, and I’ve come to think of myself as a father figure for her”

“I agree” Yassica said. “I think she thinks of you in the same way. Are you saying what I think you’re saying?”

“I think so” Luke said. “I think I would like to adopt Mildred”

Luke and Yassica booked an appointment to see a lawyer at Edmonds Judd, who explained the adoption process to them.

“First, we’ll need Roy to consent to the adoption. He would be giving up some pretty important rights. However, if Roy doesn’t want to consent, or if we just can’t get him to sign the consent forms for whatever reason, then we may be able to dispense with his consent, but hopefully it doesn’t come to that because dispensing with consent can be difficult” the lawyer explained.

“Following this, we would need to apply to the Court for an interim adoption order and then a final adoption order. This would give Luke all the rights of parenthood and, as far as the law is concerned, it would be as if Mildred was his own natural daughter.

Roy happily agreed to provide his consent, as he didn’t want to get in the way of Luke and Mildred’s happiness. The Court agreed that an adoption would promote the best interests of Mildred, and that Luke was a fit and proper person to adopt.

Once the interim adoption order was made, Luke and Mildred received a few visits from a social worker, who reported to the Court that all was going well, and after a final adoption order was made by the Court.

Luke, Yassica, and Mildred were delighted, and decided to have a party to celebrate the adoption with friends and family. But the thing with parties, is that not all attendees are always happy to be there…

 

Jamie Graham