Edmonds Judd

News

Updates to the residential tenancies legislation

Animals, Commercial, Employment, House, Latest news, Media, News, Property, Rural
0

Tenancy terminations and pets

The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act 2024 has significantly updated the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 and the laws governing the relationship between landlords and tenants.

Some of these updates took effect on 30 January and others are expected to  roll out in the remainder of 2025. These updates transform the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants – for better or for worse. We summarise the key updates below.

Termination of tenancies

No reason needed to terminate tenancy: Since 30 January 2025, landlords are no longer required to provide a reason to their tenants for terminating a periodic tenancy; they simply have to state they are giving 90 days’ notice of termination. For clarity, a ‘periodic tenancy’ is a standard tenancy with no end date, unlike a ‘fixed term’ tenancy which lasts for a set amount of time, say 12 months. Before 30 January 2025, landlords had to give grounds for terminating a tenancy, such as for demolition or extensive renovations.

Terminating on ‘special grounds’: Landlords now only need to give 42 days’ notice when they are terminating the tenancy on special grounds, including if a family member needs to live in the property as their main residence, or the property has been sold and needs to be vacated for the new owners to take over. Until 30 January,  landlords had to give 63 days’ notice.

More rights for tenants: The legal rights and abilities of tenants have also increased. Tenants now have up to 12 months to apply to the Tenancy Tribunal for an order declaring a termination notice to be unlawful and that the landlord has retaliated against the tenant for enforcing their legal rights, or in response to legal actions taken against the landlord by another person or body. If a tenant applies within 28 days of receiving the termination notice, they can request that the notice be cancelled.

Before 30 January 2025, tenants only had 28 days to apply to the Tenancy Tribunal in respect of a notice in general.

Tenants also now only need to give 21 days’ notice for ending a periodic tenancy. Previously, they had to give at least 28 days’ notice.

The Amendment Act also confirms that tenants may leave their tenancy at shorter notice if they, or one of their dependents, are experiencing family violence.

It will be interesting to see how these amendments play out, especially when reviewing future decisions of the Tenancy Tribunal, including where tenants dispute termination notices. We touch upon other changes and updates to the powers of the Tenancy Tribunal below.

As an aside, the ways in which landlords and tenants can give notice to one another has changed. The Amendment Act confirms that landlords and tenants can give notices in more modern ways, such as over text or messenger, rather than a physical written notice.

Pets

In the second half of 2025, we expect to see major law changes relating to pets kept in rental premises. Landlords will be able to require their tenant to pay a ‘pet bond,’ on top of their original bond, which can  be an additional two weeks’ rent on top of the original bond. A tenant must obtain their landlord’s written consent to keep a pet on the premises. A landlord may refuse the request only on reasonable grounds, including the premises not being suitable for the type of pet or vice versa. It could be that the breed of dog is too large, and/or the nature of the breed is considered destructive or aggressive and/or could be disruptive to neighbouring properties.

If a tenant’s pet dies during the tenancy, the tenant is entitled to ask for the return of the pet bond from the landlord less any compensation for any damage, and reasonable wear and tear attributable to the pet.

We look forward to seeing how these new rules relating to pets play out.

Tenancy Tribunal

Since 20 March 2025, the Tenancy Tribunal should become quicker and more efficient in its day-to-day operations. The Tribunal now has, for example, the ability to determine matters ‘on the papers’ (considering an application and response, then making a decision) without the need for a hearing.

In more complex and technical cases, and where there are major factual disputes, however, it is likely that the Tribunal will still require a proper hearing.

Issues affecting finance and settlement

Employment, Media, News, Online, Property, Retirement, Rural
0

 

Natural disaster risk and insurance

When you have lending secured by a mortgage on your home, it will be a condition of that lending that you have full replacement insurance for your house. This is a requirement for any new lending (and your lender won’t allow you to draw down the loan without seeing evidence that this in place), and an ongoing requirement with existing lending.

Insurers are now commonly asking whether the local council has recorded that a property could be impacted by any natural hazards (for example, whether it is in a flood zone). If it is noted that the property is potentially impacted by a natural hazard, the insurer may have some follow up questions before deciding on whether it will offer insurance. It may ask whether the local council has completed any remedial work to address the hazard, or whether any specific work has been completed with the property to reduce the impact of the hazard, such as the property being built on piles to elevate it above the anticipated flooding level.

Insurers are also asking questions about whether the property has previously been affected by natural hazard events, such as flooding, earthquakes or landslides/slips.  As above, if it has, an insurer is likely to have follow up questions regarding any remedial work that may have been completed.

Depending on the potential hazards, some insurers may be reluctant to offer insurance cover. If you are considering buying a property that could potentially be impacted by natural hazards, we recommend you confirm you can obtain full replacement insurance before submitting an offer or within the period of your finance condition.

Unconsented works: what can go wrong when selling?

Completing work on your property without obtaining a building consent may seem like a good way to renovate your property without the time delays or cost of your local council involvement. It is, however, likely to lead to significant headaches during your ownership or when you sell your property.

Should you suffer a loss to your property that is caused by non-compliant work, such as installing a wet-area shower without a building consent and the shower room then floods and causes water damage to your property, you may find that your insurer declines your claim. Not only can this mean you will need to fund the cost of repairs yourself, but it can also have implications in obtaining other insurance policies in the future as you will need to disclose that you have previously had a claim denied.

When selling your property, you have an obligation to disclose to buyers any work you have completed but for which you have not obtained the required consent. Additionally, buyers will often review either a Land Information Memorandum or the Property File as part of their due diligence. If the buyer (or their lawyer) notices that there are renovations to the property which required a building consent and it was not obtained, the buyer may not be able to obtain insurance or finance.

Any unconsented works will need to be disclosed to both the insurer and the lender.  Depending on the nature of the work (and the insurer), insurers may decline to cover the property with the unconsented work.

If the buyer can’t obtain full replacement insurance, they will not be able to confirm satisfaction of a finance condition. Even if the buyer can obtain insurance, their lender may not accept the property as security; this means the buyer will be unable to confirm satisfaction of the finance condition.

We recommend you always obtain the required building consent before beginning any building work.

If you have already completed work without a building consent, talk to us about the best way to approach your local council to rectify the issue.

If you aren’t sure whether your next project requires consent, Can I Build It is a good tool which can be used as a guideline; the website can be found here.

New deed of lease documentation

Commercial, Employment, House, Media, News, Property
0

Landlords and tenants should be up to date

 

In November 2024, The Law Association of New Zealand (TLANZ), formerly the Auckland District Law Society, released an updated version of the standard form deed of lease document, its 7th edition.

This new edition of the deed of lease (DoL) includes a number of new or varied provisions that TLANZ has included in response to the evolving commercial leasing landscape; in some cases these provisions address pitfalls in earlier DoL editions that sought to deal with issues that arose during Covid. The result is that there are a number of new default provisions for both landlords and tenants to consider when entering into a lease, and new procedures to be aware of that didn’t form part of previous leases.

Rent

Numerous provisions affecting rent, rent adjustment and rent abatement have been included in this new DoL. Where previous DoL editions referred only to CPI or market rent adjustments, the 7th edition includes an option in Schedule 1 to include a fixed rate adjustment for rent. That means that on the rent adjustment date recorded in your lease, the rent will be adjusted by a fixed percentage, rather than an adjustment being based on market rent or a CPI calculation.

There are benefits in this approach for both landlords and tenants. It provides a greater level of certainty for anticipating rent increases for tenants and income for landlords.

In addition to adding this option, the 7th edition has added to Schedule 1 an option to include upper and/or lower limits on rent adjustments. This sets out at the forefront of the DoL limits on any ratchet-type provisions which previously would have been buried in the standard/further terms of the lease.

Again, these provisions can give greater clarity to both parties around the extent of any rent adjustment, where the adjustment is not a fixed rate, and would advise tenants whether an adjustment could result in a lower rent payable (although it is rare that this would be the case).

Outgoings

The outgoings are other expenses under the lease that the landlord passes on to their tenant. The 7th edition requires, as the default position, that the landlord provides an annual budget of outgoings to the tenant.[1]

This is a helpful inclusion for tenants as it provides certainty for budgeting and greater transparency around the costs additional to rent that the tenant must pay. This is invaluable information for anyone looking to enter into a lease and should be reviewed by any prospective tenant prior to entering into a new lease.

Reinstatement

Reinstatement is not a new concept under the lease, although provisions have been added to better define the rights and obligations relating to signage, tenant’s chattels, alterations and the premises overall.

An important aspect of this relates to the tenant’s chattels; this is a new inclusion in Schedule 6. Items listed here will inform the obligations around the removal of tenants’ chattels under the new reinstatement provisions.[2]

Knowing what tenants need to remove, put back and who bears the cost is crucial to understand before entering into a new lease, especially if you plan on modifying the premises in any way before or during the term. A tenant will always need the landlord’s permission to make any changes or alterations, and it is best to get this in writing.

Rent abatement

If at any time a tenant cannot access the premises (or part thereof), they should receive a discount on the rent at the rate that is set out in Schedule 1. This has been included to set a starting point for rent to be discounted during no access periods rather than tenants having to endure a long determination process to agree the discounted rate during the term of the lease.

The rate recorded in Schedule 1 can be reviewed under the terms of the lease and the process for this is clearly set out.[3]

These are just some of the changes that have been included in the Deed of Lease 7th edition. Whether you’re a tenant entering into a new lease for your business or you’re looking to get a lease prepared for a commercial property you own, talk with us so you understand and use these changes to ensure the terms are best suited for you.

 

 

 

[1] Clauses 3.7–3.10 in 7th edition.

[2] Clauses 23.1–23.5.

[3] Clauses 29.3-29.5.

Life Stage – Business

Commercial, Media, News, Property, Retirement
0

Sally is not happy with Luke for crashing their brand-new Tesla. The car only appears to need minor repairs but was bought for the purpose of having a ‘safe’ vehicle for their baby on the way. Time is of the essence as Sally’s due date is approaching

 

Luckily for Luke, his father Steve owns a car repair business. He gives his father a call and is told he can bring the car in right away.

 

Steve feels terrible when his son brings in the brand new Tesla, which appears to be falling apart at the front. He takes a closer look and is relieved, it really is only a few repairs which are needed. He often gives discounts to his family but decides he will do this for Luke free of charge, seeing as him and Sally have a baby on the way and are under a lot of stress.

 

He has been under a lot of stress himself with work as the lease has just run out on his car repair yard. He has leased the property for the last 5 years without any issues. He was friends with the owners and would often invite them for drinks and barbecues, and had no concerns that he would be able to lease for another term. When he found out that they had sold the property to new owners, Steve had noticed no difference at first, as the lease was still in effect with the current terms.

 

As the expiry date was approaching, Steve had gone to the new owners and advised he would like to continue the lease for another term of 5 years. The new owners advised Steve that he had no right of renewal and the lease had expired, but they would provide him with a new lease to sign on their terms. Steve received the new lease and read through it, but he did not like the terms as they were fundamentally different to the original lease.

 

This left Steve with the following options, and just as many concerns:

  1. Accept the new terms and sign the lease – Steve had signed the original lease five years ago without properly looking through it, or understanding it. He had been friends with the landlords and hadn’t anticipated them selling. He should have ensured he had options to renew so he would have more security of this property.
  2. Find a new premises – This is not ideal for Steve. His current premises is right in town and only a five-minute drive from home. However, he is aware that he has not even looked at what other opportunities may exist. His business has expanded a lot in the last few years and this could give him an opportunity to find a property with more room and potentially grow his business even more
  3. Negotiate with the new landlords. If they are unable to find other tenants while Steve is able to find more premises, he will have more bargaining power.

 

Steve sighs as he begins fixing the Tesla. He will search online tonight for available commercially leased properties. He vows to take any new lease to his solicitor before signing to avoid future stress.

Macayla Brdanovic

Fencing Feuds: How the Fencing Act Can Keep the Peace

Commercial, Employment, House, Kids, Latest news, Media, News, Property, Rural
0

Fences may not create friendships, but they do help make properties look tidy and defined. However, disagreements over who should pay for them can quickly turn a friendly wave into a frosty silence. Fortunately, the Fencing Act 1978 sets clear rules to help property owners handle fencing disputes without unnecessary stress.

 

Who Pays for the Fence?

If you are building or replacing a fence on a shared boundary, your neighbour is generally required to share the cost—provided the fence is “adequate,” meaning it’s reasonably fit for purpose. Before you start digging, discuss your plans with your neighbour. If you cannot agree, the Fencing Act provides a formal process to resolve disputes.

 

A Formal Process with Strict Timeframes

If you want your neighbour to contribute, you must serve them with a fencing notice detailing the fence type, cost, and who will build it. They have 21 days to agree or object. If they don’t respond, they are deemed to have accepted and must pay their share.

 

If they object, they must issue a cross-notice within 21 days, outlining their concerns or suggesting changes. If no agreement is reached, mediation, arbitration, a Disputes Tribunal, or a District Court ruling may be needed.

 

Common Fencing Issues

What if my neighbour wants a premium fence, but I prefer something simple?
They can only require you to pay half the cost of an adequate fence—not a luxury upgrade.

 

What if my neighbour sells their house mid-process?
You will need to start over with the new owner.

 

Can my neighbour refuse to let the builder step onto their land?
Yes, but you can seek a court order for reasonable access.

 

What if they damage the fence?
They must cover the full repair cost.

 

What if urgent repairs are needed while they are overseas?
You can fix the fence and recover half the cost when they return.

 

Fencing Around Swimming Pools

If your neighbour installs a swimming pool near the boundary, they must fence it in. You may need to contribute, but only up to the cost of a standard boundary fence.

 

Height Restrictions

Most fences can be built without needing council consent. However, local council rules may impose restrictions, particularly in heritage areas, so it is always worth checking before starting work.

 

Need Help?

Navigating fencing laws can be tricky but getting it right the first time saves headaches. If you need advice or assistance, the team at Edmonds Judd are here to help your fencing project go smoothly— hopefully without neighbourly disputes turning into courtroom battles.

 

Fiona Jack

A loved one has lost capacity, now what?

Employment, Estate, First Job, House, Kids, Media, News, Property, Relationships, Retirement
0

What happens if your loved one loses mental capacity due to illness or accident?  Who will make decisions about whether they need to go into care?  Who can manage their finances to pay for their medical costs and living costs?

 

Hopefully your loved one has enduring powers of attorney in place appointing people to make decisions about their welfare and property.  But what if there are no enduring powers of attorney?

 

In that case, you will need to apply to the Family Court for orders under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 (PPPR).  There are various types of court orders that can be made appointing one or more people to manage someone else’s affairs.  Deciding which court orders to apply for depends on the circumstances and needs of the person who has lost capacity.

 

Before applying to the court, you should be aware of the strict legal obligations and responsibilities you will have if appointed, and that the court will have ongoing oversight to ensure affairs are being managed appropriately.

 

While it may cost a few hundred dollars to get enduring powers of attorney while someone is healthy, it can cost a few thousand dollars to get court orders if  they lose capacity there are no enduring powers of attorney in place.  So, it is a good idea to encourage your loved ones to get enduring powers of attorney while they are still healthy.

Kerry Bowler, Solicitor Kerry Bowler

Handling an employee’s poor performance

Employment, First Job, Latest news, Media, News, Relationships
0

Luke’s juggling a lot right now—his first baby on the way, a crash in Sally’s Tesla, and new business work piling up. But his biggest challenge? His employee, John.

John does not have the experience he made out during his interview and he is not able to complete tasks given to him.

Luke has done his best to mentor John and to train him on the job, but John doesn’t seem to want to learn or improve. Luke is at his wits’ end as his business can’t continue like this. Luke has no idea what to do to fix the situation with John and is not sure if he can just let John go.

First things first, Luke pulls up a copy of John’s employment agreement to see what it says about dealing with poor performance. Luckily for Luke, the employment agreement sets out exactly what he should do as his agreement sets out a process for addressing poor performance. He also recalls his lawyer telling him that the Employment Relations Act requires employers to act in a fair and reasonable way and to act in good faith towards John.

Luke has also realised that he can’t just fire John for his poor performance.

Luke can see that his mentoring John was a good start, but it is clear to him that he now needs to take the formal steps set out in the employment agreement to let John know that he is concerned about his performance and that he will place him on a performance improvement plan.

After having a chat with his lawyer, Luke finds out that some of the steps that he is going to need to take are:

  1. Identify the issues with John’s performance: clearly identify the performance problem, whether it’s related to the quality, quantity, or timeliness of John’s work.

 

  1. Communicate his concerns to John: Luke decides to invite John to a meeting to discuss his performance. He’s then going to meet with John to discuss the performance issues, explaining what areas need improvement and why it’s affecting the workplace.

 

  1. Provide support and clear expectations: Luke realises he needs to offer support, so, he has decided to offer John some further training and additional resources. He’s also going to set clear, achievable performance goals and a reasonable timeframe for improvement, and let John know the possible consequences if his performance does not improve.

 

  1. Monitor John’s progress: Luke has set up some reminders in his diary to monitor John’s progress towards meeting the set performance goals and provide regular feedback during meetings.

 

  1. Hold a formal review: If John’s performance doesn’t improve, Luke will arrange a formal review meeting for John to respond to the feedback.

 

  1. Implementation of further performance improvement plans, final warning or dismissal: If there is still no improvement, Luke now knows that he has some options about how to proceed from there – such as a performance improvement plan, issuing a final warning, or, in more serious cases, proceeding with dismissal.

Luke has decided to keep in touch with his lawyer as he works through the process with John to make sure that he meets his obligations as an employer. He’s keeping his fingers crossed that John will improve, and that a formal review and other actions won’t be necessary.

 

Kristin O’Toole

 

 

 

Succession drama for Rupert Murdoch trust

Media, News, Trusts, Uncategorized
0

How would it play out in New Zealand?

The critically-acclaimed TV show Succession was loosely based on the trials and tribulations of the wealthy media mogul, Rupert Murdoch and his family. Rupert Murdoch controls Fox News and other influential news publications through the US-based Murdoch Family Trust, which he settled in 1999 after his divorce from his second wife, Anna.

 

 

Murdoch Family Trust

The Murdoch Family Trust is an irrevocable trust which owns large shareholdings in various media enterprises. Many American trusts are established as ‘revocable’ trusts, but this trust was settled as an ‘irrevocable’ trust, which means its terms are very difficult to change. They could only be changed by Rupert (the settlor) if he acted in good faith and if the changes were beneficial to the beneficiaries.

The trust’s beneficiaries are Rupert’s children. Different children were set to receive different rights on Rupert’s death. His oldest four children – Prudence, Lachlan, James and Elisabeth – would each receive 25% of the voting rights in relation to the media companies. Rupert’s youngest two children would receive equal shares of the value of the trust’s assets, but they would not have any voting rights.

Some years ago, Rupert became concerned at the different political views amongst his children. Lachlan most closely shared Rupert’s views, but Prudence, James and Elisabeth were thought to be more liberal. Rupert attempted to change the terms of the trust so that after his death, Lachlan, would have sole voting rights and, therefore, more control over the media entities.

The dispute went to court in the state of Nevada. Rupert and Lachlan argued that it was in the interests of family harmony that the terms of the trust be changed and Lachlan given control on Rupert’s death. Prudence, James and Elisabeth argued that it was not in their interests to lose control. The court found that the attempt to change the terms of the trust was not in the interests of the beneficiaries and that it was a ‘carefully crafted charade.’

Rupert and Lachlan say that they will appeal the decision but, for now, the terms of the trust remain in force.

 

 

What would this look like in New Zealand?

If something similar happened in New Zealand, this scenario would look very different from a trust law perspective.

Irrevocable trusts are not generally used in New Zealand; almost all trusts, once settled, exist from that point onward. However, our trusts are usually very flexible. Even if a trust cannot be revoked, it can usually be resettled, varied, or distributed early.

If Rupert Murdoch had settled a trust in New Zealand, it would probably give him discretionary powers to benefit his children during his lifetime. On his death, the trust assets would be divided between his children (or transferred to new trusts for each of them).

Many New Zealand trusts can be resettled onto a new trust with different terms (and sometimes with different beneficiaries). As long as the resettlement is genuinely for the benefit of at least one of the beneficiaries, it is often permitted, even if it is detrimental to others.

If Rupert wanted to significantly change the terms of the trust, and had a resettlement power, he may be able to move the trust assets to a new trust. However, tax problems often arise on resettlement, particularly with commercial assets, so resettlement may not be a good option.

Most New Zealand trusts can be varied, but variation powers are often limited to the terms of the trust relating to management and administration. They cannot usually be used to change the beneficiaries or their entitlements. A variation power might not help Rupert achieve his goals.

New Zealand trusts usually give trustees discretionary powers to distribute income and capital early. If Rupert was a trustee, he may try to transfer the voting rights to Lachlan early – before Rupert’s death. Many New Zealand trusts would allow this, although it would depend on the terms of the trust and how much discretion the trustees were given.

 

 

Conclusion

The New Zealand trust landscape is very different to that in America. Our trusts are often more flexible than an American-style irrevocable trust. If the Murdoch Family Trust  had been settled in New Zealand, Rupert might have found a way to make the changes he wanted. It is also, however, possible that the terms would not have permitted him to make changes at all.

New Zealand trusts can be used for many purposes and drafted with a great deal of flexibility, or very little flexibility. It depends on the terms of the trust used at the outset when the trust is settled. Each family’s needs will be different.

The Murdoch case illustrates how important it is to get things right from the outset to protect the beneficiaries from someone trying to make unexpected changes later.

 

 

 

 

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

Gloriavale

Latest news, Media, News, Uncategorized
0

De-banked!

The Christian Church Community Trust and associated entities (commonly known as Gloriavale) has received a great deal of media attention.

In particular, various allegations have been made that its leaders:

  • Breached a number of employment obligations, including using forced labour and child labour
  • Physically and sexually abused members of the community, including children, and
  • Ignored their legal obligations towards the people in its community, including ensuring their safety.

For many years, Gloriavale has banked with the Bank of New Zealand (BNZ). In July 2022, BNZ notified Gloriavale that it intended to end its contractual relationship and stop providing banking services.

 

 

What happened next?

BNZ originally gave Gloriavale three months to make new banking arrangements. This was extended by agreement, but BNZ did not agree to an extension beyond 30 November 2022.

Gloriavale tried, but was unable, to make alternative banking arrangements within that timeframe. Gloriavale then sued BNZ[1]; it said that BNZ had an obligation to provide it with continued banking services, particularly where there are no other options available. However, as litigation can take many years, this did not solve the problem that BNZ intended to terminate the banking relationship immediately.

Gloriavale therefore made a separate legal application for an injunction. The injunction case was brought alongside the main legal case. The main case argued that BNZ had to provide Gloriavale with continued banking services; this may take years to determine.

The injunction case argued that BNZ had to provide banking services until the main legal case had been determined. The High Court agreed with Gloriavale in the injunction case, but the Court of Appeal overturned that decision in December 2024. The result is that Gloriavale must find a new bank to use while the main legal case against BNZ goes through the court system. This is very significant in light of the evidence that Gloriavale has not been able to find another bank.

 

 

The arguments

An injunction will only be granted where there is a serious question in the main court case. In this case, the question was whether Gloriavale could seriously argue that BNZ was not entitled to end the banking relationship.

BNZ argued that its terms and conditions allowed it to terminate a banking relationship whenever it wishes. Just as a customer can fire a bank at any time, a bank can fire a customer. The bank’s terms and conditions allowed it to decline to provide any product or service without needing to give a reason. It simply no longer wanted to work with Gloriavale.

Gloriavale argued that BNZ had to act reasonably and, that if it was concerned about recent allegations, it should have asked Gloriavale for more information rather than giving notice of termination with no warning. BNZ might have been wrong, and it would be unfair for the bank to cancel if they did not at least take steps to find out if they were right.

 

 

Court of Appeal decision

The Court of Appeal found that the main court case was weak. The banking contract did not require BNZ to undergo any kind of consultation process, to act reasonably or to verify any concerns it might have before terminating the banking relationship. BNZ did not act in bad faith; it had concerns that the Gloriavale community acted inconsistently with a variety of basic human rights and it no longer wanted Gloriavale as a customer. This was actually quite reasonable, as it transpired that other banks also did not want to work with Gloriavale.

Other arguments made on behalf of Gloriavale were similarly not persuasive.

While the Court of Appeal was only considering the issues on an interim basis, and the main court case would still continue to a full court hearing, the court did not find that Gloriavale had strong enough arguments to justify forcing BNZ to provide banking services in the meantime. It therefore overturned the High Court’s decision to issue an injunction.

 

 

What next?

Gloriavale is a complicated commercial enterprise and it will need to find alternative banking arrangements. It will be interesting to see which trading bank will offer those services, when it seems that a number of banks have already declined.

It will also be interesting to see what happens in the underlying court case. Gloriavale is still arguing that the BNZ could not terminate the banking relationship. While the Court of Appeal doesn’t think the arguments were strong, it is possible that a later judge will disagree after hearing the full argument. Gloriavale could still be successful and, if so, could pursue BNZ for any losses suffered due to the termination.

Banks are in a position of power in their customer relationships. Their terms and conditions usually let them terminate a relationship with a customer at any time. This is highly relevant for people or organisations that do not have many options.

[1] Bank of New Zealand v The Christian Church Community Trust & Ors [2024] NZCA 645.

 

 

 

 

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

Annual Leave and the Path to Parenthood: Luke’s Story

Employment, First Job, House, Kids, Latest news, Media, News, Uncategorized
0

Luke is very excited about the impending birth of his first child and is taking the time to reflect on his life so far. As he is driving to the store to pick up some groceries, he recalls the first job he ever had – working as a bartender in a lovely little Scottish pub in Dunedin. His pay wasn’t significant back in those days, but he worked hard and he saved his pennies. It wasn’t long before he’d saved up enough to go on a big holiday!

Luke had always dreamed of flying to Indonesia to see the Komodo dragons in the wild. Once he was sure he had enough in the bank, he went to ask his manager, Mr Moyes, if he could have some time off.

“Tell me lad,” Mr Moyes said, furrowing his brow, “how long have you been working for me now?”

“Why, nearly six months, Mr Moyes! I reckon I deserve a break” Luke said, sheepishly. Beads of sweat began to drip down his pimply face.

“Well, Luke,” Mr Moyes began, shifting uncomfortably in his seat, “it’s not that I don’t think you deserve a nice holiday. Aye, you’re an excellent worker, and you have a knowledge of whisky as fine as any Scotsman! But I just wonder, won’t the shortfall from the lack of wages during your holiday be an issue?”

Luke gulped.

“But sir, I thought I would simply take annual leave. After all, I’ve accrued ten days’ worth. That’s more than enough for my holiday, assuming it doesn’t take longer than that to find the Komodo dragons.”

“Well, you see Luke,” Mr Moyes responded, offering a wry grin. “Here in Aotearoa New Zealand, you can’t actually take annual leave until you’ve been working continuously at the same place for 12 months. You continue to accrue it, yes, but there’s no entitlement to actually take the accrued leave until your first anniversary of employment. You can take annual leave you’ve accrued before then, but this is at my sole discretion, being your gaffer and all”.

“Oh,” Luke exclaimed, crestfallen. He had so been looking forward to travelling to Indonesia. Mr Moyes looked him up and down and sighed.

“Tell ya what lad, I think we’ll manage without you. You can take the leave you’ve accrued, no problem”.

Luke jumped for joy. He was going to Indonesia! He paused, wondering if he could try his luck further.

 

“Actually Mr Moyes, how would you feel if I went to Indonesia for three weeks instead of two?” Mr Moyes jumped out of his seat.

“That’s a bit cheeky!” he said, his eyes as big as wagon wheels. “But alright, you can take leave that you haven’t accrued yet in this country too, also at my own discretion. Just be warned, though. If you leave my employ before you’ve accrued that extra week of leave, I’ll require you to pay me back. Every cent!”

Mr Moyes’s warning fell on deaf ears though, as Luke could think only about Indonesia, sipping on coconuts and surveying the local fauna.

Of course, Mr Moyes was right.  Most employees are entitled to four weeks of annual holidays, and they start accruing this leave from their first day on the job. Accrued leave then sits there, unused, until the 12-month anniversary of your employment. Your employer can let you take the leave you’ve accrued before the 12-month anniversary, but this is at their sole discretion.

 

You can also take leave before you’ve accrued it but this can be risky, as you may have to pay your employer the difference, if you resign before it’s accrued.


Luke snapped back to reality. He hadn’t worked for Mr Moyes for some time now, but he would always remember his words and his warning. He smiled, and thought about the life lessons he would pass down to his child. Unfortunately, contemplating this was very distracting for Luke, and he crashed into the car in front of him! Luckily, no one was hurt, but Luke wondered what Sally would think of him crashing her brand new Tesla…

 

Jamie Graham