Edmonds Judd

Online

It felt like Bob’s life had been turned upside down. Not only had his father, Steve, passed away recently leaving him upset and overwhelmed, but his burger bar business was also struggling. Bob had put all his life savings into his burger bar, which he opened 6 months prior. Further adding to the stress, Bob currently did not have a home. He had been couch-surfing at friends places while he saved up enough to rent a place of his own.

 

After a few difficult months, Steve’s estate was finally settled. As one of the beneficiaries, Bob received a substantial inheritance. Though the money offered some relief, Bob knew he needed to use it wisely. His first step: finding a home. He realised that in order to take care of his business and himself, he needed a stable place to live and rest, putting him in a better frame of mind to make smart business decisions.

 

As Bob now had more funds than he had expected to receive from years of working, he decided this was the right time to buy a property rather than rent. He browsed listings on local real estate websites and soon found a small, tidy place in a quiet neighbourhood—within his budget and close to his burger bar.

 

He decided to call his lawyer and ask for the things he should consider before making an offer. His lawyer guided him through several key considerations:

 

  1. Conditions in the Sale and Purchase Agreement: He needed to decide whether he wanted to include conditions in the agreement. He already had the funds available for the purchase so he did not need to make it conditional on finance. Bob did not realise that he could also include other conditions such as a LIM report, builders report, and toxicology report. Bob decided to include each of these as it was better to make sure there were no big issues before being locked in a deal.

 

  1. KiwiSaver: If Bob has KiwiSaver funds, he would need to fill out an application to withdraw the funds from his provider. He would need a solicitor to witness him signing this as it could not be left until the last minute.

 

  1. Insurance: The lawyer stressed to Bob the importance of checking he could obtain insurance cover for the property prior to going unconditional. Also, if there were any issues under the builders report / LIM report / toxicology report, he would need to disclose said issues with his insurer.

  1. Relationship Property: Bob had not had the time to date with everything going on but was made aware to obtain advice in this regard once he had a partner in the future.

 

Bob took all the advice into consideration and obtained all recommended reports. Within weeks, his purchase when unconditional, and weeks after, settled.

 

Bob was beyond happy, he now felt as though he had the stability he had been searching for. This feeling lasted only a few minutes though as Bob was about to receive a call in relation to his business that would change everything…

 

 

Macayla Brdanovic 

 

 


Are you an artist, a composer, an author? Are you in a relationship? If so, then you need to seriously consider a contracting out agreement.

 

Copyright is treated as relationship property for the purposes of deciding who gets what at the end of a relationship. This means that, if you separate, your ex could have a claim over the copyright in your work.

 

Owning copyright in your work means that you have the exclusive right to control how your work is used. Importantly, owning copyright means that you can prevent someone from making copies of your work. But, if it ends up in the hands of your ex? Well, that could lead to results that you won’t like. For example:

 

  • That novel you slaved over for weeks, months, and years part-time while you were working on a construction site during the day? Your ex might be able to sell copies of it after the relationship is over and make money from your efforts.
  • That series of paintings you lovingly painted and kept in your own private collection, while you successfully commercialised the rest of your works? Your ex might be able to have t-shirts made for sale with copies of those paintings in your private collection.
  • That carving you created painstakingly on your weekends off? Your ex might be able to flood the market with thousands of copies, devaluing your sculpture and the prestige.

 

If you want to avoid this outcome, then your best option to reduce this risk is to enter a contracting out agreement with your partner.  Under a contracting out agreement, you and your partner can agree who gets what in the unfortunate event that your relationship doesn’t stand the test of time. If you want a contracting out agreement, you’ll need to see a lawyer to make sure that you comply with the legal requirements for these agreements and ensure your best chance of any agreement being enforceable in Court.


A change in approach?

The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) will turn 17 years old in September. An integral part of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Act 2008, the ETS has undergone significant change throughout its existence.

 

What is the ETS?

The ETS is New Zealand’s main tool for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It essentially works by requiring participating businesses to measure and report on their greenhouse gas emissions. Businesses that participate in the scheme must surrender what is known as an ‘emissions unit’ for each tonne of carbon dioxide that they emit. One tonne of CO2 will cost you one emissions unit.

Over time, the government will reduce the number of units that are supplied into the ETS. The effect of this is that emissions units increase in demand as participating businesses buy and sell emissions units from each other. The price of emissions units in the ETS will (in theory) trend upwards, helping New Zealand to steadily move towards the goal of being a net zero emitter of greenhouse gas by 2050.

 

Recent developments in the ETS

There has been some concern regarding the conversion of productive farmland into forestry in order to gain emissions units. The government has announced changes to the ETS; its aim is to strike a balance between achieving New Zealand’s climate goals, and protecting the longevity of our most profitable farmland.

The government has signalled that the proposed changes to the ETS will be formally introduced to the House this year, with the new rules expected to come into force by October 2025.

 

All trees created equal?

The most significant proposed change to the ETS is the temporary prohibition of the registration of exotic forestry (non-native) for emissions units on Land Use Capability (LUC) 1–5 farmland. LUC separates land into eight categories based on an assessment of the land’s capability for use. LUC Class 1 land is the most versatile, with LUC Class 8 land being the least versatile.

At present, any tree can be planted on any farmland to earn emissions units (provided the tree species planted can reach at least five metres in height). This means there is no incentive to prioritise the planting of native trees over the planting of exotic species, such as the Radiata pine.

The proposed changes will also require ETS participants to exercise greater discretion in choosing which areas of farmland to plant on; should you wish to plant an exotic species, you must do so on your less productive land.

 

A flexible approach

The proposed rules are not entirely hard and fast as there is some wriggle room for ETS participants. Up to 25% of LUC Class 1–6 land on a farm can be used to plant exotic forestry for the purpose of registering it under the ETS.

The proposed new rules have also scrapped plans to include agricultural processors (meat processors, dairy processors, nitrogen fertiliser manufacturers and importers, live animal exporters) in the ETS. Agricultural processors had been due to enter the ETS from 1 January 2025, but the passing of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading Scheme Agricultural Obligations) Amendment Bill on 26 November 2024 has stopped this.

 

Why the changes?

The proposed changes clearly signal the government’s desire to promote the planting of native species. It appears, however, that consideration has been given to the idea that ETS participants have benefitted from the planting of exotic species that can be planted en masse and grow quickly. This practice will remain, with the caveat being that it will need to take place on less productive farmland.


 

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.


In a recent decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal an employer has been ordered to pay an ex-employee damages of $60,000 for interfering with the employee’s privacy.

 

The CEO invited the employee out of the office for a coffee meeting. During that meeting, the CEO gave the employee a letter detailing concerns about the employee’s performance. While they were out of the office, a director of the employer took the employee’s work laptop, personal USB flash drive, and personal cell phone from the employee’s desk without the employee’s consent or knowledge.

 

About a week later, the employee’s employment was terminated.

 

The employer later returned the personal cell phone, but did not return the personal information that had been stored on the work laptop or the employee’s USB drive.

 

Despite several requests over a long period of time, the employer failed to return the employee’s personal information and USB drive. Instead, the employer effectively blocked the employee’s attempt to obtain the return of his information, engaging in a range of tactics that delayed the return of the information.

 

The Tribunal found that the employer had collected the employee’s personal information when uplifting the laptop, cell phone and USB. It went onto find that the employer had breached information privacy principles 1, 2, and 4 of the Privacy Act 1993 because the employer had not collected the personal information for a lawful purpose or directly from the employee, and the personal information was collected in circumstances that were unfair and constituted an unreasonable intrusion on the employee’s personal affairs.

 

The Tribunal went on to determine that the breaches were an interference with the employee’s privacy as they had caused significant humiliation, injury to feelings and loss of dignity to the employee. In support of this finding, evidence had been provided by the employee that three weeks after the collection of his information, he was formally diagnosed with acute anxiety and depression, prescribed antidepressants, and sleeping medication. The employee had also started attending counselling.

 

The employer argued that the health conditions were caused by the loss of work, not by breaches of the collection principles. However, the collection does not need to be the sole cause of the consequences suffered.

 

Emails and other correspondence in evidence showed that the health conditions were attributable to distress about the collection of the information, including the inability to retrieve it, and not knowing who had seen it, and who was using and sharing the personal information

 

The Tribunal also found that the collection had caused the employee loss and detriment when he couldn’t complete his tax return on time, leading to a penalty. It also negatively affected his interests as it impacted his health, his career prospects and removed access for him to a personal USB and he did not have access to all his personal information that had been on his laptop.

 

The Tribunal found that an award of damages of $60,000 appropriately reflected the significant level of humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings experienced by the employee because of the wrongful collection of his personal information.

 

A prompt return of the personal information wrongly collected would have significantly reduced the humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings experienced and therefore the amount of any award.

 

This claim was decided under the Privacy Act 1993 because the actions all occurred prior to that act being replaced by the Privacy Act 2020. However, it is still relevant to conduct under the 2020 Act – information privacy principles 1 – 4 and the test to show an interference with privacy has remained largely unchanged.

 

The decision is: BMN v Stonewood Group Ltd [2024] NZHRRT 64.

 

Joanne Dickson


The Supreme Court recently issued its much-anticipated ruling in A, B and C v D and E Limited as Trustees of the Z Trust known as the Alphabet case. It concerns the extent of fiduciary duties owed by a parent to an adult child. ⚖️

The case involves a father, who transferred most of his assets to a trust during his lifetime, leaving his adult children without any entitlement to those assets. The children argued that due to past abuse they suffered at their father’s hands, including physical, emotional abuse and sexual abuse, their father owed them fiduciary duties that extended into adulthood. They believed his actions in transferring assets breached those duties, and the assets should revert to his estate to satisfy their Family Protection Act claims to be provided for from his estate.

While the Court agreed that fiduciary duties exist between a parent and minor child, it ruled that those duties generally end once the child reaches adulthood or the caregiving responsibility ends. The Court rejected the notion that such duties continued into adulthood, despite the children’s vulnerability due to the abuse they suffered during childhood. Importantly, the Court noted that imposing fiduciary duties in this case would create legal uncertainty and “reverse engineer” a remedy for past wrongdoing.

The Court also ruled against treating the trust assets as part of the father’s estate. However, it acknowledged the need for legal reform in this area and pointed to the Law Commission’s 2022 proposal to allow courts to unwind property transactions that intentionally defeat claims under succession law.

While the Court was sympathetic to the appellants, it ultimately found that the law could not support their claim in this case. The ruling highlights the need for further reform in this area of law, which the Law Commission’s proposals may address in the future.

Kerry Bowler, Solicitor Kerry Bowler


When your livestock are grazing away from your property, your legal obligations as their owner under the Animal Welfare Act don’t go on holiday. It’s your duty to ensure their care meets the required standards, and that means staying actively involved in their well-being.

Here’s why regular checks and oversight are non-negotiable:

  1. Weighing and Monitoring
    Insist that the grazier regularly weighs your animals and provides detailed reports. But don’t just rely on the numbers—attend these weighing sessions periodically to verify the accuracy of the data and get a firsthand look at your animals’ condition.
  2. Feed and Water
    Livestock require enough feed to maintain good health and condition. Check that they have consistent access to high-quality, clean water to prevent dehydration and support overall well-being.
  3. Safe Surroundings
    Ensure the grazing environment is safe, free from hazards, and appropriate for the type of stock being grazed. Unsafe conditions can lead to injuries, poor health, and stress for your animals.
  4. Signs of Illness or Injury
    Early detection is key to preventing long-term issues. Look for signs of lameness or other health concerns. Timely treatment can make the difference between a full recovery and chronic problems like susceptibility to bone damage or ongoing mobility issues.
  5. Correct Handling
    Observe how your animals are being handled. Poor handling practices can lead to stress, injuries, or behavioural issues. It’s your responsibility to ensure they’re treated with care and respect.
  6. Accountability
    Don’t take a “set and forget” approach to sending livestock out for grazing. Visit them regularly to ensure the care described by the grazier matches the reality. This keeps the grazier accountable and ensures you’re meeting your obligations as an owner.
  7. Development of Young Stock
    For young stock, this period is critical to their growth and development. Regular monitoring ensures they’re meeting weight targets, growing at a healthy pace, and building the foundation for a productive future.

Ultimately, livestock owners must remain hands-on, even when animals are in someone else’s care. Regular checks safeguard their well-being and ensure you’re compliant with the Animal Welfare Act. After all, your animals rely on you to advocate for their welfare, wherever they are.


If someone has made a harmful/damaging statement about you or your business online, your first step should be to notify the online platform that is hosting the offending content – e.g. Trademe, Facebook, etc. Platform hosts often have an easy method to allow you to report the post.  On Facebook for example, if you hit the three dots at the top of the post, the popup menu includes a “report post” option.

 

You can ask Netsafe for help. Netsafe’s services are free of charge.  It is approved under the Harmful Digital Communications Act (HDCA) to investigate complaints about online abuse and intimidation, like bullying, harassment, and revenge porn – which can include online defamatory statements.

 

Netsafe has relationships with many online platforms and can negotiate on your behalf to have the material taken down.

 

Another option is to send the author of the content a cease and desist letter – a lawyer can help with this.

 

The last option is to bring proceedings in court under the Defamation Act – again, a lawyer can help you with this too.

 

Wishing you a defamation-free holiday season!

Joanne Dickson