Edmonds Judd

Relationships

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

 

 

 

Disinheriting your children

Estate, Kids, Property, Relationships, Trusts
0

Can it be done?

In New Zealand, people making wills have a great deal of freedom to dispose of their assets as they wish. If, however, a will-maker entirely excludes some close family members from their will, those people will often have claims against the will-maker’s estate.

In the recent case of what is known as the Alphabet case,[1] an abusive father tried to use a trust to disinherit his children on his death.

 

 

Family Protection Act 1955

The Family Protection Act 1955 is designed to protect family members who have been excluded from a will or left without adequate provision. It allows certain groups of people (including spouses, partners and children) to claim against an estate for further provision.

The court follows a two-step approach when evaluating claims under the Act. First, it must decide whether the will-maker owed a duty to the claimant and, if so, whether that duty has been breached. Second, the court must consider what is required to remedy the breach.

The court takes a conservative approach in making awards for further provision. It will do no more than the minimum that it believes is necessary to address any breach of duty. There is no presumption of equal sharing between children, and the court will not rewrite a will based on its own perception of fairness. There is no formula, however, for assessing what is required to remedy a breach; each case depends on its own facts.

Important factors will include the size of the estate, the claimant’s personal circumstances and other competing claims (such as from siblings or a parent/stepparent). In many cases, however, a financially stable adult child might expect to receive 10–15% of a parent’s estate. That could increase if a child is in poor circumstances or has suffered abuse at the hands of their parent.

 

 

Making a successful claim

When a successful claim is made under the Act, the award will be paid from the deceased’s estate. That necessarily means that claims are limited by the size of the estate. If a will-maker has gifted or transferred assets to a trust during their lifetime, or to other people, their estate may have little or nothing left in it. This has the effect of preventing estate claims because there is no estate available.

In the Alphabet case, an abusive father transferred his assets into a trust. His children wanted to bring claims against his estate, but there was nothing in it. They argued that they should effectively be able to unwind the transfer of assets to the trust, so that those assets went back into their father’s estate, and they could bring claims under the Act. This case went all the way to the Supreme Court.

 

 

Alphabet case

In the Alphabet case, the deceased father was referred to as Robert, and his children as Alice, Barry and Cliff. Alice, Barry and Cliff experienced egregious abuse at Robert’s hands and, understandably, did not have a relationship with him.

Robert took deliberate action during his lifetime to transfer most of his assets to a trust. None of his children were beneficiaries of that trust.

Alice, Barry and Cliff argued that Robert owed them fiduciary duties as a parent, and that he breached those duties when he abused them. They argued that the abuse created an ongoing fiduciary obligation which Robert breached when he transferred his assets into a trust. They argued that the transfer of assets could (and should) be unwound on this basis, and Robert’s assets returned to his estate; this would allow them to make claims under the Act.

Fiduciary duties are duties to put someone else’s interests before your own. They usually arise in relationships of particular trust and confidence. The Supreme Court acknowledged the existence of fiduciary duties between a parent and a minor child, but it found that these duties ended when the parent’s caregiving responsibilities ceased. It did not agree that there remained a fiduciary duty owing later on which would prevent Robert transferring his assets to a trust.

The court noted that the Act does not contain any mechanism to ‘claw back’ assets which have been put in a trust or transferred to another person in order to avoid estate claims. It noted that this might be the subject of future law reform but it was not existing law.

Robert’s three children therefore failed in their attempt to bring assets back into Robert’s estate, on which they could then have made Family Protection Act claims.

 

 

Law Commission

The Law Commission recently prepared a comprehensive review of succession law. It proposed that some form of anti-avoidance, or ‘claw back’ provision, be included in any law reform efforts that would address situations such as the Alphabet case.

While the government has considered the Law Commission’s report, it has not yet taken any steps to progress law reform efforts. For the time being, this means trusts may continue to be used in order to prevent some potential estate claims, particularly those brought by children.

[1] A, B and C v D and E Limited as Trustees of the Z Trust [2024] NZSC 161

 

 

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

Failure to return an employee’s personal information led to expensive results for an employer

Commercial, Employment, First Job, Latest news, Media, News, Online, Relationships, Social Media, Trusts
0

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

📢 Supreme Court Decision: Fiduciary Duties and Parent-Child Relationships

House, Kids, Media, News, Online, Property, Relationships
0

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

Parental Leave: What to Know When You’re Expecting

House, Kids, Relationships
0

Meet Luke and Sally. They’ve been together for about a year, and now they have some exciting news—Sally is pregnant with their first baby! Amid the joy, Sally wants to find out what her pregnancy means for her job and what leave she can take once the baby arrives.

Pregnancy Rights at Work

First things first: the law protects pregnant employees. Under the Human Rights Act, it’s illegal for anyone to treat Sally unfairly because of her pregnancy. In fact, employers can (and often do) offer extra support, like flexible work hours, to make things easier for expecting mothers.

Understanding Parental Leave

Sally is planning to be her child’s main caregiver, so she looks into her parental leave options under the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act (let’s call it the Parental Leave Act for short).

The Parental Leave Act defines a primary carer as the biological mother (or another person, like a partner, in certain situations). If you’re the primary carer, you may be entitled to:

  • Unpaid parental leave from your employer, and
  • Paid parental leave payments, which are handled through Inland Revenue.

How Long Has Sally Been at Her Job?

What Sally qualifies for depends on how long she’s worked for her employer and how many hours she’s worked each week. Let’s break it down:

  1. 6-Month Test:
    If Sally has worked for her employer for at least an average of 10 hours a week in the 6 months before her baby’s due date, she qualifies for:

    • Up to 26 weeks of unpaid leave, and
    • Up to 26 weeks of parental leave payments.
  2. 12-Month Test:
    If Sally has worked for at least 10 hours a week in the 12 months before her baby’s due date, she’s eligible for:

    • Up to 26 weeks of paid parental leave, and
    • Extended unpaid leave of up to 52 weeks total.

Good news for Sally—she meets the 12-month test, so she’s entitled to the full benefits.

What About Luke?

Sally and Luke also have the option to share parental leave. If they decide Luke will be the primary carer at any point, he can take over Sally’s entitlements, but this means Sally would no longer have primary carer benefits during that time.

If Luke doesn’t take over as the primary carer, he can still apply for partner’s leave:

  • 1 week if he’s worked 10+ hours weekly for the last 6 months, or
  • 2 weeks if he’s worked 10+ hours weekly for the last 12 months.

What Does Sally Need to Do?

To take parental leave, Sally must give her employer at least 3 months’ notice before her due date. She’ll also need to include a certificate from her midwife confirming her pregnancy and due date.

Need Help?

Parental leave laws can seem complicated, but knowing your rights can make the process smoother. If you’re unsure about your entitlements or how parental leave might affect your job, we’re here to help—just reach out!

 

Kristin O’Toole

 

Relationship Property Claims by Children – Part 2

Kids, Property, Relationships
0

Our last article discussed claims by a partner on separation or death.

 

Conversely, some blended families want to provide for their new partner on their death and seek to minimise the risk of a claim by their respective children.

 

Under the Family Protection Act (FPA), parents owe a moral obligation to make adequate provision for their children in their Will.

 

To minimise the risk of FPA claims, couples may change the ownership of their assets so that those assets do not form part of their estate and are not open to claims under the FPA.

 

Some common ownership structures include:

 

  1. Transferring property into a discretionary family trust; and/or
  2. Transferring property into joint names so that it passes by survivorship on death.

 

These ownership structures make it more difficult for children to make claims against estates.

 

However, section 88 of the Property Relationships Act (the Act) allows an executor to make an application for division of relationship property against the surviving partner, where refusing them the right to do so would cause a “serious injustice”. If an executor is not willing to make the claim, the deceased’s children may apply to the court to have them removed.

 

If most relationship property is jointly owned or was transferred to a trust during a relationship, then that could meet the threshold for a serious injustice. In these circumstances the court may divide relationship property so that the estate has property available for the children to make an FPA claim.

 

A contracting out agreement is one of the only tools that can help to prevent these types of claims.

Libby McDonnell

Relationship Property Claims by a Partner – Part 1

Property, Relationships, Trusts
0

A Contracting Out Agreement (COA) is an estate planning necessity for blended families.

 

The relationship property landscape is changing, and some popular protection tools are becoming less effective. Trust busting cases like Clayton v Clayton show the court’s willingness to treat trust property as relationship property in the event of separation, especially where assets are transferred into a trust during a relationship.

 

A COA is the most effective tool to ensure a couple’s assets and liabilities are divided as they intended on separation or death.

 

If there is no COA, then couples in a marriage, de facto relationship or civil union are exposed to claims against potentially all of their assets and liabilities (even if in trust) on a 50/50 basis.

 

On death, the surviving partner can elect to either:

 

  • Apply for division of relationship property in accordance with the Property (Relationships) Act (the Act), the presumption being a 50/50 split; or

 

  • Accept the gift under their partner’s Will and retain any individually and jointly owned property.

 

A COA can prevent a surviving partner (or their children, as discussed in our next article) from making a claim for division of relationship property under the Act on death.

  Libby McDonnell.

COULD YOUR FOREIGN PRE-NUP BE A PRE-NOPE?

Overseas, Relationships
0

Customs officials seize goods at Aotearoa New Zealand’s ports of entry every day, from fruit and veg and animal parts to firearms and illegal drugs. But one thing we don’t expect to be stopped at the border is the validity of pre-nuptial agreements from overseas.

 

Hundreds of thousands of migrants come to our shores every year in search of pastures new. Many of these migrants, particularly those who come from a country with a similar legal system, will have relationship property agreements that were drawn up and signed in their home countries. It may come as some surprise to these folks that their legal documents won’t necessarily be upheld by our courts.

 

This is where you might be tapping your forehead as you triumphantly exclaim “Aha! But section 7A of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 says that agreements from overseas are valid here!”

 

Well yes, sometimes they are. The Act provides that, if spouses have agreed in writing that the property law of a country other than New Zealand is to apply, and if their agreement is valid according to the laws of that country, then the Act will not apply. However, the courts have been slow to give blanket authorisation to every such agreement. One example is a classic South African ante-nuptial agreement designed to opt-out of the accrual system in South Africa. Previously the courts have said that this kind of agreement is designed to opt-out of South African property law alone, and that it is not designed to apply the world over.

 

There are quite a few different factors the courts will consider when deciding whether to uphold a foreign relationship property agreement. One of these is a requirement that the agreement expressly invokes the application of foreign law. This can be a problem because so few relationship property agreements anywhere in the world are drafted to apply outside of the country in which they are signed.

 

This is where your alarm bells might be going off. How is a couple in say, South Africa, who might have no idea that they will migrate to New Zealand in a few years’ time, supposed to know and contemplate how our relationship property laws might apply? It’s a headache they don’t know they will have!

 

If you have a contracting out agreement, pre-nuptial agreement, pre-marital agreement or antenuptial agreement from overseas and you think there is even the slightest chance that you may need to rely on it, then seek independent legal advice. Edmonds Judd can help advise you on whether the courts are likely to uphold it or if a new agreement should be entered into (assuming you and your spouse both agree). In New Zealand, contracting out agreements can be entered into before or during the de facto relationship or marriage, but bear in mind that legal entitlements may be quite different under New Zealand law.

 

Jamie Graham

Why should I look at my will?

Estate, Kids, Property, Relationships, Retirement
0

Review at life’s milestones

You should review and update your will regularly. It is not something that, once done, you should just stick in a drawer and forget about. There are many significant milestones in life when you should think about whether your will is still appropriate for your unique circumstances.

 

If you don’t often review your will, particularly after important life milestones, you may discover (or worse, your family may discover after your death) that your will does not leave everything the way you intended. This means that certain people or causes may miss out on an inheritance or a gift in your will. Also, out-of-date wills can cause significant complications for the people involved in the management and distribution of your estate.

 

With the summer holidays coming up and some time away from the treadmill of daily life, this is an ideal time to review your will.

 

Buying a home is a milestone

Many people make a will when buying their first home. Although there is no reason why you cannot make a will before then, this is often the trigger when it feels like you have something significant to leave in your will. If you buy your home with someone else, usually you will want to leave the house to that person when you die. However, this is not always the case, particularly if you are not in a romantic relationship with that person.

 

If you have children from a previous relationship, you may want to ensure your partner can continue living in the house when you die but, ultimately, you want your children to inherit your share of the house. You may have borrowed money from other family members to help with the purchase that you need to repay first. Your will should be carefully drafted to make sure it truly reflects your intentions.

 

Joint ownership vs tenants in common: The ownership structure of your home, or any asset for that matter, is also very important to understand. ‘Jointly owned’ assets pass to the surviving owner/s when one owner dies. Assets which are owned as ‘tenants in common’ remain part of a person’s estate when they die and will be distributed under that person’s will.

 

Many people are not sure, or forget what type of ownership they have, especially if their house was bought many years ago. If you are unsure, or the ownership structure of your asset/s changes, you should review your will to make sure that everything will still be distributed as you want after your death. You should also review the ownership structure at the same time.

 

Marriage, separation and divorce

Getting married, separated or divorced are all events that have a significant effect on how your will might operate when you die. If you have a will and subsequently get married or enter into a civil union, your will is automatically revoked, unless your will is specifically worded as being in contemplation of that marriage or civil union. If it is not, you could effectively be left without a valid will, even though you have made one in the past.

 

In the case of a separation order or divorce, your existing will is not revoked but the law states that your spouse or partner is treated as having died immediately before you. This means any gifts to them will be void and, instead, any backup provisions in your will would come into effect. You should update your will after a separation or divorce to ensure that it will operate as you intend.

 

It is also important to know that the simple act of ‘breaking up’ with someone is not enough to have gifts to that person automatically voided. You should take the additional steps of obtaining a formal separation order or an order dissolving the marriage, and reviewing your will. If not, you could be left in the awkward situation of leaving everything in your will to your ex-spouse or partner – which may be a very unpalatable idea for some!

 

Birth or adoption of children

There’s a lot to think about when welcoming a child into your family and a review of your will may not be high up on the to do list. Your will should, however, assign guardianship of your children and account for their future needs, particularly if your child has special needs requiring a higher level of assistance. If there is a significant age gap between your children or you have children from different relationships, your will may need to be tailored to account for this.

 

Death of an executor, beneficiary or guardian

Executors are the people you name in your will to manage and distribute your estate when you die. A will-maker will often appoint a family member or someone to whom they are very close to carry out this role. It is important to have an executor who you trust who will do a good job.

The death of an executor, beneficiary or a guardian of your young children means your will may not work as intended or could create confusion. Do review your will if this happens or should your executor’s circumstances or health change.

 

Significant changes in financial position

Receiving a large inheritance or a significant capital gain on, say, property or business assets (or perhaps winning Lotto!) can significantly alter how you want your estate to be distributed when you die. You may decide to include additional beneficiaries – perhaps more distant family members or friends, or leave a gift to a charity that you care passionately about.

Although it’s not always the case, estates of relatively higher value are often more complex and require greater planning to ensure that everything runs smoothly when you die.

 

What if I don’t have a will?

If you die without a will (called an ‘intestacy’), your assets will be distributed according to the default rules established by law. Depending on your circumstances and who survives you, your assets would usually go to some combination of your spouse or de facto partner, children, parents and siblings. Even if some family members are estranged from you, they could still receive something from your estate under the default rules.

 

Other milestones

The milestones we have noted above for reviewing your will are not exhaustive. Starting a business, having a KiwiSaver account, moving countries, changes in your health and amendments to the law are all good reasons to look at updating your will.

 

If it’s been a while since you’ve looked at your will, we hope this article gives you the impetus to pull it out of that drawer and dust it off. Better yet, talk with us about it so you can have peace of mind knowing that, when you die, your loved ones will be taken care of as you wish.

 

 

 

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