+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]

Uncategorized

An agreement to lease and a deed of lease

Commercial Law, Leasing & Property, Property Law, Real Estate Transactions, Small Business Advice, Uncategorized
0

How are they different?

An agreement to lease and a deed of lease are two similar, but different, documents. The Law Association of New Zealand (TLANZ), formerly the Auckland District Law Society, provides a ‘standard’ form of both an agreement to lease and a deed of lease. Most commercial leases use this ‘standard’ form of agreement to lease or deed of lease.

Agreement to lease

An agreement to lease sets out the main commercial terms of a lease, such as the term, annual rent and rights of renewal. It can also contain further details regarding the fitout and other alterations which the tenant intends to do to ensure the premises are suitable for its business use. It can also set out how the cost and ownership of the fitout and alterations will be met between landlords and tenants.

Agreements to lease can often be conditional agreements while the tenant works through a due diligence process to ensure the property is suitable for its intended use, or to ensure that it can obtain the necessary territorial authority consents to operate its business.

Once any conditions have been satisfied, the agreement to lease is a binding agreement between the landlord and tenant; it can only be cancelled in accordance with the terms of the agreement. An agreement to lease states that a tenant must enter into a deed of lease on the standard TLANZ form once prepared by the landlord.

Deed of lease

Like an agreement to lease, the deed of lease also sets out the main commercial terms of the lease, such as the term, annual rent and rights of renewal. It goes further than the agreement to lease; it allows a tenant to assign the lease and additional terms set out the position in relation to the day-to-day management of the lease, such as maintenance obligations for both the landlord and the tenant, and what happens at the end of the lease.

Why you should also enter into a deed of lease

An agreement to lease does not allow the tenant to assign its interest in the lease. However, a deed of lease does allow this. If a tenant wishes to sell its business, they will need to enter into a deed of lease to have the benefit of the assignment provisions in the deed of lease. If the tenant wants to obtain bank lending for its business, the lender may want to see the deed of lease, and may require that a deed of lease is entered into as part of its financing approval.

The agreement to lease provides that the parties will enter into a deed of lease on the ‘then current’ form of deed of lease.

Most importantly, the agreement to lease also incorporates all of the terms of the standard deed of lease, so the landlord and tenant are agreeing to be bound by a document they have not seen or signed. In particular, if the parties have not received legal advice before entering into the agreement to lease, they may not have full knowledge of the terms of the deed of lease and what they have agreed to, and may find that the obligations in the deed of lease are not as they expected.

We can help

While agreements to lease can be helpful, we recommend that you enter into a deed of lease shortly after the agreement to lease is unconditional and/or the lease has commenced. This will help ensure that all parties have a full understanding of the terms of the lease and all the benefits (and obligations) offered under the lease.

We can help in advising on the terms of the agreement to lease and the resulting deed of lease prior to execution. We can also assist with documenting the terms of an agreement to lease into a deed of lease.

 

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

 

New Zealand’s Resource Management Act overhaul

Environmental Law, Planning & Development, Property & Infrastructure, Public Policy & Reform, Resource Management, Uncategorized
0

What’s changing and why It matters?

For more than three decades, the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) has shaped how New Zealand uses land, builds homes and infrastructure, and protects its natural environment. It has been one of the country’s most influential, and controversial, pieces of legislation.

Now, the RMA is on its way out, set to be replaced by an entirely new resource management system that the government has described as a ‘once-in-a-generation’ reform.

The changes underway are not incremental tweaks, they constitute a severing of ties with a piece of legislation that has mutated since its inception. Supporters argue the reforms will unlock housing supply, speed up infrastructure delivery and reduce red tape. Critics warn there are risks of weakening environmental protections and local democratic input. Either way, the new system will reshape development and environmental decision-making for the foreseeable future.

 

Why the RMA is on the way out?

The case for RMA reform has been building for years. While the RMA was originally intended to promote sustainable management of natural and physical resources, over time it accumulated multiple objectives, layers of regulation and complex case law. Critics argued it became slow, costly and unpredictable.

Housing shortages, rising infrastructure costs and delays to major projects have all been linked, fairly or not, to RMA processes. Developers and councils alike have complained of lengthy consent timeframes, inconsistent planning rules between regions and an over-reliance on litigation. Environmental advocates, meanwhile, argue that despite its complexity, the RMA has not always delivered strong environmental outcomes.

Successive governments have attempted to fix these problems – real or perceived – through amendments. These new reforms, however, can be seen as an acknowledgement that the RMA is no longer fit for purpose and further attempts to band aid growing problems would likely add to the complexity of an already convoluted statute.

 

The new proposals

The government has proposed an entirely new approach to development and environmental protection. Rather than one catch-all statute, the RMA will be replaced by two core pieces of legislation: the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill. These proposed pieces of legislation had their first reading in Parliament on 16 December 2025.

The underlying philosophy behind the changes is separation. Under the RMA, development and environmental protection were weighed together within a single decision-making framework. The new system aims to separate those functions more clearly.

The Planning Bill will concentrate on land use, development and infrastructure.

The Natural Environment Bill will focus on protecting ecosystems, freshwater, biodiversity, air quality and the coastal environment. Proponents argue this makes trade-offs more transparent and avoids environmental protection being negotiated away on a case-by-case basis during consenting processes.

 

Planning Bill

The Planning Bill is designed to make it easier and faster to build. The emphasis is on providing certainty about what can be developed and where, particularly for housing and infrastructure.

Under the RMA, councils have developed their own bespoke planning rules, meaning similar activities can be treated very differently across the country. The Planning Bill seeks to reduce this inconsistency.

Greater standardisation

A key feature is greater standardisation. Nationally consistent zones, rules and definitions are intended to reduce the ‘postcode lottery’ that currently exists, where the same activity can be treated very differently depending on the district council rules and plans that apply. This should make development rights clearer, and reduce the need for costly planning advice and litigation.

Reducing reliance on resource consents

A core objective of the Planning Bill is to reduce reliance on resource consents altogether. More activities will be classified as permitted, provided they meet plan standards.

Where consents are still required, their scope will be narrower. Applications will focus only on specific matters identified in plans, rather than open-ended assessments of effects. This represents a deliberate move to resolve disputes during plan-making, rather than through individual consent hearings.

Streamlining consenting processes

The Planning Bill also streamlines consenting processes. Notification and appeal rights are reduced in some circumstances, particularly where developments comply with established standards.

The intention is to reduce delays for housing developments, infrastructure projects, and other forms of growth that governments at both local and national level see as critical.

More centralised decision-making

Another major feature of the Planning Bill is a shift away from local government in favour of empowering central government to make decisions as to planning. More than 100 existing plans will be reduced to 17 regional combined plans. The aim of these regional combined plans is to bring together spatial, land use and natural environment planning in one place. Councils will be required to collaborate on these plans, rather than operating independently.

Supporters have argued that this will reduce duplication and inconsistency between councils. Critics point to the significant governance and logistical challenges that a more standardised regional combined plan would entail.

The Planning Bill represents a substantial loss of autonomy for councils. National direction will carry greater weight, limiting councils’ ability to impose local variations. While this shift no doubt promotes consistency, it also reduces local democratic control.

Communities, especially rural communities, have long complained about district councils ‘running wild’ and are often flummoxed by the unchecked decision-making power of local government. These changes will limit this to a degree, but communities may also see fewer opportunities to object to individual developments as decisions are made through plans rather than consents.

As with anything, there will be trade-offs.

 

The Natural Environment Bill

The Natural Environment Bill is the environmental counterpart to the Planning Bill. Its purpose is to protect ecosystems, freshwater, biodiversity, air quality and coastal environments through clearer environmental limits and outcomes.

Environmental limits to define impact

Rather than assessing environmental effects on a project-by-project basis, the Natural Environment Bill aims to set environmental bottom lines in advance. This lines up with the greater level of standardisation that the Planning Bill is intended to bring.

Under the new framework provided by the Natural Environment Bill, environmental limits will define the acceptable level of impact on natural systems. Development must occur within those limits, rather than negotiating trade-offs during individual consent processes as is often the case under the RMA.

Supporters argue this approach strengthens environmental protection by removing pressure on decision-makers to compromise standards in the face of economic or political pressure.

The environmental bottom lines that the Natural Environment Bill will impose should provide clarity for decision-makers and allow them to evaluate planning decisions with a greater degree of certainty.

Environmental effects separated from development planning

A defining feature of the Natural Environment Bill is its separation from development planning. Environmental protection is no longer balanced directly against development benefits in each decision. Instead, environmental rules are set first, and development is enabled within those constraints.

This separation is intended to provide clarity, but it also raises concerns. Critics have questioned whether environmental limits will be set conservatively enough to provide genuine protection, or whether they will be adjusted to accommodate growth objectives.

By clarifying environmental limits upfront, the government hopes to reduce litigation and uncertainty. Fewer arguments about environmental effects should arise at the consenting stage if limits are clear and enforceable.

The effectiveness of this approach, however, depends heavily on monitoring, enforcement and political willingness to maintain robust limits over time. Historically, enforcement under the RMA has been uneven, with councils facing resource constraints and political pressures.

The use of environmental limits within a planning framework will require significant investment in monitoring and enforcement resources. Without such investment, the Natural Environment Act risks becoming aspirational rather than productive.

Treaty considerations

Treaty of Waitangi considerations are intended to be more clearly embedded in the Natural Environment Bill than they were under the RMA. The new legislation is expected to acknowledge the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the relationship of Māori with land, water and taonga, and the role of mātauranga Māori in environmental management.

The shift toward national and regional decision-making, however, may complicate engagement for mana whenua. As processes become more centralised and streamlined, ensuring meaningful Māori participation will be a critical test of the new framework.

 

Public input will be earlier

Public participation under the Natural Environment Bill is also expected to change. As environmental limits and outcomes are set through policy and plan-making processes rather than individual consent decisions, opportunities for public input are likely to be concentrated earlier in the process.

This front-loaded approach is intended not only to encourage more strategic engagement, but it also means fewer opportunities to challenge specific developments once limits are in place. Whether this leads to better environmental outcomes or reduced community influence remains to be seen.

 

Lack of flexibility in planning?

A main criticism of the Natural Environment Bill is that the separation of environmental protection from development planning could reduce the ability to respond flexibly to complex, site-specific environmental issues.

A one-size-fits all approach to environmental protection could, in certain instances, inhibit decisions that best reflect the needs of particular sites.

 

What does it all mean?

The replacement of the RMA marks one of the most significant shifts in New Zealand’s planning and environmental framework in a generation. After more than 30 years at the centre of land use and environmental decision-making, the RMA is being set aside in favour of two new statutes that deliberately separate development from environmental protection.

Together, these proposed laws represent a decisive move away from the RMA’s balancing model, which often left environmental standards and development outcomes to be negotiated through individual consent processes.

Instead, the new system aims to resolve trade-offs upfront through national direction, regional planning and predetermined environmental boundaries.

Ultimately, the success of the reforms will not be judged by legislative intent alone. It will depend on how robust environmental limits are set under the Natural Environment Bill, how consistently development is enabled under the Planning Bill, and whether key stakeholders are given the resources and influence needed to make the system work.

Change was necessary. It is to be determined whether said change brings about positive development, or further headaches.

Have your say

Submissions on the Planning Bill and the Natural Environment Bill close at 4.30pm on Friday, 13 February 2026. To make a submission, click here.

If you would like some guidance with a submission and/or want to know more about how these two new statutes may affect your circumstances, please don’t hesitate to contact us. We are here to help.

 

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

Karen’s Next Chapter: Understanding Reverse Equity Mortgages

Estate, Financial Literacy, Home Ownership, House, Retirement Planning, Senior Living, Uncategorized
0

 

Once upon a time in a quiet New Zealand neighbourhood lived Karen—a warm-hearted retiree whose home was her greatest treasure. Every corner of it held memories: family dinners, garden mornings, and decades of life’s twists and turns.

 

But as time went on, Karen found herself wishing for a little extra breathing room…

🌼 A long-overdue renovation

🚗 A reliable new car

🩺 Extra funds for health and comfort

✈️ Or perhaps that long-dreamed-of holiday to somewhere sunny

 

One afternoon, over a cup of tea, Karen heard a gentle whisper of possibility:

“What about a reverse equity mortgage?”

 

Banks—especially Heartland Bank—offered something that caught Karen’s attention: a way for homeowners aged 60+ to unlock some of the value in their home without selling it and without monthly repayments.

 

It felt almost magical. A way to stay in her beloved home while gaining the financial support she needed.

 

But Karen was clever. She knew every good story has fine print.

✨ The interest would quietly grow over time,

✨ The loan would wait patiently until she moved, sold, or passed on,

✨ And then it would be repaid from the value of her home.

 

It could be a helpful choice—but it also meant leaving less equity behind for her family.

 

So Karen did what wise people do:

🗝 She talked openly with her loved ones

📜 She met with a solicitor to understand every detail

❤️ She made her decision with clarity and confidence

 

And in the end, Karen discovered that with careful thought and the right guidance, a reverse equity mortgage could be the solution she needed for her next chapter.

Georgia Ellen 

A New Chapter for Luke & Mildred

Adoption & Guardianship, Blended Families, Family Law, Legal Guidance, Parenting, Uncategorized
0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Jamie Graham

Over the fence

Agricultural Labour, Biosecurity, Farm Safety, Health and Safety, Livestock Health, Migrant Workforce, Seasonal Farming Advice, Uncategorized
0

Health and safety on farms in the wet season

Farming in New Zealand is a year-round responsibility. The wet season (usually in winter) has particular challenges that require an increased focus on health and safety practices.

Working in wet conditions presents hazards for you, your employees and your property. These include:

  • Rain-soaked ground and slippery surfaces make it easy to lose footing, increasing the risk of sprains, fractures or more severe injuries
  • Machinery, such as tractors and quadbikes, become harder to control raising the likelihood of accidents and machinery damage
  • Livestock can be unpredictable and difficult to manage when moving them through flooded or slippery areas, and
  • Flooding can restrict access to key areas of farmland, damage infrastructures and contaminate water supplies.

Improving health and safety: The Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 outlines the responsibilities of both employers and employees. It requires all parties to take reasonable care for their own safety and ensure that their actions do not adversely affect the health and safety of others.

With this year’s heavy winter rain, it is essential to implement effective risk mitigation strategies. Checking and repairing drainage systems may reduce the risk of flooding or damage to other infrastructure before the onset of heavy rain. This includes cleaning drains, reinforcing culverts and ensuring paddocks are equipped with adequate runoff channels.

Some other risk mitigation measures include:

  • Providing all workers with waterproof clothing and appropriate footwear
  • Conducting regular maintenance checks on all equipment
  • Ensuring health and safety policies and procedures are up to date, and
  • Having adequate training and supervision for all workers.

By proactively implementing these safety measures, farmers can reduce the risks associated with wet weather and create a safer working environment for themselves, their employees and their livestock.

 

Changes to the Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme

The agricultural sector in New Zealand continues to struggle with a persistent shortage of experienced farm workers.

In response to this ongoing problem, many employers have turned to the Recognised Seasonal Employer (RSE) scheme. This initiative enables workers from eligible Pacific countries to travel to New Zealand on a seasonal basis to assist with tasks such as planting, maintaining, harvesting and packing crops.

Recent changes and what’s ahead:

  • Since 10 March 2025: The median wage requirement was removed for future employees and the work experience requirement for workers was reduced from three years to two years, and
  • A proposal for changes to start on a yet-to-be-decided date in November 2025: New pathways will be introduced for experienced seasonal workers, including:
  • A three-year multi-entry visa for experienced workers, and
  • A seven-month single-entry visa for lesser-skilled workers.

What do these changes mean for employers and employees? Employers hiring under the Accredited Employer Work Visa or Seasonal Specific Purpose Work Visa are no longer required to pay the median wage. Instead, the only wage thresholds are to ensure the worker is being paid the market rate and that rate is above the New Zealand minimum wage; the minimum wage increased to $23.50 per hour on 1 April 2025.

The reduction of migrants only needing to demonstrate two years’ relevant work experience broadens eligibility and allows more workers to qualify.

Finally, the introduction of multi-entry and single-entry seasonal visas will create more opportunities for seasonal work in New Zealand. They will also provide workers with structured pathways that support varying skill levels, and offer more flexible and sustainable options for both employers and employees.

 

Foot and mouth disease agreement

Foot and mouth disease (FMD) is a highly contagious viral illness that primarily affects cloven-hoofed animals such as cattle, pigs, sheep, deer and goats. FMD is rarely fatal but could still lead to significant production loss, and severely impact our meat and dairy industry.

Common FMD symptoms are:

  • Blisters in the mouth, on the feet, or on the teats
  • High fever
  • Loss of appetite due to mouth pain
  • Lameness or difficulty walking caused by blisters, and
  • Decreased milk production.

The FMD agreement: An agreement has been entered into between six major livestock industry organisations and the government. It formalises how all parties will work together to prepare for, and respond to, an outbreak of FMD in New Zealand.

The agreement outlines clear roles and responsibilities for all partners, including how associated costs will be shared. It gives industry partners a direct and legally binding role in decision-making. This ensures that the perspectives of farmers and industry stakeholders are included in every stage of the response.

It is estimated that an FMD outbreak in New Zealand could cost up to $3 billion to eradicate. Livestock industry partners would contribute up to 40% of preparation costs and 15% of response costs, with total contributions capped at $450 million over the five year duration of the agreement.

Recent FMD outbreaks overseas highlight the importance of New Zealand reaching an adequate level of preparedness and the peace of mind this will provide for industry providers.

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Rural eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Property Speaking 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

Understanding workplace accommodation and service tenancies

Agriculture & Rural Law, Employer Responsibilities, Employment Law, Legal Tips for Employers, Residential Tenancies, Uncategorized, Workplace Compliance
0

Complex legal obligations

In certain sectors, particularly agriculture, tourism and residential care, it’s common for employers to provide housing to their employees as part of the job. These arrangements are known as ‘service tenancies.’ They can be legally complex due to being dually governed by both employment law and residential tenancy law.

While providing accommodation for employees can support recruitment and retention, it also creates legal obligations that employers must manage carefully. In particular, an employer who provides accommodation becomes a landlord under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), with all the associated duties and liabilities.

 

What is a ‘service tenancy’?

A service tenancy exists when an employer provides accommodation as part of an employment package. The key legal feature is that the right to occupy the premises is tied to the job – if the employment ends, an employer can give notice to also end the right to stay in the accommodation.

As the RTA applies to service tenancies, employers are subject to the same rules as residential tenancies, including:

  • The requirement for a written tenancy agreement
  • Obligations around rent, maintenance and quiet enjoyment, and
  • Dispute resolution through the Tenancy Tribunal.

Employers as landlords: key obligations

Employers offering accommodation must meet the full legal obligations of residential landlords, including:

  • Healthy homes standards: all residential rental properties, including service tenancies, must meet the standards’ requirements around heating, insulation, ventilation, drainage and moisture control
  • Tenancy agreements: a written tenancy agreement is mandatory, even when the housing is ‘part of the job.’ The agreement should clearly state:
  • That the tenancy is a service tenancy
  • The relationship between the tenancy and the employment agreement, and
  • The rental value or allowance (even if nil)

There need not be two separate documents: an employment agreement may incorporate the terms of the tenancy agreement, provided the requisite detail above is included.

  • Bond lodgment: if a bond is taken, it must be lodged with Tenancy Services within 23 working days after it’s received from the tenant/employee, even if the employer sees the accommodation as part of a broader employment arrangement, and
  • Notice periods: termination of a service tenancy must be handled according to section 53B of the RTA. If the employment ends, the landlord (employer) may give 14 days’ notice to vacate. However, this must be done with due process to avoid unlawful eviction claims.

 

Common pitfalls

Employers sometimes assume that service tenancies are informal or outside standard tenancy rules. This is not the case. Common mistakes include:

  • Failing to record the tenancy in writing
  • Not meeting healthy homes requirements, exposing employers to fines
  • Assuming the tenancy ends automatically with employment termination
  • Failing to consider the tax implications of the value of the rental, and
  • Charging rent without clearly defining it in the employment or tenancy agreement.

These errors can lead to disputes before the Tenancy Tribunal, with potential penalties for unlawful eviction, unlawful entry or breaches of maintenance obligations.

 

Employment relationship risks

As the accommodation is tied to employment, disputes can straddle two legal regimes: employment law and tenancy law. For instance, if an employee is dismissed and then evicted from their home they may challenge both the dismissal and the tenancy termination. However, while they can overlap in practice, the legal jurisdictions remain entirely separate and legal disputes can only be pursued in the relevant jurisdiction. For example, an employee cannot raise an issue with the compliance of healthy homes standards as part of a personal grievance claim in the Employment Relations Authority for unjustified disadvantage.[1]

Careful drafting is essential. Either the employment agreement needs to fully encompass the terms of the tenancy, or a standalone tenancy agreement also needs to be prepared.

 

Best practice for employers

  • Clearly link the accommodation to the employment but avoid automatic termination clauses that breach tenancy law
  • Ensure housing meets healthy homes standards, even if the employee is not paying rent, and
  • Talk with us before terminating the tenancy, especially if the employment ends in contentious circumstances.

 

Real benefits but be careful

Providing accommodation as part of an employment package can offer real benefits – but only if managed correctly. Employers must wear two hats: one as an employer and the other as a landlord.

Understanding and fulfilling their obligations under the RTA, as well as employment laws and regulations, is essential to avoid costly legal disputes and to ensure that employees are treated fairly and lawfully.

If you’re providing housing to staff, we recommend reviewing your tenancy and employment documents to ensure they’re up to date and legally compliant.

 

[1] Unjustified disadvantage is where an employer takes actions that negatively impact an employee’s working conditions, or ability to do their job, without a reasonable or justifiable reason.

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Rural eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Property Speaking 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

Article

Litigation Lessons from the Top Court ⚖️

Uncategorized
0

If nothing highlights the risks of litigation better, it’s the Supreme Court’s decision this week in Routhan v PGG Wrightson Real Estate Ltd [2025] NSCA 68.

The Routhans bought a dairy farm in 2010, relying on a real estate agent’s claim that the farm produced 103,000 kgMS of milk solids annually. In reality, the property was not capable of reaching that figure. Their farming venture failed, ending in a forced sale in 2020 and a total loss of equity. They sued. The High Court awarded $1.69M. The Court of Appeal cut it to $300K. The Supreme Court has now ruled for $780,500 in a split decision.

It’s a stark reminder that going to court can be a long, expensive, and exhausting road. In many cases, it’s worth exploring other options, like early settlement negotiations, mediation, or arbitration. Settling can save time, money, and a lot of stress.

Thinking about your options? Our litigation and arbitration team at Edmonds Judd is here to help. 🤝

Fiona Jack

Life Stage – First Home

Economy & Finance, Employment, Estate, House, Media, News, Online, Uncategorized
0

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 

 

 

America’s threats of tariffs

Uncategorized
0

Since the election of President Donald Trump, tariffs have remained a central focus of America’s trade policy.

What are tariffs? Tariffs impose a duty tax on imported goods from other countries. If you export goods to America you must pay the tax to the US government. This is typically a percentage of the value of the product.

The main purpose of a tariff is usually to shift the demand away from imported goods to domestically produced goods.

Countries facing American tariffs: The threat of tariffs against Mexico, Canada and China came as a response to halt illegal immigration and stop illegal drugs flowing into America.

Now, more than 125 countries are facing tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. New Zealand currently faces a recently announced 10% tariff on goods exported to America. This will have an impact on all New Zealand’s exports to America.

In particular, it will affect our agricultural sector, including food and fibre, that accounts for around 81% of New Zealand’s total goods exports.[1]

How will the tariffs affect us? America is one of New Zealand’s key markets. The new 10% tariff means that kiwi businesses could choose to either lower their prices to entice importers to keep buying their goods or sell their goods elsewhere.

New Zealand could feel the impact of tariffs on other countries as they will be less likely to import goods from New Zealand because of their reduced revenue. Other impacts New Zealand could potentially face include fluctuations of KiwiSaver, investments, our currency, shares and general uncertainty as the markets react to these tariffs.

Given that New Zealand is a small nation and we rely on trade, there are potential silver linings. We may see products from other countries being sold at a lower cost as manufacturers look beyond the American market and its tariffs.

There is a great deal of global volatility caused by the tariffs imposed by America. Given that these tariffs are continually changing, this is creating a huge amount of uncertainty about the future of world trade.

[1] Ministry for Primary Industries, Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries, December 2024.

Get in touch today, we’d love to talk.

+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]