+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]

Your Own Business

Invoices not being paid on time?

Commercial, Your Own Business
0

A steer for debtors and creditors

The continued rise of input costs, finance costs, labour shortages, ongoing material shortages and compliance costs are forcing many businesses to tighten their belts. In this article we give some advice to assist both creditors and debtors with managing their business relationships and financial accounts when it comes to unpaid invoices.

Protecting your business from outstanding invoices

Terms of trade and contractual terms: Having robust terms of trade is one of the best ways your business can protect itself from bad debtors. Including clauses for default interest and the recovery of your legal costs means that you are less likely to be left out of pocket if you need to take action to recover an outstanding debt. You should also consider whether your business should take security over your customer’s personal property or land assets, or a guarantee (backed up by a security); these are highly recommended where substantial amounts are involved, or where a customer has few assets and/or extensive liabilities.

Invoicing discipline: Nobody likes getting one large invoice at the end of a contract; it also presents a risk in terms of cashflow if your debtor cannot pay you in full and on time.

Your business should regularly review its billing practices to improve the way it invoices. Do you require deposits? Can you issue interim invoices? Should you seek payment in advance and, if so, in full or in part? Are you invoicing in accordance with your industry’s best practice? And for businesses in the construction sector, are you issuing valid payment claims to take advantage of the construction contracts regime?

Accounting software is a lifesaver for businesses; it enables easy tracking of outstanding invoices and cashflow. Invoices and payments should be tracked promptly to give an accurate projection of cashflow and ensure no payments slip through the cracks. Ensuring your staff are trained in how to use your accounting software, and to report on cashflow, is just as important.

If you aren’t motivated to invoice work or chase payment in a timely manner, the chances are your customer won’t be motivated to pay on time. For creditors, invoicing your work promptly can assist in resolving issues before they arise. The longer you wait to invoice your work, the more likely your customer is to complain about receiving the invoice and it’s less likely they will have funds ready to pay the invoice by the due date.

Coordinating cashflow: Your business will rely on prompt payment from your customers to pay your own suppliers. If your business can’t afford to pay your suppliers’ invoices on time then it risks getting stung with penalties and default interest.

You should coordinate your business’s income and expenditure to reduce the risk of default. If, for example, your business has outgoing payments due on the 20th of each month then it would be sensible to require your invoices to be paid by the 15th of the month, or a certain number of days after the invoice is issued. You should also consider building up a business contingency fund to act as a buffer if your incoming invoices aren’t paid on time.

Why pay invoices on time?

Credit ratings: Missing or defaulting on invoice payments will adversely impact the credit score of your business and therefore its ability to obtain finance. Some lenders look back through years of financial reports to assess your ability to pay, so even if you don’t think you’ll need a good credit rating now, it is important to stay on top of your outstanding bills.

Business reputation: Businesses pride themselves on their reputation among customers – for quality work and/or friendly customer service. But they also need to have a good reputation in their industry. Consistently failing to pay bills on time may cause suppliers to stop working with you and, depending on your industry, word of mouth can travel fast.

Reputation is also important for creditors. If you have a reputation for litigiousness rather than acting in a reasonable manner, businesses may be hesitant to work with you. On the other side of the coin, if your business has a reputation for not chasing outstanding debts, then your customers may try to take advantage of you.

Compounding debts: The failure of many businesses can be attributable to having compounding debt – that is, invoices going unpaid for months while more invoices to be paid pile up. Having the discipline to be on top of debt by paying invoices regularly can help to keep your finances manageable and preserve your business relationships.

Disputes are costly: There is a range of legal methods available to creditors to enforce outstanding debts, including obtaining or enforcing a security interest over property, issuing a statutory demand or bankruptcy notice, or starting court proceedings (including liquidator appointments) against a debtor. Debt collection agencies might also be engaged.

Some methods (notably caveats and security interests) can have a detrimental effect on a debtor’s business operations. They can be a great bargaining chip for creditors, but potentially disastrous for debtors if enforcement of those interests is pursued. As well, a creditor’s terms of trade will often state that debt recovery costs will be borne by the debtor, so it is very much in the debtor’s interests to pay invoices on time to avoid costly legal disputes and disruption.

Be upfront: If you aren’t sure how much a job is going to cost, it is wise to ask for an estimate or quote before you enter into an agreement. If costs escalate during a contract (either from your supplier or for your customer) or you find yourself cash-strapped, it is generally best to talk with them early on about that too.

Negotiating a compromise with an element of commercial nous, such as a payment plan, rather than forcing disruptive cancellations or costly court proceedings is often a better outcome for both sides.

Possible reform

In 2023, the Business Payment Practices Act 2023 was passed that would have required large public and private entities to publish information about how long it takes them to pay their invoices and their payment terms.

The new government, however, has repealed the Act and will replace it with a voluntary code to ensure SMEs are paid in a timely manner. While we are unlikely to see the effects of these changes for some months, the impact of large market players paying invoices on significantly extended payment terms appears to be front of mind for politicians. We are also likely to see improvements in the way public service entities pay their invoices, resulting in quicker payment times for suppliers. Businesses should be mindful of possible changes being implemented in the future.

Need a hand?

If you find yourself being pulled into a dispute or are unsure how to protect your business then it is always best to talk with us, whether it be in relation to developing or reviewing contractual documents, or with initiating or defending a claim for payment of money. Your accountant or financial planner will also be able to help with any cashflow issues or with advising how best to manage your finances.

 

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

Do I still need a trust?

Commercial, Estate, House, Property, Retirement, Rural, Trusts, Your Own Business
0

Thousands of Kiwis have, over the years, established family trusts for a variety of reasons. However, it’s well worth considering whether those reasons are still relevant today and evaluating whether your trust may have outlived its usefulness.

You may have established your family trust for:

  1. Avoiding estate duty: before 1992 it was common for high value assets (such as farms) to be transferred to a trust so your personal estate would not have to pay estate duty
  2. Eligibility for the residential care subsidy: trusts were often settled to increase the likelihood of being eligible for the residential care subsidy; the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) only considered assets you owned personally when considering eligibility for the subsidy
  3. Minimising tax: Fluctuating tax rates over the years have sometimes provided a lower tax rate for trusts than the highest rate of personal tax
  4. Creditor protection: Transferring your personal assets to trust ownership means that your personal creditors may have more difficulty accessing those assets to recover personal debts you owe
  5. Estate planning: Children may make claims against their parents’ estates where they believe their parents have made no, or inadequate, provision for them. Transferring assets to a trust during one’s lifetime leaves little or nothing for children to claim against on your death. Trusts also allow assets to be ring-fenced to help with the care of differently abled children
  6. Relationship property: settling a trust, either before your relationship is ‘in contemplation’ or afterwards (provided a contracting out agreement is also signed), is one way to help remove assets from the potential pool of relationship property that would be available for division if your relationship ends.

Things have changed

These days, however, estate (and gift) duty is no more, the top personal tax rates will soon be realigned with trust tax rates, and MSD takes a closer look at trusts when considering residential care subsidy applications. There has also been increasing court action on trusts where it is believed they may have been used to avoid creditors, claims by children and relationship property claims.

In addition, there are further consequences in settling trusts in New Zealand if you are an American citizen, from the UK (even though you may be tax resident in New Zealand), or if you are tax resident in Australia.

Notwithstanding the above, trusts are still very useful vehicles, particularly for creditor protection, estate planning and relationship property purposes.

Trust deeds, however, should be carefully drafted and have the correct documentation in place around them. Excellent legal, accounting and tax advice is needed to ensure that your trust will do the job you want it to.

If you have a family trust that may no longer be fit for purpose, or you think you need an asset protection plan, please talk with us about the options available to you.

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

Commercial leasing and landlord consent

Commercial, Property, Your Own Business
0

Tenants wanting to alter the premises or their use

If you are a landlord owning commercial property, you may want to know how your tenant can make changes to the premises, or its use of the premises, without speaking to you about it first. If you are a tenant, you may want to know what you can do without being in contact with your landlord.

Tenants under commercial leases generally have fairly broad rights for the use and enjoyment of the property under the lease, but there are some limitations to what tenants can do without your consent. These include changing the business use of the property, assigning the lease or altering the premises. When considering any tenant’s request for consents under the lease, you must act reasonably.

 

Change of business use of the property

The deed of lease usually records the business use of your tenant in the first schedule. Your tenant cannot use the premises for anything other than the business use without your prior written consent. Provided the proposed use is not in substantial competition with the business of any other occupant of the property, reasonably suitable for the premises and compliant with any applicable statutory provision relating to resource management, you cannot unreasonably withhold consent to your tenant’s request to change the business use of the premises.

 

Alterations or additions

Your tenant cannot make any alterations or additions to the premises, or alter the external appearance of the premises, including affixing signs or advertising on the exterior of the building, without your prior written consent. In the case of signs, you cannot unreasonably withhold consent if the sign is to describe your tenant’s business.

If your tenant wants to make alterations or additions to the premises, or alter the premises’ external appearance, they must provide you with plans and specifications for the proposed works. They will also need to comply with all statutory requirements when completing the works, including obtaining any necessary building consents and/or compliance certificates. You cannot unreasonably withhold or delay your consent to these additions or alterations.

If you require it, your tenant (at their own cost) must reinstate the premises and repair any damage caused by the alterations or signs by the end of the lease. If the additions or alterations are not removed by the end of the lease, you may elect to retain ownership of these without any compensation payable to your tenant.

 

Assignment of the lease

Your tenant cannot assign the lease or sublet any part of the premises or carparks without your prior written consent. Again, you cannot unreasonably withhold consent. There are certain conditions which your tenant must meet, otherwise it will be considered reasonable for you to withhold consent. These include:

  • Your tenant can demonstrate to your satisfaction that the proposed assignee or subtenant is respectable, responsible and has the financial resources to meet their own commitments under the lease
  • All rent has been paid by your tenant and they are not in breach of the lease
  • Your tenant and assignee have (or will) signed and delivered to you a deed of assignment of lease
  • If the assignee is a company, you are entitled to request a deed of guarantee to be executed by the principal shareholders of that company, or a bank guarantee from a registered bank to be delivered to you as a condition of your consent, and
  • Your tenant agrees to pay your reasonable costs and disbursements in respect of the approval and the preparation of any documentation you require. These costs are generally payable whether or not the assignment or sublease ultimately proceeds.

 

Under the more recent versions of the ADLS standard lease, any change in the legal or beneficial ownership of a tenant company which results in the effective management or control of the company changing, such as the majority shareholder selling its shares, is treated as a deemed assignment and also requires landlord consent.

While landlords and tenants can generally work through issues of landlord consent at a commercial level by themselves, occasionally there can be problems, particularly if a landlord does not want to consent to the request or the request results in substantial changes to the lease.

 

It is a requirement of the lease that any landlord consent granted is recorded in writing, and we recommend for both landlords and tenants that you comply with this requirement. Any conditions to the consent, or changes to the lease which may result from the consent, should also be recorded in writing.

Whether you are a landlord or a tenant negotiating through a consent request, we recommend early contact with us. We can assist with advising what is and isn’t reasonable from each party in the circumstances, and can help to ensure that what you have agreed is correctly recorded, to reduce the chances of disputes in the future.

 

 

 

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

Business briefs

Commercial, Your Own Business
0

Cartel conduct: New Zealand’s first ever criminal cartel prosecution

The Commerce Commission recently filed criminal charges against two construction companies and their directors for alleged bid-rigging of publicly funded construction contracts. This is New Zealand’s first ever criminal prosecution for alleged cartel conduct under the Commerce Act 1986.

 

Bid-rigging, or collusive tendering, occurs where some or all the bidders collude to pre-determine who will win the bid or tender. This is a form of cartel conduct that is prohibited by the Act.

 

The case is currently before the court so information is limited but, if found guilty, the companies and their directors could face serious penalties. Each company could be fined up to $10 million, three times their commercial gain from the cartel conduct or 10% of their turnover per year per breach. Each director could be imprisoned for up to seven years and/or fined up to $500,000.

 

The Commission’s willingness to bring criminal proceedings for cartel conduct is a warning for all businesses to understand their obligations under the Act and have adequate processes to avoid engaging in cartel conduct.

 

New privacy rules for biometrics

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) has announced it will release a draft policy code early this year regulating the collection and use of biometric information. The code will have direct implications for any businesses dealing with biometric information.

 

Biometric information is any information about a person’s biological or behavioural characteristics, such as fingerprints, face, voice or eyes. It is increasingly common for businesses to collect and use biometric information to verify people’s identities online, enhance retail security, control access to devices or physical spaces, or to monitor attendance at a site or a work place.

 

While the use of biometrics has significant benefits for businesses, it also increases the risks of profiling, discrimination, bias, and lack of transparency and control to individuals.

 

The OPC has proposed three categories of rules that businesses must comply with when collecting and using biometric information. These are:

  1. Proportionality assessment: Businesses must undertake a proportionality assessment to ensure that the reasons for collecting biometric information outweigh the risk of privacy intrusion
  2. Transparency and notification: Businesses must be open and transparent with individuals and the public about the collection and use of their biometric information, and
  3. Purpose limitations: The collection and use of biometric information will be restricted for certain purposes.

 

The public will have an opportunity to provide feedback on the code before it is implemented.

 

New reporting obligations for large businesses

The Business Payment Practices Act 2023 will come into effect on 25 May 2024. It will require large businesses to publicly report information on their payment practices to the Business Payment Practices Register.

 

The legislation applies to businesses with more than $33 million in annual revenue and $10 million in third party expenditure. The information that must be reported on includes:

 

  • The average time to pay supplier invoices
  • The percentage of invoices paid in full within the required timeframe, and
  • A description of the business’s standard payment terms (if any).

 

If a business fails to comply with its reporting obligations, it could be fined up to $9,000. If a business intentionally provides false or misleading information, it could be fined up to $500,000.  The Act is designed to address payment delays that can have significant impacts on the cash flow for New Zealand’s small and medium-sized businesses.

 

If you would like more information or advice on any of the above topics, please feel free to contact us.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Commercial 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 Commercial 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

Whakaari/White Island eruption

Commercial, Latest news, Property, Your Own Business
0

Health and safety lessons

The eruption of Whakaari/White Island on 9 December 2019 was a tragedy. Of the 47 people on the island when it erupted, 22 people were killed. The other 25 people were severely injured, many with life-changing injuries. The last of the prosecutions brought by WorkSafe due to the eruption concluded on 31 October 2023. We look at the lessons landowners and company directors can learn from these prosecutions.

 

After the eruption, WorkSafe brought charges against 13 parties under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. These included charges against tourism operators, two government agencies responsible for advising on volcanic risks and the landowners. The charges against the landowners are the most legally significant.

 

Whakaari Management Limited

Whakaari/White Island has been in the Buttle family since 1936. The family currently owns it through the Whakaari Trust; the trust leased the land to Whakaari Management Ltd (WML). The directors of WML are three members of the Buttle family. WML used to contract with tourism operators to allow them to conduct tours on the island. WML had no presence on the island and its staff did not work there.

 

Charges brought against WML and its directors

WorkSafe charged WML under sections 36 and 37 of the Act. Section 36 requires employers to ensure that, as far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of their employees. Section 37 requires an employer to take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure the safety of anyone who enters a workplace controlled by the employer, whether they work for the employer or not.

 

WorkSafe also charged WML’s directors under section 44. Where an employer is a company, section 44 requires directors to take reasonable steps to ensure that their company complies with its obligations under the Act.

 

The court’s decisions[1]

The charge against WML under section 36 was dismissed. The court held that section 36 only applied to the employer’s business activities, and WML did not carry out its business on the island. Section 36 will generally only apply to an employer’s premises or anywhere else its staff are working.

 

WML was convicted[2] under section 37 because Whakaari was a workplace that it controlled, and it had failed to obtain expert advice on the risk posed to visitors by a volcanic eruption. The court found that WML could exercise control over the activities of tour operators on the island and that it had been involved in managing their activities in the past as it had actively engaged with the tour operators regarding their operations. WML could also control the workplace by terminating, or threatening to terminate, its agreements with tourism operators that allowed them to access the island.

 

Implications for landowners

If you are a landowner and allow other parties access to your property for commercial purposes, you may have health and safety obligations as WML did on Whakaari. Section 37 will not usually apply if you operate solely as a landlord because a landlord will not usually have sufficient control to meet the section 37 requirements. Section 37 also contains a specific exemption to prevent the section from applying to farmers who allow people onto their farms for purely recreational purposes such as walking or hunting.

 

The charges against the directors of WML under section 44 were dismissed, despite WML being convicted under section 37. The court held that it could not conclude that any directors had breached their personal duty under section 44 based on the company’s failure to meet its obligations as it had no information about how the directors had made their decisions. For example, one director could have argued that WML should have sought expert advice on the risk of volcanic eruption but was outvoted by the remaining two directors.

 

What directors need to do

Following the Whakaari/White Island decision, WorkSafe will likely seek full disclosure of all board documents before bringing similar future prosecutions.  To avoid any potential criminal liability, any company director who is uncomfortable with their fellow directors’ stance on a health and safety matter should ensure that their dissenting view is recorded.

 

As a company director, if you are concerned about any decisions that your board proposes to make, or has made, about a health and safety matter, it would be useful to talk with us to clarify your position.

[1] WorkSafe New Zealand v. Whakaari Management Ltd [2023] NZDC 23224.

[2] Sentencing will take place in late February.

 

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Commercial 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 Commercial 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

Trial periods vs probation periods

Commercial, First Job, Your Own Business
0

Both are useful for employers

Many New Zealand business owners know they can offer a trial period (usually 90 days) when hiring a new employee. A trial period is designed to ensure a new employee is a good fit for their employer.

An alternative to a trial period is a probation period. This is designed to set expectations clearly between you and your employee including the terms of the hire and when a final decision about the suitability of their employment is decided.

We explain the differences between trial and probation periods to enable you to better understand your options.

 

Trial period

A trial period, if successfully included in an employment agreement, will allow you to terminate the agreement in the first 90 days of employment without your employee being able to raise a personal grievance for the dismissal. Trial periods can, however, only be used in limited circumstances.

Until 23 December last year, using a trial period was only available to employers who had fewer than 19 staff. Now, under the new coalition government, this limitation was removed and trial periods can be used by all employers, regardless of size, for new employees.

 

Key requirements of a valid trial period are:

  • Only for new employees, not current or prior employees
  • 90 days maximum length
  • Must be documented in the written employment agreement, signed before your employee starts work and must contain a valid notice period, and
  • Must only be included in the agreement and exercised in good faith.

 

When exercising a right to terminate under a 90-day trial clause, you are not obliged to provide any reasons for the termination. It is important to note that your employee can still raise a personal grievance against the business if there are other causes for grievance during their employment, such as (but not limited to) discrimination or bullying.

 

Probation period

Unlike a trial period, probation periods have a much wider application in employment law.  Probation periods are an ideal way for employers and employees to ‘try out’ a new or expanded role while setting clear expectations that this may only be a temporary employment change, and what to expect if it does not work out.

Some of the common reasons you may want to use a probation period include making sure a staff member is appropriately skilled for their role, or to allow an existing employee to accept a promotion or lateral move in the business and to show they can do the job.

Key characteristics of a valid probation period are:

 

  • Can be used for existing OR new employees
  • The probationary period can be for any length of time, as long as it is clearly defined in writing, is reasonable considering the role’s complexity, and has an appropriate agreed notice period
  • The written agreement includes what may occur at the end of the probation period (termination, reversion to their former role and responsibilities, etc), and
  • That you as the employer must provide adequate support and training.

 

Throughout the probationary period you must be able to show that you have taken reasonable steps to support your employee in achieving success in their role. This includes frequent performance-based conversations, providing adequate training and support on new skills and tasks, discussing any areas for improvement and setting clear expectations of what ‘success’ looks like for their role.

Unlike a trial period, if you decide at the conclusion of the period to terminate the employment agreement, you must explain how you have fairly assessed your employee’s performance, why their performance was not sufficient for the role and your intention to end the employment relationship.

Your employee must then have sufficient time to respond. Any response must be considered before making a final decision to terminate the employment agreement. Unlike a trial period, your employee can still bring a claim for unjust dismissal if they feel you have not followed due procedure and come to a fair conclusion.

It is also critical to note that probation periods cannot follow after a trial period for the same or very similar role. If your employee moves multiple times within your business, on each subsequent role change you may be able to apply a new probation period.

Regardless of whether you are considering a trial period or probation period, it is important you talk with us before incorporating it into your employment agreements. To be effective and defensible against a personal grievance, both trial periods and probation periods must be documented correctly throughout the period’s lifecycle, from the employment agreement pre-commencement all the way through to the end of the period. Please don’t hesitate to contact us if you are considering a trial or probation period for any of your employees.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Commercial 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 Commercial 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

Over the fence

Property, Relationships, Rural, Your Own Business
0

Family home v homestead: implications for relationship property

When a relationship breaks down, it is always difficult dividing up your joint assets.  It is important when deciding the division of relationship property under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA) following a separation, or when forming a contracting out agreement, to accurately classify the home in which you and your partner/spouse live. The overall structure of the property will define whether your home is classified as the ‘family home’ or a ‘homestead.’

Family home: The PRA defines the family home as a property, including all land, buildings and improvements, which a couple generally, or primarily, reside in as their family residence. The property within the whole title must be used for the benefit of the relationship to be classified as the family home. In this case, all land under that title must be shared equally in a separation situation unless you as a couple have a contracting out agreement specifying the division of the property.

Homestead: Where only part of the property within the whole title is used for the benefit of the relationship, the portion attributable to the relationship may be considered the ‘homestead’ instead of the ‘family home.’ In this case, the remainder of the property may not be subject to the PRA principles of equal sharing, particularly if it is owned by a third party such as parents of one of the parties.

A family home will be considered a homestead if a portion of the property within the title is used by a couple as their general, or primary, family residence but the remainder of the title is used for the overall economic gain of another entity. This is more common in the rural context where couples reside on the farm but only a portion of the overall title contains the family home and the remainder is used for the economic gain of their rural business.

In this case, only the portion of the title considered to be the homestead would be considered in the division of relationship property, with the remaining property possibly not subject to the equal sharing principles of the PRA.

 

Road user charges and when to pay them?

The government imposes taxes on fuel through a road user charge (RUC) to collect funds for the maintenance and development of our roads. For most people, this tax is included in the petrol price.

Some vehicle owners, however, must pay the RUC and their fuel separately. If you own a vehicle weighing more than 3.5 tonnes, or a vehicle weighing less than 3.5 tonnes that runs on untaxed diesel, you must pay the RUC.

Your RUC licence is paid in advance to allow you to travel the distance purchased – usually in blocks of 1,000 kilometres.

You must always display the appropriate RUC licence on the inside of the passenger’s side of the front windscreen of your vehicle. Once your vehicle has travelled the distance covered by the RUC licence, you must renew your licence.

Owners must keep records of their vehicle use and have a hub odometer installed to accurately measure the distance it travels. Most vehicles that are subject to RUCs are sold with a hub odometer pre-installed.

Electric cars (EVs) do not currently incur RUCs. The new government, however, has indicated that EVs will pay the RUC from 1 April 2024 onwards.

 

Casual employees v seasonal workers

Seasonal workers are employed in certain sectors (particularly agricultural and horticultural areas) with the exclusive purpose of doing seasonal work, usually to assist with an increase in seasonal production requirements. Although seasonal work is temporary by nature, employers must be aware of the minimum entitlements for seasonal workers. There is a distinction between ‘casual’ workers and ‘seasonal workers’ in general. The Employment Relations Act 2000 requires specific clauses in employment agreements for these workers.

Casual employment: a casual worker is employed to work on shifts that are offered and accepted. There is no requirement for them to accept work you offer. In between periods of work, this worker is not considered to be employed by you.

Seasonal work: generally speaking, a seasonal worker is employed to work the entire season. These people are permanent employees on a fixed-term basis who are likely to be employed under a fixed-term agreement[1]. It is important that your seasonal worker’s employment agreement is drafted according to the specifics of the job.

If you need help with employing this summer’s casual and seasonal workers, please don’t hesitate to contact us. It’s vital to get these employment agreements correct – both for you and your employees.

[1] Section 66, Employment Relations Act 2000.

 

 

 

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 Rural 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

Postscript

Commercial, Property, Your Own Business
0

Mainzeal case

The implications of the Mainzeal case[1] are being felt far and wide amongst the directorship community. We summarise below the findings of the Supreme Court case.

 

In August, after the case worked its way through the High Court and Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court found that the directors should be personally liable for $39.8 million plus interest payable  at 5% pa from the date of liquidation – together more than $50 million. The chief executive of Mainzeal (who was also a director) is responsible for the full sum, and the personal liability of the three other directors was capped at $6.6 million each plus interest.

 

In 2013, Mainzeal went into receivership and liquidation. It was calculated the company owed around $110 million to unsecured creditors. The liquidators believed that the directors of the company had breached s135 (reckless trading) and s136 (trading whilst insolvent) of the Companies Act 1993 and should be held personally liable for the losses of the company’s creditors.

 

Many directors may want to take a moment to reflect on what the Supreme Court decision may mean for them now and in the future. Becoming personally liable for a company’s debts is a significant risk associated with accepting (or continuing) a director role.

 

If you are considering taking on a directorship, you should take independent legal and accounting advice to not only carefully assess whether your skills are a good match for the company and the sector in which it operates, but also to be clear on any potential personal liability.

[1] Yan v Mainzeal Property and Construction Limited (in liquidation) [2023] NZSC 113.

 

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

Receivership, voluntary administration and liquidation

Commercial, Property, Your Own Business
0

What are the differences?

It’s been a challenging time for many businesses since the pandemic hit our shores. If you find your company in financial difficulty, you may be forced to make some difficult decisions.

This may involve receivership, voluntary administration or liquidations – but what are the differences?

 

Receivership

Receivership occurs where a receiver (typically a licensed insolvency practitioner who may also be a chartered accountant) is appointed to deal with secured assets or manage the business of a company for the benefit of the secured creditors.

 

A receiver can be appointed by a court order or by a secured creditor under the terms of a deed or agreement, under which a contractual right to appoint a receiver has been granted by the company (or any other entity).

 

The specific powers of a receiver include the right to demand and recover income of the property in receivership, issue receipts, manage property and inspect any documents relating to the property. The receiver may also have additional rights in the deed or agreement under which it has been appointed.

 

The receiver’s primary duty is to try and bring about a situation in which debts are repaid, and the company’s property is managed – not for the benefit of the company, but for the secured creditors. To do so, a receiver will collect and sell one or more secured assets on behalf of a secured creditor, and manage other preferential claims against the company. The directors of a company in receivership have restricted powers. They must co-operate with the receiver so that the financial affairs of the business can be resolved fairly and equitably. Directors must provide company accounts, records and other information required by the receiver.

 

Voluntary administration

Voluntary administration is an option aimed at giving a business the opportunity to survive and avoid liquidation. An administrator can sometimes save a failing business; administrators are generally appointed by the company directors to deal with all a company’s creditors and its affairs.

 

In considering whether voluntary administration is an option for the company, directors must weigh up whether it has the support of creditors, and whether creditors are likely to gain more financial benefit from the company avoiding liquidation and continuing to trade.

 

Other considerations include the extent of the company’s debt, the attitudes of suppliers, its history with creditors and the availability of cash flow.

 

Liquidation

In receivership and administration situations, there is a chance a business can be saved and return to normal trading. Liquidation, however, is the end of the road.

 

Previously known as ‘winding up’, liquidation can be voluntary or compulsory. The main reason a company will face compulsory liquidation is if it is unable to pay its debts and it is insolvent. A voluntary liquidation can be used if the shareholders want to cease trading.

 

A liquidator’s principal duty is to preserve and protect the company’s assets to enable distribution to its creditors and, in a solvent liquidation, its shareholders.

 

Liquidators will recover what they can and distribute the proceeds to a company’s preferential, secured and unsecured creditors and, in a solvent liquidation, to its shareholders. Although the liquidator has control of the assets, the company keeps ownership of them and holds the assets on trust for the creditors. When the liquidation is complete the company is removed  from the Companies Register.

 

Ask for guidance

When your business is facing financial strife, it’s easy to feel overwhelmed. We recommend you contact us for guidance to support you through the process.

 

 

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

Generative AI and copyright

Commercial, First Job, Latest news, Your Own Business
0

Are you taking the right precautions?

Many businesses have been using artificial intelligence (AI) for a long time to gather insights into their data and make strategic decisions. Recent generative AI improvements, however, have brought the power of AI into the public’s hands like never before. As a certain spider[1] once said: With great power comes great responsibility.

 

Generative AI technologies can now be used to create almost any type of content you can imagine; everything from a poem about pineapples to music in the style of Mozart and even three-dimensional models of motorbikes. However, the legal and human issues these technologies create are far less inspiring.

 

At its core, generative AI models are trained on large datasets of predominantly human-generated works to generate new works, that are ‘inspired’ from works within the training dataset. This approach raises several important legal questions, including:

  • Are companies allowed to train an AI model on content which they do not own? This is particularly significant considering much of the content is not in the public domain and is, arguably, covered by copyright
  • Once a model has been trained, who owns the content the model produces, and can it be used without infringing the intellectual property (IP) of others, and
  • Can you own and protect the output from an AI model?

 

There are also the ethical and fairness issues of using the creative works of others without compensation.

 

Many of these topics are currently being litigated in courts around the world, and while it would take a lengthy article to cover each issue in detail here, we discuss three key issues below.

 

  1. IP laws vary from country to country
    While there are international agreements on copyright provided under the Berne Convention, there are still significant differences in copyright law in different countries. This is particularly important when it comes to issues such as relying on ‘fair use’ as a defence to copyright infringement.

    Copyright is also only a small piece of the puzzle. Depending on how you use AI, you may need to also consider local and international laws covering moral rights, consumer protection such as the Fair Trading Act 1986 and the tort of passing off, breach of contract, violations of the American statute Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998 and unfair competition laws – to name just a few.

 

  1. AI-generated content can still infringe the rights of others
    Even if an AI is tasked with creating new content, this does not guarantee that content can be used without infringing the rights of others. Most AI models have been trained on datasets that include works protected by copyright, patents, trademarks and registered designs. Therefore, before being used, the generated outputs should be reviewed to assess potential infringement issues.

 

  1. The use of a generative AI may prevent you from asserting copyright in the generated works
    Most guidance from overseas markets at this stage is that to be copyright-eligible, the creative work requires a human author. Prompting an AI to generate content is unlikely to meet the human authorship standard. The extent to which you can claim copyright on an AI-generated work is likely to be limited to a detailed analysis of exactly what the human inputs were when compared with the computer-generated outputs.

 

What can you do to reduce risk?

Despite these above issues, you can take practical steps to help reduce your risk in using AI-generated content. These include:

  • Searching to determine how different your AI-generated content is from existing, potentially protected works
  • Ensuring that key issues such as privacy and confidentiality are not breached by your use of the AI
  • Fact checking the outputs of the AI
  • Ethical use of the AI, including not using the AI as a tool to copy or mimic the art style of another person or company, and
  • Keeping detailed records of what the generative AI was used for, including details of prompts, intermediate outputs, manual edits and so on.

 

Since generative AI technologies can be used in a seemingly endless number of different applications, your risk exposure will depend on exactly what you are using these technologies for and what precautions you can take to reduce your risk.

[1] Spider-Man said this, but it has also been attributed to Winston Churchill.

 

 

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

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

+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]