+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]

CompanyLaw

Former Port of Auckland CEO loses appeal against health and safety conviction

Company Law, Directors’ Duties, Employment Law, Health and Safety, Workplace Safety, WorkplaceLaw
0

The former chief executive of Port of Auckland Ltd (POAL), Tony Gibson, lost his appeal against his conviction under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA) following the night shift death of a port worker, Pala’amo Kalati. Mr Kalati was crushed by a container while helping to unload a container ship. The High Court confirmed the District Court’s decision on the duties of an officer of a large organisation under the HSWA.

 

Failure to take steps to minimise risk

The High Court[1] confirmed that Mr Gibson had failed to take the steps that a reasonable officer in his position would have taken to minimise the risk of an accident occurring. The court agreed with the District Court that Mr Gibson was personally aware of the risks associated with loading and unloading containers, that the company’s documentation containing its rules for handling containers was unclear, and that the company had inadequate systems in place to determine whether its workers were complying with its rules.

The court also agreed that Mr Gibson should have been aware of the serious risks associated with handling containers following the 2018 death of one of the port’s workers.

The High Court also upheld the District Court’s decision to impose a fine of $130,000 on Mr Gibson and to order him to pay a further $60,000 in court costs.

The court’s decision confirms several principles relating to the duties of company officers under the HSWA, which were set down in the District Court’s decision. These are:

  • It is not enough for a company officer to ensure that systems are in place to protect workers’ safety. They must also ensure that work practices are monitored for compliance. They must ensure that they are aware of how their staff actually carry out their work as opposed to how they are supposed to do so, and
  • A company officer cannot simply delegate their health and safety responsibilities to someone else in their company and rely on that person to ensure compliance with health and safety rules, without proper enquiry that the organisation’s systems are adequately addressing health and safety risks. They must critically examine information provided to them by their staff relating to health and safety. They must also create mechanisms to verify the information they are receiving.

 

Maritime New Zealand, the government body with responsibility for health and safety prosecutions relating to ports, only charged POAL’s chief executive officer. The High Court observed that there were a number of different people at the port company, including directors and managers, who had obligations under the HSWA who could also have been charged.

This decision emphasises that both those involved in governance and operational matters in a large organisation may have personal health and safety obligations.

If you have any concerns about your health and safety obligations as a company director or senior employee, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

 

[1] Gibson v Maritime New Zealand [2026] NZHC 813.

 

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, 2026.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]     Ph: 029 286 3650 

Consequences of ‘accidental directorship’

Business Law, Company Law, Corporate Governance, Directors’ Duties, StartupAdvice, Startups, Venture Capital
0

Caution for investors, startup advisers and board observers

Startup companies often rely on advisers, investors and board observers to help guide their new businesses. This is a good thing, but it carries hidden risk.

If you are in one of these roles, in some circumstances, you can be treated as a director, even if you never formally agreed to the appointment. If this happens, it can expose you to personal liability.

 

Directors vs advisers: What’s the difference?

Directors are responsible for the overall governance and strategic direction of the business.

Directorship also comes with legal compliance under the Companies Act 1993. There are significant consequences for directors if things go wrong.

On the other hand, advisers and board observers typically provide strategic, non-binding guidance for the directors to take into consideration when making decisions.

In theory, this is a clear distinction. The line, however, can become blurred. What matters is what you do in practice, rather than your title.

 

How do people become accidental directors?

This is common in startups, where governance structures are still evolving and roles are often informal. Having said that, this is still a real risk for any company. Courts tend to focus on how you are fulfilling your role as an adviser or observer in practice. Warning signs include:

  • The board of directors regularly following your instructions or directions
  • Being involved in decision-making on the same level as directors, and/or
  • Exercising authority normally reserved for directors.

If these patterns develop, you may be seen as a deemed director.

 

Personal liability

Directors’ duties are personal. If a company gets into financial trouble, the directors are exposed to personal liability, and in some instances may be required to personally contribute to company debts. This risk doesn’t just apply to those formally appointed. If you are treated as a director in substance, you may carry this risk without even realising you’ve taken it on.

 

A risk area

Board observers and startup advisers are particularly exposed because their role sits very close to the line. For example, an observer may:

  • Attend meetings and receive board papers
  • Provide input on strategy or decisions, and/or
  • Represent investor interests.

 

That’s fine, but the risk increases where:

  • You participate in decision-making on significant matters
  • The board tends to follow your recommendations
  • Your role is not clearly recorded as ‘observer only,’ and/or
  • You (or your investor) have significant control or approval rights.

Over time, what starts as ‘advice’ can start to look like decision-making.

 

This is one of those areas where things can drift without anyone noticing. Everyone is acting in good faith, wanting the business to succeed, but the legal position gradually shifts. If you are involved in a startup as an adviser, investor or observer, it’s worth asking yourself:

  • Am I just advising, or am I influencing decisions?
  • Does the board treat my input as optional or as direction?
  • Is my role clearly documented and understood?

Small changes in how you operate can make a big difference.

 

Be careful

Being an adviser or board observer is often valuable and rewarding, and is of great benefit to startups. However, there are real risks with these roles that are not always obvious. If your involvement crosses the line into decision-making or control, the law may consider you as a director, exposing you to all the responsibility and possible personal liability that comes with that title.

It pays to be clear about your role from the outset and to keep checking that your involvement hasn’t crept further than intended. If you’re not sure where that line sits in your situation, it’s a good time to get legal advice to help avoid unintended consequences.

 

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, 2026.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]     Ph: 029 286 3650 

Rights of shareholders to company information

Business Guidance, Company & Shareholder Law, Leave & Entitlements
0

If you are a shareholder of a small to medium-sized company but not a director, then you may have a significant amount of money invested in the company but not be involved in its day-to-day management and operation.

 

You have an interest in knowing what the company is doing, as your investment may be at risk if the company fails. You may also be reliant on the company for your income, either through share dividends or as an employee of the company.

 

This raises the issue of what information about a company a shareholder is entitled to receive. The Companies Act 1993 governs this.

 

Right to information under section 216

A shareholder has an absolute right to some fundamental information under section 216 of the Companies Act. This includes:

  • Minutes of all meetings and shareholder resolutions
  • All written information distributed to shareholders over the preceding 10 years, including annual reports and financial statements
  • Directors’ certificates, and
  • The company’s interests register (the official list of any potential conflicts of interest the directors may have).

 

The limited information available under section 216 is unlikely to enable a shareholder to obtain information about significant financial decisions made by the company in time to influence them.

 

Right to information under section 178

A shareholder has a right to ask for any information held by a company under section 178 of the Companies Act. However, the company may refuse to provide the information or charge the shareholder for providing it. The company may decline to provide information for any reason.

 

The Companies Act, however, specifically states that a company may refuse to provide information if its release would prejudice the company’s commercial position or that of any other party it is dealing with. It also states that a company may refuse a request that is frivolous or vexatious.

 

A shareholder may apply to the court to have a company’s decision to refuse to release information reviewed. However, a court application is likely to substantially delay the release of the information and increase the cost of obtaining it, even if the court ultimately orders the release of the information.

 

Shareholder entitled to see the company’s legal advice?

One category of information that has special rules applying to it is legal advice received by a company. Traditionally, the courts have applied what has become known as the Shareholder Rule.[1] This has meant that a shareholder was entitled to be provided with any legal advice obtained by a company except advice relating to a dispute with the shareholder. It would be very difficult for a company to deal with a dispute with a shareholder if it could not keep its legal advice regarding the dispute confidential.

 

Recent Privy Council decision

The UK’s Privy Council has recently issued a decision that is likely to become a landmark decision in company law.[2] The court’s decision effectively overturns the long-standing Shareholder Rule. The court held that shareholders are not entitled to any privileged legal advice obtained by a company.

 

The Privy Council is no longer New Zealand’s highest court; it was replaced by the Supreme Court in New Zealand in 2004. The Privy Council’s decisions are, however, still strongly influential on the development of New Zealand law. Many commentators believe that the New Zealand courts will adopt this approach to the Shareholder Rule. Companies may well, therefore, begin to decline shareholder requests for any legal advice obtained by a company under section 178 of the Companies Act.

 

It is likely that the New Zealand courts will uphold the refusal by a company to release such information in the future.

 

Shareholders still have strong rights

Shareholders still have strong rights to obtain information about a company under sections 178 and 216 of the Companies Act, even if they are no longer able to access the company’s legal advice. These rights can be particularly useful if a dispute arises between shareholders in relation to the company’s management or strategic direction.

 

You should contact us if you have any concerns about the management of a company in which you own shares. There are a number of legal mechanisms contained in the legislation that shareholders can use to protect their position, including the rights to information discussed here. Prompt action, however, is often required to achieve the best possible outcome.

[1] Lambie Trustee v Addleman [2021] NZSC 54, [2021] 1 NZLR 307.

[2] Jardine Strategic Holdings Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd No 2 [2025] UKPC 34.

 

 

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, 2025.     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]