+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]

#EdmondsJudd

Helping a child purchase their first home

Family Law, First Home Buyers, Legal Guidance, Property Law, Relationship Property, Wills & Estates
0

When Luke and Yassica’s daughter Mildred decided to purchase a house, Luke and Yassica were keen to support and help her. Then Mildred told Luke and Yassica that she was going to purchase with her partner Jack so that they could combine resources. They were still struggling to be able to afford the sort of house that Luke and Yassica thought they should live in. Luke and Yassica had some savings that they were happy to allow Mildred and Jack to use, so they started thinking about how they could best help Mildred and Jack.

 

After talking to their solicitor, Luke and Yassica proposed to Mildred and Jack that they would provide them with $25,000 towards their purchase. Luke and Yassica’s solicitor would prepare a simple document that would record that the payment of $25,000 would be a loan to Mildred and Jack. Mildred and Jack would not be required to pay any interest, no security would be taken, but they would need to agree that the loan could be called up at any time. This arrangement gave Luke and Yassica the comfort of knowing that they were helping Mildred and Jack to get into a lovely home, but if Mildred and Jack’s relationship ended, Luke and Yassica would be able to call for repayment of the loan, so that the benefit of their hard-earned savings was kept in the family.

Evoto

Trusts can protect assets

Criminal Law, Estate, Estate Planning, Property Law, Trust Law, Wills & Estates
0

But they cannot ring fence assets derived from fraud

On 26 March 2021, John Bracken was convicted of New Zealand’s largest GST fraud having fraudulently obtained $17,311,262.29 in GST refunds over a period of four years.

On 23 February 2026, the Commissioner of Police applied to the High Court for a profit forfeiture order over property in which Mr Bracken had an ‘interest.’ In other words, the Commissioner sought to recover assets unlawfully obtained from Mr Bracken’s criminal activities.

The most valuable assets acquired from Mr Bracken’s criminal activities, however, were held by the Bracken Family Trust and not himself personally.

Despite this, under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (CPRA), the court determined that the trust must forfeit $13 million of its own assets in response to Mr Bracken’s offending as he had an ’interest’ in the trust property.

 

Criminals may not profit from their actions

For the court to make a profit forfeiture order, it had to be satisfied that Mr Bracken had ‘unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity’ and that he had ’interests’ in property.

It was quite clear that Mr Bracken had unlawfully benefitted from a significant criminal activity, so the question turned to whether he had an ‘interest’ in the trust’s property.

Discretionary beneficiaries cannot usually be said to have an ‘interest’ in trust property, because the property is legally owned and controlled by the trustees, not the beneficiaries. Discretionary beneficiaries do not have a legal right to the trust’s property, only a hope that the trustees might decide to distribute something to them, or that they will receive what is left when the trust comes to an end.

The Bracken Family Trust was unusual though, because Mr & Mrs Bracken had reserved a lot of power to themselves: they were settlors, trustees, discretionary beneficiaries, final beneficiaries and, as ‘Principal Family Members’, had the power to remove beneficiaries, and appoint and remove trustees.

Moreover, under the CPRA, an ‘interest’ in relation to property is much broader than simply owning something. It includes not only a legal or equitable interest in property, but also a right, power or privilege connected with the property.

In addition, the court can treat having ‘effective control over property’ as an ‘interest in property.’ As a part of this analysis, the court can have regard to ‘any trust that has a relationship to the property.’

The court determined Mr Bracken had both:

  1. An ’interest’ in the trust property both because he was a final beneficiary of the trust and due to his powers as a ‘Principal Family Member,’ and
  2. Effective control over the trust property, which was also due to his powers as a ‘Principal Family Member’ and that he was a trustee.

After much complex legal argument, the profit forfeiture order was granted with a maximum recoverable amount of $16,019,231.16, around $13 million of this was trust-owned property. The trust could retain the family farm (valued at $3.780 million), as this would allow the innocent beneficiaries to continue to benefit from this generational family asset. All the other remaining trust property was to be forfeited.

 

Trusts cannot shield ill-gotten gains

This case shows that while well-drafted trusts remain valuable and legitimate estate planning tools, they cannot be used as a shield for assets that have been acquired through crime – particularly in cases where the perpetrator has retained so much power over the trust assets that such power is tantamount to property (or an ‘interest’).

The court’s decision was said to be a strict statutory interpretation exercise, and there are clearly legitimate policy (and societal) reasons behind the CPRA having such a strong stance. It remains to be seen, however, whether a case involving a trust over which a criminal has few or no powers would result in the same outcome.

This case shows an intriguing relationship between statutory intervention and orthodox trust principles – giving us much to ponder.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Trust eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Trust eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Content Copyright © NZ LAW Limited, 2026.    Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]      Ph: 029 286 3650

Review of adult decision-making capacity law

Elder Law, Estate Planning, Family Law, Legal Guidance, Property Law, Wills & Estates
0

Law Commission recommendations

The Law Commission recently reviewed the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 (PPPR Act). This legislation governs how decisions are made for adults who lack capacity and can no longer make some decisions for themselves.

The PPPR Act applies widely; it includes adults who have declining capacity due to dementia, lack capacity due to intellectual disabilities or have a temporary loss of capacity (for example) due to injuries.

The Commission has made a number of recommendations for reform, particularly regarding property managers and welfare guardians who are appointed by the court to make decisions for people who cannot make decisions themselves.

 

Overall approach

The Commission recommends repealing the PPPR Act and replacing it with new legislation. The biggest shift is away from asking what is in a person’s ‘best interests’ (often considered paternalistic), and towards asking what the person’s own wishes, values and rights are, and how those can be respected.

Court-appointed decision-makers would be expected to support the person’s participation in decisions wherever possible; they would only step in to decide for them where genuinely necessary.

 

Changes to the roles of property managers and welfare guardians

The Commission also recommends renaming ‘property managers’ to ‘property representatives’ and ‘welfare guardians’ to ‘welfare representatives.’ The change reflects a shift in emphasis: these representatives would not simply make decisions they think are best, but would instead be required to represent the person’s wishes and values as far as possible.

Representatives would have clearer statutory duties. They would be required to act honestly, in good faith and with reasonable care, understand the person’s circumstances, support the person to participate in decisions, communicate in a way the person can understand, respect the person’s rights, and make decisions centered on the person’s wishes and values.

The scope of appointments might become more limited than they are currently. Representatives would only make decisions that the person lacks capacity to make and only where someone else genuinely needs to make those decisions. If a person retains capacity for some decisions, they would continue making those decisions themselves.

Property representatives would continue to have financial reporting obligations, and the existing financial limits on decisions they can make without court approval would be modified.

Welfare representatives could also be made subject to reporting requirements where appropriate. Representatives would also be expected to notify the court if significant changes occur that affect their suitability or the ongoing need for the appointment.

The court would have greater flexibility to tailor appointments. It could appoint multiple representatives, divide responsibilities, impose reporting obligations, require consultation between representatives and include safeguards where conflicts of interest exist.

Where a representative is also a spouse or partner, conflicts of interest would not prevent appointment, but specific conditions might be imposed from the outset to ensure conflicts of interest are handled appropriately.

 

Reasons for the proposed changes

Currently, many court-appointed representatives are family members with no legal training. The Law Commission found that the current duties are scattered between the PPPR Act and case law, making the roles difficult to understand. It recommends a single, clear list of statutory duties, and clearer obligations for representatives, so they are better equipped to understand their role and responsibilities.

The current law is also viewed as not sufficiently focussed on the person for whom decisions are being made. Property managers and welfare guardians are not always aware that they need to consider the person’s rights, wishes and values, rather than just making the decision they think is best.

 

Conclusion

Overall, the recommendations focus on encouraging people to participate in decisions which affect them and make as many decisions as they reasonably can make, but supporting them where needed. Where representatives are appointed, their role is to be as limited as possible and proportional to the lack of capacity in question.

If these changes become law, representatives will have clearer obligations, and will be accountable for respecting the rights, wishes and values of the person for whom they are making decisions.

The recommendations have not yet been considered by Parliament and may still evolve before any new laws are passed. It is, however, worth being aware that the roles and obligations of property managers and welfare guardians are likely to change in the coming years.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Trust eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Trust eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Content Copyright © NZ LAW Limited, 2026.    Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]      Ph: 029 286 3650

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 

‘Doomsday’ provisions in your will

Charitable Giving, Estate Planning, Family Law, Trusts, Wills & Estate Planning, Wills & Estates
0

You may recall the tragic story of English businessman, Richard Cousins, and his family, who all died together in a plane crash in Australia on New Year’s Eve 2017.

About a year before his death, Mr Cousins amended his will by adding ‘Doomsday’ provisions. The provisions stated that if he and his family died simultaneously, the majority of his large estate would pass to his elected charity, Oxfam. Due to Mr Cousins’ foresight, Oxfam received their largest donation ever at that time of £41 million.

 

What are Doomsday provisions?

Doomsday[1] provisions (also referred to as fail safe, common catastrophe or calamity clauses) are back-up provisions in a person’s will. They set out what happens to your estate should all your beneficiaries pass away before they are able to receive their share.

This is the situation commonly referred to as Doomsday.

 

Why have Doomsday provisions?

The purpose of Doomsday provisions is to ensure that your estate passes to someone or somewhere you intend.

If a Doomsday/catastrophic situation occurs, and your will has no Doomsday provisions, uncertainty arises. The gifts in your will may fail and your estate (or the parts affected) may be distributed as if you died without a will (intestate).

In this situation, the intestacy rules set out in the Administration Act 1969 will apply. These rules set out who is entitled to your estate, even though they may not be beneficiaries in your will. Where your spouse or partner, and children have all died, your estate passes to your wider relatives in a set order, which can include:

  • Grandchildren/great-grandchildren
  • Parents
  • Siblings
  • Grandparents
  • Aunts and uncles, or
  • Half-aunts and half-uncles.

 

Ultimately, if there are no living beneficiaries to receive your estate, parts or all of it may pass to the Crown.

The prospect of such an outcome can be troubling to many people, particularly in the midst of increasingly complex family dynamics. If you have no Doomsday provisions in your will and all your beneficiaries are dead, your estate could be subject to administrative delay and litigation between those making a claim. The costs of these delays may be taken from your estate.

Planning for a ‘Doomsday’ may feel a remote or upsetting scenario. However, it is important to consider whether to include Doomsday provisions in your will. For example, if your family all travel together or all your beneficiaries are older than you, your estate is at a greater risk of being distributed in a way that does not align with your wishes without a such a clause.

 

Key considerations

When considering Doomsday provisions, it is important to take legal advice. They should be drafted to work with your family circumstances, the relevant legislation, and any other estate planning documents you have.

There are various ways a person may try to dispute your Doomsday provisions, and we can advise on strategies to reduce that risk. The more we know about your family dynamics and lifestyle, the better we can provide appropriate options.

It is particularly important that you let us know about any contracts, trusts, agreements and other documents which do, or could, affect your estate.

 

Doomsday provisions and trusts

You should also consider whether a Doomsday provision is appropriate for your family trust.

Without Doomsday provisions, a problem arises if all the trust’s beneficiaries die, or if the trust reaches its vesting date with no beneficiaries left to receive trust property. However, some trust deeds do have default beneficiary provisions to address this situation. We can assist you with reviewing your trust deed to advise you on this.

 

Adding Doomsday provisions

Adding Doomsday provisions to your will (or trust) increases certainty that your wishes will be followed and your property will be distributed to a person, organisation or cause you have chosen.

You may wish to name your siblings, close friends, iwi, religious organisations or charities as final recipients.

A charitable organisation is often a good option because charities usually remain operating long-term. Further, it provides the opportunity to help a cause that is close to your heart. And, if a charity is reliant on donations and bequests (as are most charities in New Zealand), such a donation may be life-changing for those they help.

 

[1] Doomsday, originating from Old English, usually refers to the end of the world or a day of ultimate or catastrophic reckoning.

 

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 

Modern Slavery Bill

Business Law, Employment Law, Human Resources, Human Rights, Legislation, Supply Chains, Workplace Law
0

Implications for business

The introduction into Parliament of the Modern Slavery Bill has brought awareness of how modern slavery has manifested itself into New Zealand businesses. Modern slavery can rear its ugly head in a range of ways from forced labour in supply chains, exploitation (or coercion) of workers and various forms of trafficking.

The Bill has also made history as it is the first time a bill has been introduced through Standing Order 288. This allows a Private Member’s Bill to bypass the random ballot (or ‘biscuit tin’) process if it is supported by two-thirds of non-executive MPs.

This Bill was co-sponsored by Labour MP Camilla Belich and National MP Greg Fleming. This bi-partisan effort shows the importance of the Bill not only to our parliamentarians, but also to New Zealand society.

 

What is modern slavery?

Modern slavery is often seen as a global matter and, for many New Zealanders, it probably feels like an issue away from our shores. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. World Vision currently estimates that the average Kiwi spends around $77 a week on goods linked to various forms of modern slavery.[1] Walk Free’s 2023 Global Slavery Index estimated that in 2021, there were 8,000 individuals on any given day, living in modern slavery in New Zealand.[2]

In a high-profile case in the modern history of slavery in New Zealand, Joseph Matamata was convicted of 13 charges of slavery and 10 charges of human trafficking involving labourers working in orchards. After bringing the labourers to New Zealand with promises of a better life, Matamata retained their income, restricted communication and movement, and used threats of violence to ensure the labourers stayed in their jobs.[3]

The Bill

The Bill is both broad and extensive in defining modern slavery. It is defined as:

  • Crimes already understood in the Crimes Act 1961:
    – Dealing in slaves, as well as debt-bondage or sefdom
    – Dealing in people under 18 for sexual exploitation, removal of body parts, or engagement in forced labour
    – People trafficking, and
    – Coerced marriage or civil union
  • The ‘worst forms of child labour’ under Article 3 of the International Labour Organisation Convention No. 182
  • Trafficking as defined by Article 3 of the United Nations Protocol
  • Forced or exploitative labour
  • Servitude, and
  • Sexual exploitation.[4]

 

Outside of the definition of modern slavery, the Bill requires the Minister to report annually on modern slavery matters, to publish guidance and to direct the Chief Human Rights Commissioner to designate modern slavery as a ‘priority area’ if necessary. The Bill will lead to the creation of a Modern Slavery Statement Register to be publicly accessible. All this will be overseen by the proposed independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner.

 

What does this mean for business?

The Bill currently states that ‘reporting entities’ are required to:

  • Prepare and publish annual modern slavery statements that describe their structure and supply chains
  • Identify modern slavery risks (both real and potential)
  • Outline what steps the entity is taking to deal with the identified risks, and
  • Lodge these statements on the Modern Slavery Statement Register.

A ‘reporting entity’ in the Bill is defined as a business with a consolidated annual revenue that exceeds $100 million. These entities not only refer to New Zealand entities, but also any overseas company carrying on business in New Zealand. These entities can be both public and private organisations, with government agencies also being captured under this regime.

 

How this affects New Zealand businesses

If your business is considered a reporting entity under the Bill, non-compliance with the regime could carry a strong penalty. Offences will be committed if entities fail to comply with their reporting obligations, or if they knowingly make false or misleading statements in their reports. These offences could amount to reporting entities being liable on conviction to a fine of up to $200,000.

From a civil point of view, the maximum pecuniary penalty for a contravening reporting entity is $600,000.

This also imposes personal liability for directors and individuals involved in management. If an offence occurs with the permission, knowledge or presumed knowledge of these individuals, they will be found guilty. This is particularly important if the director or management should have known it was occurring but failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it from happening.

The final important note for businesses is that if they are found to be non-compliant, both the name of the business and the individuals responsible will be published on the Register for three years.

 

Preparing for the Bill to become law

Many affected by the reporting obligations of this Bill may already be familiar with its obligations, considering there are similar laws in other jurisdictions. However, potential ways to prepare for the implementation of the modern slavery legislation in New Zealand could be in the form of preparing policies and governance, reviewing supply and procurement contracts (and being particularly diligent about who your suppliers are), and potentially establishing internal whistleblowing procedures.

Other steps could involve identifying risk factors that may facilitate the exploitation of workers, and developing management plans to mitigate them. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has a range of specific resources all targeted towards combatting modern slavery.[5]

 

A positive development

This Bill is widely seen as a positive development in New Zealand law. While there may be concerns on the extent of obligations imposed on entities, the benefits to victims undoubtedly outweigh the costs. If you are concerned that this proposed legislation may affect the way you do business, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

[1]  https://www.worldvision.org.nz/about/media/parliamentary-rule-modern-slavery-act-for-nz/

[2] https://www.walkfree.org/global-slavery-index/country-studies/new-zealand/

[3] Joseph Auga Matamata v R [2020] NZHC 1829.

[4] https://www.legislation.govt.nz/bill/members/2026/242/en/latest/#LMS1569519

[5] https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/trade/nz-trade-policy/combatting-modern-slavery

 

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 

Postscript

Environmental Law, Planning Ahead, Property Law, Resource Management, Rural Law
0

RMA replacement legislation reported back from select committee

 

On 20 July, the select committee reported back on the Natural Environment Bill and the Planning Bill, that are set to replace the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA). The committee received 3,204 submissions and heard presentations from 178 submitters.

Whilst key features of the new system have been retained, the select committee recommended some improvements (that the government supports) that will refine and clarify some aspects of the bills.

After feedback from a range of submitters, the timeframe to implement the transition period from the RMA to the two new statutes has been extended from 30 months to 39 months.

The Labour Party has indicated that if it forms a government in November, it will not repeal this new legislation. The party does, however, state that it has some serious misgivings about some aspects, particularly the regulatory relief provisions.

In the meantime, there is some hard work to be done to incorporate the committee’s recommendations and present the bills again to Parliament for a second reading – all before the House rises in September for the 7 November election.

For more information on the Environment Committee’s report go here.[1]

[1]  https://www3.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/scl/environment/tab report#filterformsearchtarget 

 

Fineprint’s 100th edition!

The eagle-eyed amongst you may have noticed we are publishing the 100th edition of Fineprint. This is not only a significant milestone for any publication, but also an affirmation to all our readers, that Fineprint continues to resonate with you in terms of relevant content.

Established in April 1997, we have moved from two-colour printed hard copy to publishing a full-colour beautifully-designed edition (thank you Mission Hall Creative) as you see today. Over the years, we have shifted from hard copy only, to now mostly publishing electronically. We have moved with the times.

Our biggest thank you goes to you, our readers, who continue to enjoy reading Fineprint and have given us valuable feedback in terms of topics to cover. We will continue publishing interesting, useful and sometimes thought-provoking content that not only covers legal issues, but also the wider business and social communities. If you would like to give us feedback, please email the editor at: [email protected].

Thank you and kia ora.

 

 

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 

Workplace Stress: An Employment Issue?

Employee Wellbeing, Employment Law, Human Resources, Legal Guidance, Small Business Advice, Workplace Advice
0

It was a busy time at Emilio’s agri business, and Sally noticed that one of his employees, Barry, appeared to be under considerable pressure.

“You should check in with him,” Sally suggested. “If an employee is struggling, you need to take those concerns seriously. Workplace stress can become an employment issue, particularly if an employer is aware that an employee’s health may be affected.”

Employers have obligations to provide a safe and healthy workplace. While they are not expected to diagnose or treat medical conditions, they should not ignore signs that an employee may be struggling.

Where health concerns arise, an employer should listen to the employee, consider whether any support or workplace adjustments may be appropriate, and seek professional advice where necessary.

The key is to address concerns early. Ignoring signs of workplace stress or failing to respond appropriately could create greater problems for both the employee and the employer.

If you are unsure how to handle a situation involving an employee’s health or wellbeing, it is important to seek employment advice before taking action.

Methamphetamine in farm worker accommodation

Employment Law, Farm Accommodation, Landlord Obligations, Methamphetamine Contamination, Rural, Tenancy Law
0

Providing housing for a rural workforce is often essential to run a successful farming operation, but it also puts a farm owner into the role of a residential landlord for legal purposes.

Whether the occupier is a contract milker, sharemilker or general farm employee, the same baseline responsibilities apply as they would in any residential tenancy. In recent years, however, methamphetamine contamination has become an increasingly practical and legal risk area for all landlords to manage.

 

Landlord obligations

The core legal point is straightforward: if you provide residential premises, you must meet the statutory duties imposed on landlords. Under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, a landlord must provide the premises in a reasonable state of cleanliness and repair, and must comply with buildings, and health and safety requirements that apply to the premises.

Landlords must follow contaminant regulations. If the landlord knows the property is contaminated and it hasn’t been properly cleaned, it cannot be let to a new tenant. As well, an existing tenant may only remain there in limited, regulated circumstances during clean-up.

 

Meth testing is now a live issue (especially on farms)

Farm accommodation is uniquely exposed to harm because it often involves high turnover, seasonal employment, limited day-to-day oversight and shared use by staff, contractors and visitors. These factors can make contamination — whether historical, accidental or intentional — harder to trace and harder to prove.

Adding to the risk, recent rural workplace testing data reported by The Drug Detection Agency in the farming media indicates drug use detected in provincial and rural workplaces has risen sharply in some regions. While workplace testing data is not the same as housing contamination data, it is a useful indicator that substance use remains a live workforce issue in parts of the rural economy, and it helps explain why farmers are increasingly thinking about worker accommodation risk management.[1]

 

Getting it right from the start

Even where meth contamination is detected, disputes often turn on evidence. When contamination concerns arise, the landlord needs evidence that contamination arose during the relevant person’s occupancy and, without a baseline test, landlords can face significant difficulty recovering costs or showing they acted reasonably.

This evidential theme is also reflected in the courts. In a 2021 case,[2] the judge observed that the ‘significant problem’ for the landlord’s claim was the absence of methamphetamine testing at the start of the tenancy. If initial testing had shown no meth residue, the residue detected at the end could only have occurred during the tenancy.

The courts have also addressed whether testing can occur during an inspection. The High Court has indicated that non-invasive methamphetamine testing may fall within a general inspection power in a tenancy agreement. The court also noted landlords’ obligations to provide and maintain a habitable property and to comply with relevant legislative requirements, in a context where testing was used to assess habitability.

 

When testing and decontamination are mandatory

Since April 2026, regulations made under the Residential Tenancies Act provide a process for identifying and managing methamphetamine contamination in residential tenancy premises.

The regulations require a landlord to arrange testing in accordance with the prescribed method where Police or a local authority notify the landlord that manufacture has, or is likely to have, taken place, or where a valid screening assessment indicates contamination and the landlord is notified. Where decontamination work is required, the person engaged to carry out decontamination must be independent of those who performed the testing.

 

Future practical considerations for farmers

A structured, documented testing regime is a practical way to manage legal risk and reduce disputes. Recommended best practice includes:

  1. A pre-tenancy baseline meth test by a qualified tester
  2. Post-tenancy (or between-tenancy) testing, and
  3. Careful record-keeping of certificates, reports, photographs and accommodation agreements.

Finally, consider including clear testing clauses in accommodation agreements (including where housing is part of an employment or sharemilking arrangement) to set expectations and reduce misunderstandings.

Meth testing is not about assuming the worst of workers; it is about ensuring accommodation is safe, healthy and legally defensible. This is particularly important in a sector where workforce mobility, remote locations and emerging substance use trends can combine to create real operational health and safety exposure for farmers.

[1] Report on TDDA data in Q1 2026.

[2] Eren Ltd v Martin [2021] NZDC 15210.

 

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.
Content Copyright © NZ LAW Limited, 2026.    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]