+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]

#EdmondsJudd

New Zealand-India Free Trade Agreement

AgricultureNZ, Export, Fair Trading, Horticulture, Rural Business, Trade & Exports
0

Opportunities and limitations for the rural sector

The proposed New Zealand-India Free Trade Agreement (FTA) represents a significant development in the relationship between two very different agricultural economies.

India is now the world’s most populous country, with a rapidly growing middle class and increasing demand for high-quality goods and services. For New Zealand’s rural sector, the agreement creates many potential opportunities, although the benefits will not be evenly spread across all industries.

 

No dairy products

One of the most important features of the FTA is what it does not include. Dairy, New Zealand’s largest agricultural export sector, has largely been excluded from meaningful market access improvements. This reflects the political and economic importance of dairy farming within India, where millions of small-scale farmers rely on dairy production for income.

For New Zealand dairy farmers, this means the agreement is unlikely to deliver the type of transformational change experienced under previous trade agreements, such as improved access into China. Significant tariffs and restrictions on dairy products are expected to remain, limiting opportunities for products such as milk powder, butter and cheese.

 

Benefits to New Zealand however

While it may be disappointing for New Zealand’s largest export industry that the FTA does not include dairy, the wider rural sector could still benefit substantially:

The red meat sector may be one area with future opportunity: Although India is not traditionally viewed as a major market for New Zealand beef and lamb, changing demographics, urbanisation, tourism growth and increasing household incomes may support demand for premium imported meat products. High-end restaurants, hotels and specialist food retailers provide opportunities for New Zealand producers who are able to market themselves around quality, safety and traceability.

Horticulture could see meaningful benefit: New Zealand products such as kiwifruit, apples, cherries and other premium produce are well-positioned to appeal to India’s expanding middle class. Reduced tariffs, improved customs processes and stronger trading relationships could make these products more competitive. For growers, increased access to a market of more than 1.4 billion people provides an important opportunity to diversify beyond existing export destinations.

Forestry may also benefit from closer trade ties: India’s growing population and continued urban development are creating increasing demand for construction materials and wood products. New Zealand’s forestry industry, including exporters of logs and processed timber, may be well placed to satisfy this demand as India continues investment in housing and infrastructure.

Opportunities for the wool and fibre industries: While wool has faced significant challenges in recent years, India’s large textile and manufacturing sectors could create opportunities for high-quality New Zealand wool products. A stronger trading relationship may assist producers seeking new markets beyond traditional buyers.

 

FTA will go beyond the farm gate

The benefits of increased trade are unlikely to stop at the farm gate. Rural contractors, transport companies, processors, ports, professional advisers and technology providers may all benefit from increased export activity. New Zealand’s expertise in agricultural technology, animal genetics, environmental management and efficient farming systems may also create opportunities to export knowledge, not just physical products.

However, rural businesses should approach this new market carefully. India is a complex economy with different legal systems, regulations and commercial practices. Businesses considering expansion will need to carefully manage contracts, payment terms, intellectual property protection, biosecurity requirements and supply chain arrangements. Good professional advice will be vital to succeed in India.

There are also concerns that increased trade can create competitive pressures. While New Zealand’s agricultural sector is highly efficient, cheaper imported goods, labour differences, and different production standards can create tension. Ensuring fair competition and maintaining New Zealand’s reputation for quality will remain essential.

The exclusion of dairy means the FTA is unlikely to be a complete solution for New Zealand agriculture. The sector that has historically delivered the greatest export value may receive the least immediate benefit. For other rural industries, however, particularly horticulture, forestry, sheep and beef, and specialised agricultural services, the FTA could provide valuable long-term opportunities.

Ultimately, the success of the FTA for rural New Zealand will depend less on the signing of the document itself, and more on the ability of producers and exporters to identify opportunities, manage risk and build lasting relationships in one of the world’s fastest-growing economies.

 

FTA still to be ratified

While the FTA has been signed, it is still currently undergoing domestic ratification. It has now passed its first reading in Parliament and is currently being reviewed by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

After the committee process is completed, the legislation must still pass its remaining readings before the FTA formally comes into force.

 

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

When Workplace Conflict Hits

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

Lately, Sally had noticed that Emilio seemed a little distant and distracted. She asked him what was troubling him.

“Mi vida, I am so stressed. Work is so busy. We have orders to fill and my sales manager is having an argument with my chief mechanic!”

Emilio explained that his agritech business was in its peak season and orders were pouring in, but this issue meant the sales team and mechanical team could not communicate. That led to serious delays, angry customers and frustrated suppliers.

Sally suggested that Emilio might need some employment advice about New Zealand employment law.

 

Emilio called his lawyer the next morning. He learned that employers had obligations to act in good faith. He did not realise that employers could raise concerns with employees about their performance or workplace conduct, investigate the facts, and make decisions – provided these were decisions a fair and reasonable employer could make in the circumstances.

 

With guidance from his lawyer, Emilio raised the concerns with the sales manager and the chief mechanic. Quickly, the argument cooled off. Emilio met with each of the employees, and asked them for their side of events. He learned that the manager and mechanic were old friends that had different opinions about the best kind of coffee for the tearoom. The manager had asked office staff to get his favourite Kopi Luwak coffee, and had made a cup for the mechanic, telling him it was something different. The mechanic learned about the prank and was extremely upset.

 

Concluding the investigation, Emilio decided that he would give a written warning to the manager about the prank due to the effect it had on the mechanic, and gave a verbal warning to both employees about allowing the argument to affect the workplace. Since Emilio had caught it early and gave the employees plenty of opportunity to participate, they accepted the outcome and made amends, although the mechanic now brings a thermos to work.

 

Emilio went on to have his best sales season yet, meaning he could afford a holiday to Spain to take Sally to visit his abuela.

 

Jadin Hooper

Property briefs

Cross Leases, Easements, Neighbour Disputes, Property Disputes, Property Law, Residential Property
0

There are a plethora of court cases involving property disputes. We highlight two cases – an easement issue and a cross-lease dispute that may resonate with property owners.

 

Right of way easement

The Wimax[1] case involved a dispute arising between neighbours over a right of way (driveway) easement.

Wimax and Fuge were neighbours along a right of way. Wimax owned the land on which there was the driveway; Fuge benefitted from the free and unimpeded right to use it to access their property.

Wimax had built structures on its property encroaching on the right of way area, including retaining walls and concrete parking walls. The structures replaced earlier structures, improved the driveway’s appearance and did not encroach further than previous structures. They were, however, larger and more permanent than before.

Fuge discovered the structures encroached on the driveway and demanded their removal. Wimax refused, arguing that the structures did not impede Fuge’s access and would be an unnecessary cost to remove.

Fuge initiated arbitration seeking an order[2] to enable the court to enforce the terms of the easement. The arbitrator found that the structures did not substantially interfere with the right of way.

Fuge appealed this decision to the High Court; this overturned the arbitrator’s decision finding that the structures amounted to a wrongful interference.

Wimax then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that Fuge needed to show that there was a ‘substantial’ interference with their ‘reasonable’ use of the right of way. Fuge could not.

Despite the structures, Fuge could still use the driveway to access the property, just as the previous owners had done for over 60 years. Further, Fuge had no plans to develop their property on which the structures would impact. On balance, Fuge had rights over an adequate and effective driveway which did not need to be widened and was still useable despite the structures.

The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s decision and Wimax was entitled to retain the structures.

Fuge, dissatisfied with this decision, appealed to the Supreme Court. The appeal was heard on 17 February 2026, although the judgment has not yet been delivered. It will be interesting to read it once it is released.

If you are a party to a right of way and have any questions regarding your rights and obligations under the terms of the easement, please contact us for advice.

 

Cross lease dispute

This involved a long-running dispute[3] involving the Goldsburys who withheld consent to their neighbours, the Turners, replacing an existing dwelling on their property which was subject to the terms of a cross-lease.

Most cross-leases provide that alterations cannot be made (or new structures erected) without the prior consent of the other parties. This consent cannot be unreasonably withheld.

The Turners owned the property at the front of a four-way cross-lease. The Goldsburys owned two properties to the rear. The Turner’s property was derelict, and they sought the Goldsburys’ consent to demolish and erect a modern building in its place. There were also issues with recurring flooding and so they wanted to ‘lift’ the property.

The Goldsburys refused to consent to the works, arguing (amongst other things) that their sea views would be impacted. The Goldsburys were only agreeable to a rebuild within the same footprint as long as there was no greater intrusion into the commonly owned airspace.

The Turners referred the dispute to arbitration, where the arbitrator ruled that the Goldsburys’ withholding of consent was not unreasonable, and that it was not unreasonable to withhold consent for demolition where the dwelling was not uninhabitable and the proposal was to extend the existing footprint.

The Turners responded by applying to the High Court for a partition order,[4] separating the Turners’ property from those of the Goldsburys under the cross-lease. Section 339 requires consideration of factors in section 342, including any hardship that would be caused by not making an order in comparison with the hardship that would be caused to any other person if an order was made. The High Court declined to make an order; the Turners then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

In a somewhat surprising move, the Court of Appeal placed greater emphasis on the relationship breakdown between the parties, the previous ‘intransigence’ and stubbornness of the Goldsburys about the development plans and the overall hardship to the Turners. Due to these facts and that the parties had reached an impasse, the court found it was necessary to grant a partition order subject to conditions to be determined by the High Court.

The Court of Appeal usefully confirmed that the test as to whether consent was unreasonably withheld under a cross-lease was to consider whether a reasonable lessor would withhold consent in the particular circumstances, and whether the lessor reasonably believed the proposed use would injure its interests.

If you are a party to a cross-lease and find yourself in a situation where you want to redevelop or are at odds with your neighbour, please be in touch and we can advise you on your options.

[1] Wimax New Zealand Ltd v Fuge [2025] NZCA 31.

[2] Section 313 of the Property Law Act 2007.

[3] Turner v Goldsbury [2024] NZCA 292.

[4] Section 339 of the Property Law Act 2007.

 

 

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

Revised Law Association Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Real Estate

Buying Property, Property Law, Real Estate Law, Residential Property, Sale and Purchase Agreements, Settlements
0

Signatories should become familiar with changes

The majority of property sale and purchase agreements are recorded on The Law Association of New Zealand’s (TLANZ) Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Real Estate. TLANZ recently released the fourth revision of the Eleventh Edition of the Agreement for Sale and Purchase (ASP); most conveyancing transactions are now being completed using this revision.

There are a number of changes in the new revision of the ASP, so it is important that anyone signing the ASP is familiar with these changes and the implications of signing this document. We discuss some of the changes below, although this is not a full list of the amendments.

 

New warranties

Both buyers and sellers must now provide a warranty that they (or their real estate agent) have not altered, removed or added any wording to the standard ASP, unless any alterations are easily identifiable (for example, a clause has been crossed out using a strikethrough, or an addition is easily identifiable). The use of PDF editing software has meant that it is possible to change the wording in the ASP without making it clear that these changes have been made.

The new warranty provides both parties with reassurance that they can safely assume that all of the standard terms apply, unless it is abundantly clear that they have been modified. If you are the seller, it is important that your real estate agent also understands this warranty. If the agent has made any alterations to the agreement without these changes being easily identifiable, you have breached this warranty; this could have financial consequences for you.

Another additional warranty that the seller now provides is the situation where they have completed any ’restricted building work’ (as defined in the Building Act 2004, and typically involving work that is required to be carried out by particular qualified professionals such as a licensed building practitioner, chartered professional engineer or registered plumber/gasfitter or electrician) on the property on or after 13 March 2012, that this work was carried out or supervised by a suitably qualified person.

The effect of this new warranty is that the seller is warranting that they have actually complied with the exemption requirements, and may be liable for any loss the buyer suffers if it turns out that they did not.

Examples of restricted building work that may be exempt from building consent requirements include a carport between 20 and 40m2 in floor area, which needs to be carried out or supervised by a licensed building practitioner or a chartered professional engineer, or replacing sanitary plumbing fixtures (such as a toilet), which must be carried out by a registered plumber. This warranty will also apply to any building work completed using the new granny flat exemption.

 

Changes to conditions

The requirements regarding cancelling due to non-fulfilment of the finance condition have changed. Now, instead of having to provide a ‘satisfactory explanation of the grounds relied upon by the Purchaser,’ the buyer must provide a ‘reasonable explanation of the steps taken by the Purchaser to arrange finance.’ This change means that, while the buyer still has an obligation to take reasonable steps to obtain finance, the buyer does not end up in a dispute with a seller over whether the grounds relied upon by them are ‘satisfactory.’

If a buyer needs Overseas Investment Office (OIO) consent, the seller must now take reasonable steps to enable this condition to be fulfilled by the buyer. Previously, the seller was not required to do anything to enable the condition to be fulfilled. While OIO consent is primarily the buyer’s responsibility, this new clause acknowledges that the seller may need to take steps as well to enable the buyer to satisfy the condition.

 

Claims for compensation

The claims for the compensation process have changed slightly. Now, the claimant (typically the buyer, but not always) must raise a claim for compensation as early as reasonably practicable, but no later than the working day prior to settlement, and they now may raise multiple claims for compensation.

The previous revisions only required a claimant to raise a claim no later than the working day prior to settlement, and limited a claimant to raising only one claim for compensation. Removing the number of claims the claimant may make is necessary to enable them to make a claim as soon as reasonably practicable.

 

Chattels

The chattels list has been altered slightly. Previously, the agreement listed blinds, curtains and drapes separately as chattels. Now, there is just a catch-all ‘window coverings.’ ‘Automatic garage door facility’ has also been added as a chattel; this clarifies that a garage remote is a separate chattel to the actual door, and further clarifies that the door itself (if there is a garage door) should also be in reasonable working order on settlement.

 

What does this mean for me?

Any time you sign a legally binding document, you should ensure that you fully understand your rights and obligations under that agreement. We strongly recommend that you talk with us before signing an ASP, whether you are signing as a buyer or as a seller.

 

 

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

Structuring your development and considerations for buyers in new subdivisions

Land Covenants, Property Development, Property Law, Residential Property, Subdivisions, Unit Titles
0

The relationships between neighbours in a subdivision and the rules, regulations and the way these are enforced have evolved significantly from handshakes and agreements over the fence.

In the last few decades, in order to protect the value of each property, developers have become increasingly concerned with not only managing the look and feel of their subdivision, but also prescribing the rights and obligations of property owners within those developments.

There are a number of ways that developers can do this; the arrangements vary depending on a number of factors ­– each coming with its own pros and cons for prospective owners.

 

Residents’ societies

These are becoming increasingly popular in larger scale developments. Residents’ societies are usually incorporated societies; their structure and requirements are governed by the Incorporated Societies Act 2022. Membership to these societies is often mandatory by virtue of a land covenant registered on the record of title to each property in the development. The society’s rules can be found on the Incorporated Societies Register.

Residents’ societies are usually responsible for the maintenance of any shared property within the development such as communal greenspaces or perhaps a tennis court. Each property owner is required to pay an annual levy for the maintenance of these areas.

A benefit of a residents’ society is that generally it will enforce the rules that individual property owners within that development must adhere to. In that way, as an individual property owner you won’t have to seek your own legal advice and incur cost if, say, your neighbour refuses to trim their hedge. However, a dispute with the residents’ society itself would require you to seek your own legal advice.

Due to residents’ societies falling within a statutory framework not designed specifically for them, there are a number of inflexibilities that means they may not always be the most desirable option when setting up a governance structure in a development.

One problem is that the minimum membership for an incorporated society is 10 members. Therefore a development comprising fewer than 10 properties/members cannot be an incorporated society. There are some exceptions to that membership requirement whereby a body corporate comprises three ordinary members.[1] In that instance a residents’ society may work for smaller developments.

Failing that exception, however, the developer will most often need to choose between a unit title or another mechanism to provide for governance between the property owners.

Further, when the residents’ society is wound up, any surplus assets held cannot be distributed to members of the residents’ society, instead they must be advanced to a nominated not-for-profit entity. This is very problematic as those assets will be critical to the development.

 

Unit title developments

Unit title developments exist within their own statutory framework – the Unit Titles Act 2010. They are usually administered by a body corporate which is responsible for collecting levies from the property owners, maintaining common buildings and assets, and administering the body corporate rules.

The body corporate manages the maintenance of the shared facilities – and in some instances the units themselves – in a similar way to a residents’ society. The body corporate will have an ability to issue levies to contribute to a maintenance fund.

The benefit of buying a unit title property is that the legislation prescribes minimum disclosure requirements before you enter into a contract for sale of a unit title property and before settlement.

This transparency can appeal to a buyer who would otherwise need to rely on their own due diligence in reviewing a residents’ society rules to ascertain any additional financial contributions they may have to make.

 

Land covenants

Property developers may use land covenants where there is little desire for a formal separate governance or management entity to administer the rules. The developer can simply prescribe requirements and obligations on the property owners through a land covenant registered on each record of title. These are enforceable by the owners of benefitted land, and often the developer.

A land covenant can be a cost-effective way to impose some obligations on the property owners, but without requiring annual levies or fees to be paid.

This can, however, become complicated when adjoining properties need joint insurance policies to be held by the property owners over their adjoining properties. Having to explain to a prospective purchaser that they must work out insurance arrangements between themselves and the other owners can be off-putting for a buyer.

As a consequence of this, a unit title structure, particularly where homes are adjoining, is probably a better structure for a developer to use.

 

Get advice early on

If you are considering doing any development work you should talk with us about the best structure for your purposes and whether any covenants should be registered on the titles.

If you are buying a property within a development bound by one or a combination of these structures, we can advise about what rules and obligations you may be bound by before signing on the dotted line.

[1] Section 14 of the Incorporated Societies Act 2022.

 

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

Purchasing a house

Conveyancing, First Home Buyers, Property Law, Relationship Property, Wills & Estates, Young Professionals
0

Lukes friend Tom was excited to have found a property he wanted to buy and was preparing to make an offer. Having purchased property before, Luke suggested Tom speak with a lawyer before signing anything and passed on his lawyer’s contact details.

 

When Tom met with the lawyer, he learned about the purchase process and the importance of protecting his assets. Although he intended to buy the property in his sole name, he had not considered the implications of relationship property laws or the need for a Contracting Out Agreement with his girlfriend.

 

Although Tom wanted to make an unconditional offer to appeal to the vendor, his lawyer advised he needed the following conditions:

  1. KiwiSaver Approval Condition: To get KiwiSaver approval, Tom’s lawyer would need to send an application to his provider, who could take 10 to 15 working days to respond.
  2. Finance condition: Tom’s conditional loan approval from his bank was not enough. He needed unconditional approval and time to work through the bank’s conditions.
  3. Builder’s report condition: Although the property looked in good condition at a glance, there could often be structural issues that only a qualified building inspector would identify.

 

The agreement was signed and Tom started working through his conditions. The builder’s report identified some major structural issues in the living room and he ended up negotiating a significant price reduction from the vendor.

 

Tom soon satisfied his conditions, and settlement was complete a few weeks later. He was glad he took the time to work through his due diligence prior to purchasing.

Macayla Brdanovic

Planning the Next Chapter: Navigating Retirement with Confidence

Enduring Powers of Attorney (EPA), Estate Planning, Retirement Planning, Senior Living, Succession Planning, Wills & Estates
0

Waipa is becoming one of New Zealand’s most attractive retirement destinations, with new retirement villages reflecting a growing community preparing for the next chapter of life.

For Steve, this became personal when his grandmother started talking about leaving the family home she had lived in for over 40 years. It wasn’t just a house to her — it was where she raised her children, hosted countless Sunday dinners, and built a lifetime of memories. The idea of moving brought both practical questions and a deep sense of emotion for the whole family.

Steve noticed that while his grandmother was ready for a simpler lifestyle, she was unsure about what came next — whether to downsize, consider a retirement village, and whether her legal affairs were still in order.

Together, they discovered her Will hadn’t been reviewed in many years and no longer reflected changes in her family or her current wishes. It was a gentle reminder of how easily these documents can become out of date over time. They also spoke about Enduring Powers of Attorney, ensuring the right people could step in if needed, and the importance of carefully understanding retirement village agreements before making any decisions.

Taking the time to get everything in order gave Steve’s grandmother real peace of mind. It also reassured Steve and the rest of the family that her wishes were clear and would be respected.

With the right planning and legal guidance from the team at Edmonds Judd, what initially felt overwhelming became a clear, supported transition — allowing Steve’s grandmother to focus on enjoying her next chapter with confidence, comfort, and security.

 

Rachael Beattie

To Share and Share alike

Business Law, Contracts and Agreements, Due Diligence, Legal Guidance, Shareholder Agreements
0

It was just another Monday, as Simon entered his law office, looking forward to slaking his thirst with a comforting cup of tea. He shrugged off his suit jacket and hung it up. While he waited for his computer to wake itself for the day ahead, he made himself a cup of tea.

 

He was just about to have a sip, when the phone rang. He put the tea down. Reception told him that someone was here to see him, no appointment in place, but it was apparently urgent. Taking a last look at his untouched drink, he went downstairs and shook hands with Reggie, who was flustered, Sally’s cousin.

 

“I’m joining someone in an engineering business, it’s all got to be done by tomorrow for some reason, and I’ve got all this paperwork to sign. In fact, I’ve already signed it and was going to hand it over, but Lory said I better come and see you first. Well, she demanded it.”

 

Simon sat Reggie down in an office, and had a look at the papers provided. Reggie was joining two other people in a company which ran the engineering business, he was going to take over from a current owner, and this all had to happen by 31 March for tax reasons. Simon went back to his room, grabbed his favourite pen, ignored the cold cup of tea on his desk, and returned to an expectant Reggie, who said: “We’re all good to go, aren’t we, can I just pay the money and get on with it?”

 

Simon put down the documents, looked at Reggie, and took a deep breath. “Reggie, there are some really important things to think about first:

 

Due Diligence – how well do you know the people you are going into business with? Do they have experience in the industry, in this company, do they have a good reputation? Are they financially sound, can they help bail the company out of trouble if necessary, have they had money problems in the past?

 

Shareholder Agreement – it is essential that you and the other owners sign an agreement which sets out expectations of each other, whether you will need to put more money into the business, who makes decisions, and when do you all have to agree.

 

You should commit to a timeframe where no one can pull out of the business, and if they do they must offer the shares to each other.”

 

Reggie’s eyes were wide open. “Thanks for this, I’ll have a good chat with the others, I won’t sign anything, and I’ll come back and see you shortly.”

 

Simon waved him goodbye, and poured himself a cup of tea. He knew that was not the end of this story.

 

 

Simon Brdanovic

Rob & Jess Take the Next Step: From Farm Assistants to Sharemilkers

Agribusiness, Employment Law, Legal Guidance, Property & Farming, Rural
0

Rob and Jess have been working as farm assistants for Bob for the past 3 years.

Bob is wanting to take a step back from the day-to-day running of the farm and has proposed that Rob and Jess take a big step up and share milk his farm.

This is a dream come true for Rob and Jess but it is also a bit overwhelming – there is so much to think about and organise.

They need to sign a sharemilking contract, buy cows and machinery and hire staff, as well as find a way to pay for everything!

It is all very new to Rob and Jess and they want to make sure that they are setting themselves up properly.

Rob and Jess meet with their lawyer who advised them on the sharemilking contract, drafted a stock purchase agreement and an employment agreement and assisted them with completing their financing with the bank.

This has made Rob and Jess feel much more relaxed and they can get on with their favourite part – farming!

 

Lucy Sim

Considering Retirement Village Living

Estate Planning, Legal Guidance, Property Law, Retirement Planning, Succession Planning
0

A few years on from her decision to take out a reverse equity mortgage, and having enjoyed the benefits of releasing some of the capital tied up in her home, Karen is now feeling less confident about living on her own. Many of her old friends have moved away from her neighbourhood, and she is finding that she would like more support close at hand. She has decided to investigate moving into a retirement village.

This option offers several advantages. Karen would no longer need to worry about home maintenance, security, insurance, or rates. She would have ready access to assistance should she suffer a fall or other medical event. And if she feels like company, there would be plenty of like-minded people nearby.

However, Karen has been warned that there can be significant financial implications when selling a home and buying into a retirement village. To fully understand her position, she meets with her solicitor.

Her solicitor explains that most — though not all — retirement villages operate under Occupation Right Agreements (ORAs). Under an ORA, Karen would pay a capital sum in exchange for the right to live in her chosen unit. She would not own the land or building itself, and her right to occupy the unit would be subject to certain terms and conditions.

These conditions often include payment of a regular weekly fee for as long as the unit is occupied. There is also usually a deferred management fee (sometimes called an exit fee), which is deducted from the original capital sum when Karen leaves the village — whether that is because she chooses to move elsewhere or upon her death. In addition, there will be village rules governing what residents can and cannot do within their units and the wider village.

Karen’s solicitor takes the time to carefully explain the legal and financial implications, including how the move may affect the estate she intends to leave to her family. Once Karen fully understands her options, she is in a position to decide whether a move to a retirement village is the right step for her.

 

Mandy Rasmussen

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

+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]