+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]

Waipa

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

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

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

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

+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]