WorkplaceHealthAndSafety Archives

Business briefs

September 24, 2026

Business Law, Consumer Credit, Health and Safety, Technology Law

Health and Safety at Work Amendment Act 2026

Since we published the Winter 2026 edition of Commercial eSpeaking, the Health and Safety at Work Amendment Act 2026 has received Royal Assent and will come into force on 1 April 2027.

The Act introduces ‘critical risk’ as a defined concept – being risks associated with hazards under Schedule 1A or risks likely to result in death, notifiable injury, illness, incident or occupational disease, and requires businesses to prioritise managing these risks above others.

If you employ fewer than 20 people, your health and safety duties will narrow specifically to critical risks, rather than covering every possible workplace risk. You’ll still need to meet baseline obligations, including providing adequate employee facilities (for example: toilets, drinking water and hand-washing facilities) but this change is intended to reduce the compliance burden for smaller businesses.

The Act also clarifies the duty owed by a Person Conducting a Business or Undertaking (PCBU) where its workplace includes outdoor space used for recreation. In specified circumstances, the PCBU will not owe the usual section 37 duty to people entering and using that space for recreational purposes, unless:

The recreational use is part of a PCBU’s business or undertaking, or
Other work connected to a business or undertaking conducted by the PCBU is being carried out at the time in the outdoor space near where the entry and use are taking place.

If your business already complies with industry-specific legislation, the Act confirms this will satisfy your obligations under the Act too, without needing to separately comply with the Act.

Businesses should begin reviewing their health and safety processes and policies now, ahead of the 1 April 2027 commencement date.

AI in the workplace

AI tools are becoming a standard part of many workplaces, used for everything from drafting documents to customer service and research. Used safely, AI may increase efficiency, but it is important to manage the associated risks and put the right safeguards in place.

Some key risks in practice include, without limitation:

Confidentiality: Trade secrets or confidential information entered into an AI tool could be disclosed, retained or used to train the tool
Privacy: Entering personal information into an AI tool may amount to a disclosure under the Privacy Act 2020
Intellectual property: AI-generated content isn’t automatically free of copyright issues, and outputs may infringe someone else’s protected work, and
Human oversight and transparency: AI output should be reviewed before it’s relied on, to guard against errors, bias or hallucinated content.

Some practical controls may include, without limitation:

Paid subscriptions: Paid subscriptions to AI tools generally offer stronger safeguards than free versions, but your business will need to check the specific terms that apply
Data audit: To take stock of what data the business holds, who can access it and whether use of an AI tool would give people wider access than they’re meant to have, and
AI policy: To set clear expectations around which AI tools are approved for use, what types of information staff can and cannot put into them and the process for reviewing and signing off on AI-generated output before it’s relied on.

There is more guidance in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s publication Responsible AI Guidance for Businesses. Click here to read it.

AI in the boardroom

A recent Federal Court of Australia decision has offered a timely warning on AI’s growing role in the boardroom.^[1] The court also commented on AI use, warning that AI-generated summaries are not a substitute for directors actually reading and engaging with board materials themselves.

While the decision is not binding in New Zealand, directors here are subject to their own duty of care under the Companies Act 1993 that requires directors to exercise the care, diligence and skill of a reasonable director.

This duty applies regardless of whether AI is involved in a director’s decision-making process. If a director relies heavily on an AI-generated summary without checking it against the underlying material, they may struggle to demonstrate that they exercised the care, diligence and skill required by the Act.

As AI becomes more prominent in board processes and decision-making, this is a useful reminder that directors must properly engage with information and exercise independent judgement rather than relying solely on AI-generated material.

Reporting, liability and disclosure changes for consumer credit providers

On 1 July 2026, the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) took over responsibility for regulating the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 (CCCFA) from the Commerce Commission. As part of this change, consumer credit providers including banks, credit unions and other lenders are now licensed under the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 (FMCA).

Reporting

Section 412 of the FMCA requires licensees to inform the FMA as soon as they believe they’ve breached, or are likely to breach, a licence obligation or if there has been, or is likely to be, a material change in circumstances, or where certain particulars are false or misleading.

While other types of FMCA licensees have been subject to this for years, this is new for consumer credit providers who have not had to comply with this until now.

The obligation to report arises as soon as the licensee believes a breach may have happened or may be about to happen. Getting this timing wrong, or failing to report at all, can result in a penalty of up to $600,000.

Director and senior manager liability

Directors and senior managers of consumer credit providers no longer have a personal due diligence obligation under the CCCFA. Personal liability arises instead under the existing FMCA regime and requires involvement in a breach.

Disclosure

Under the CCCFA, courts may order a debtor not liable for borrowing costs where appropriate disclosures have not been made by consumer credit providers. This is triggered by way of application from a debtor or the FMA, where courts may consider factors including, without limitation, the provider’s compliance programmes and prejudice caused to the debtor.

For more detailed information about these changes, click here.

^[1] ASIC v Bekier (Liability Judgment) [2026] FCA 196.

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Commercial eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Commercial eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
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

August 5, 2026

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

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

Calling in sick

September 24, 2025

Employee Rights, Employer Guidance, Leave Entitlements, Workplace Wellbeing

Minimising illness in the workplace

The winter months always seem to take their toll around the workplace with bugs lingering long into spring. While you can’t always control when sickness hits, as both employees and employers, there are things we can do to minimise the impact of illness in the workplace.

What does the law say?

There is no statutory or legal entitlement to work remotely or ‘work from home’ if employees are sick. Whether this is permitted depends on employment agreements and workplace policies.

Are you sick or not?

With the increase of remote working arrangements or working from home, the line can be blurred between sick leave and remote working. If an employee is sick, then they should stay home and take sick leave.

This does not mean that they are ‘working from home.’ There is no obligation for employees to work while they are sick. In fact, ensuring that employees have time to properly rest and recover is often more helpful in getting them back to the workplace.

Coming into work when unwell presents a health and safety risk to other employees; those who turn up sick are likely to expect conversations about going home to avoid others becoming ill. In some circumstances this may mean working from home if, for example, an employee feels well enough but is still contagious. If these discussions take place with care and with all individuals in mind, they are likely to be well received.

It is important to remember that any time an employee is not well enough to work, they may take sick leave. This can include sick leave for mental health if the impact of it is adversely affecting the employee’s ability to work.

When is a medical certificate needed?

Generally, employment agreements or workplace policies will set out when a medical certificate is required; this is often required where an employee is sick for three days or longer. In workplaces where there is a high level of trust, medical certificates are usually not needed on every occasion. If there is a prolonged illness or something that is going to have a lingering/flow-on effect, medical certificates are helpful to assist employees and employers to manage the issue.

If there is no medical certificate, understanding exactly what is going on and how long an employee thinks they may be away from work is important. For an employee, this shows good faith in assisting their employer to manage their absence and workload. That communication can also mean that there is less stress for the employee resulting from their absence from work.

There is no need for an employee to provide every detail of an illness, but the more information that is provided, the better the employer can plan around a situation and support their employee. Employees should expect their employers to ask for more detail of the illness or injury, and what that means in terms of their role, in instances of extended sick leave.

Requesting sick leave

The procedure for requesting sick leave is generally contained in workplace policies or employment agreements. Although employees are entitled to take sick leave when they are unwell, they should always contact their supervisor or manager first (by phone, text or email, in line with specific workplace policies). It’s essential that employees notify their workplace at the earliest opportunity – either before the start of their upcoming shift or at the start of the working day.

In our experience, where the focus is on hauora and where communication is strong, sick leave will be well managed for the benefit of both employees and employers.

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Commercial eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Commercial eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2025. Editor: Adrienne Olsen E-mail: [email protected] Ph: 029 286 3650

WorkplaceHealthAndSafety