A lot of the work we’ve been doing recently at Aspiring Law is what I would describe as “crisis management”. Some of the panic is entirely understandable given the huge uncertainty we're living with as a result of the pandemic. But some — and I stress the word some — businesses have acted very hastily when, perhaps, a more calm and measured response was called for. Tourism operators heavily reliant on international tourists needed to act quickly and take action to save their severely impacted business. We’ve seen some really great examples of businesses in this category pivoting and repositioning. Businesses who get most of their income from the domestic market might need to make a tweak, or two, but they need to think very carefully before deciding they need to completely overhaul their business model. Then there's the third category, the people I describe as jumping on the doom bandwagon. Some businesses have significantly reduced the number of staff they employ, even when the work hasn't really dried up. Many businesses have taken advantage of the government's wage subsidy, but some have used it as an excuse to cut wages.Businesses that have made people redundant or reduced their wages without proper and due process have ignored a key provision of the wage subsidy which states that "employment law still applies".There are likely to be serious issues for some of these firms down the road with employees taking legal action. If you've stuffed it up, fix it up. There is still time. Communication is key.It may be difficult to be optimistic right now, but the fundamentals are still solid for our region and our country. The reasons to live here or visit this part of the world haven’t changed. In fact, it's even more attractive now than it was before. If you now know that you can work remotely, and have the option to do so from this beautiful part of the world, why wouldn’t you?Feedback, comments and questions are always welcomed – please feel free to e-mail me on [email protected] or to book an appointment online visit: http://aspiringlaw.co.nz/Booking/. Janice Hughes is a Director of, and senior legal adviser at, Aspiring Law. Please remember, this information is designed as a general guide, and should not replace specific legal advice on a particular issue.

Online dispute resolution (or ODR) has been crucial to the administration of justice during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Given the lockdown and social distancing requirements, the only choice for clients communicating with their solicitor has been through email, phone, text message or video call. Courts have been receiving applications electronically and have conducted more online hearings than ever before. Advancements in electronic signing and filing of court documents, further erodes the need for people to meet in person.We’ve seen an unprecedented shift in the way organisations work, including the legal system, which has embraced technology in a way it never has before. There are opportunities to re-design and create powerful systems to resolve problems and disputes more efficiently. ODR was developed as a new tool to address access to justice issues and increase efficiency. As software becomes more powerful and intelligent the field of ODR has the capability to evolve further. However some people are urging caution in adopting technological solutions to dispute resolution.Traditionally, ODR has been seen as a ‘niche’ area with limited relevance. Many thought it wasn’t nearly as effective as face-to-face and in person meetings but there are limitations to the way we have been resolving disputes. Physical meetings come at a cost, often a high cost, which can effectively prevent many disputes from being heard. People with low socio-economic backgrounds, people with disabilities, or people from rural areas are all affected significantly by the cost incurred in getting to and from face-to-face meetings. ODR is an alternative to the traditional way of doing things that the legal system is likely to consider carefully in the new world post COVID-19. At Aspiring Law we look forward to embracing the benefits that technology has to offer.Feedback, comments and questions are always welcomed – please feel free to e-mail me on [email protected]: 03 443 0922W: www.aspiringlaw.co.nzTiffany Joyce specialises in property law, business & employment law, and family law at Aspiring Law.Please remember, this information is designed as a general guide, and should not replace specific legal advice on a particular issue.  

Whether you’re new to the workforce or have been employed for years, it’s never too late to review your prospective, or current, employment contract to know exactly what you are entitled to.You, as an employee, have a number of core entitlements including: your employer must treat you fairly;you must be paid at least a minimum wage. Currently for an adult, aged 16 years or over, that amount is $18.90 per hour;you can accrue and must be paid for leave including annual leave and sick leave. You are entitled to four weeks’ annual leave after 12 months of service, and must be paid at an average weekly earning over the past 52 weeks, or your ordinary pay at the time the holiday is taken, whichever amount is higher; you have the right to raise a personal grievance (e.g., unfair dismissal or sexual harassment) either under either the Employment Relations Act, or the Human Rights Act. Often people aren’t aware of or don’t understand the terms of their employment contract and so cannot enforce the terms. This can result in employees being treated unfairly.From a business perspective, employers need to be aware of employee entitlements and take steps to ensure they are met. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. If you are unsure, seek legal advice. It is the responsibility of the employer to know the current minimum wage rate, and to keep precise records about their employees so they can make accurate payments.COVID-19 has meant that many workers have been forced to re-look at their employment contracts, but this practice should become the norm. If you have any questions about your contract or employment rights, please contact our office. Feedback, comments and questions are always welcomed – please feel free to e-mail me on [email protected]: 03 443 0922W: www.aspiringlaw.co.nzTiffany Joyce specialises in property law, business & employment law, and family law at Aspiring Law.Please remember, this information is designed as a general guide, and should not replace specific legal advice on a particular issue.  

The Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Act, more commonly referred to as the ‘Zero Carbon Act’, outlines the government’s plans over the next 30 years to reduce all greenhouse gas emissions (except methane) to net zero by the year 2050.It provides a framework to allow New Zealand to prepare for, and adapt to, the effects of climate change. The ambitious new targets mean that New Zealand can’t maintain CO2 emissions at current levels. Instead, we will need to make some massive cuts to our carbon usage over the next ten to 20 years.The cost of carbon will increase significantly and, since the New Zealand economy is predominantly a carbon economy that is very dependent on fossil fuels, businesses will face exposure.Ironically, considering the dramatic long-term implications the Act will have on how we do business in New Zealand, there are no immediate implications or obligations on business owners. However, considering the COVID-19 pandemic, the opportunity exists to seriously rethink our options as a nation; and the new emissions targets will need to be factored into any future decisions around strategy, infrastructure, systems and investments. Before the government starts issuing directives, businesses can choose to be proactive and take a critical look at how they run their businesses. The new Act will affect you and your business, and the changes will be significant, so it might pay to use this time now to refocus. There are decisions that can be made in a business, irrespective of beliefs and politics that can have positive impacts. Being environmentally friendly doesn't always have to cost financially. It could be good for the bottom line to consider how you do things. Yes, there will be costs involved, but the Zero Carbon Act will also create opportunities for innovation.Feedback, comments and questions are always welcomed – please feel free to e-mail me on [email protected]: 03 443 0900W: www.aspiringlaw.co.nzJohn Mezger specialises in business, employment and immigration law at Aspiring Law.Please remember, this information is designed as a general guide, and should not replace specific legal advice on a particular issue.

With New Zealand now at Alert Level 2, many businesses will be back to work, although we know there will be many more still struggling with the ongoing effects of COVID-19.  On 14 May, the government announced the Wage Subsidy Extension payment to support employers still significantly impacted by COVID-19. This will be available from 10 June 2020 until 1 September 2020.Employers can reapply through Work and Income once their current 12-week subsidy ends. Employers must name the employees in their application and, once the extension is accepted, they will be paid a further 8-week lump sum payment for each named employee. The weekly rates will be the same as under the current scheme, with $585.80 available per week for full-time employees and $350.00 available per week for part-time employees. The extension MUST be paid to named employees. Businesses, contractors, self-employed people, and sole traders are all eligible to apply for the extension.  In order to be eligible, you must meet the current wage subsidy requirements and have experienced, or expect, a revenue loss of at least 50% for the period prior to the application date, compared to the same period in 2019.When applying for the extension you will be required to sign a declaration stating you will:pass the subsidy onto named employees; retain those employees for the duration of the 8-week subsidy;do your best to pay your employees at least 80% of their normal pay; take active steps to mitigate the impacts of COVID-19 on your business. If you have any business questions, either on the wage subsidy or if you are looking for guidance on how to structure your business going forward in the current climate, please do not hesitate to reach out to the team at Aspiring Law or visit our website here.

Now that the country has moved to Alert Level 2 for COVID-19, the New Zealand courts are not far behind. Courts are continuing to operate under Alert Level 3 until Monday 18 May 2020.Measures are in place to ensure that proceedings are conducted safely. Physical distancing and cleaning regimes continue to play important roles.At Alert Level 2, and subject to the restrictions noted below, the High Court will carry out all its usual scheduled work both from the home and circuit registries that can be safely supported.This requires the co-operation of all parties to ensure the courts function to the fullest extent they safely can in performance of their role. The restrictions are:Criminal jury trials will not be held before 3 August;Substantive civil fixtures involving witnesses with a hearing date prior to 25 May will not be required to proceed; andIf people are required, or proposing, to attend a hearing and are at higher risk of severe illness, immunocompromised or with a relevant underlying health condition, they should not attend Court. If this applies, the presiding judge should be advised so that alternative arrangements for the appearance can be made.The District Court will continue to conduct priority proceedings in the Criminal, Family, Youth, and Civil jurisdictions as it has done throughout Alert Levels 3 and 4. At Alert Level 2, the Court will aim to undertake as much additional work as possible within the significant constraints imposed by COVID- 19.The Court will aim to hear as much scheduled criminal work in Alert Level 2 as possible, subject to workforce capacity levels, courtroom availability and the requirement to observe physical distancing.At Alert Level 2 the Family Court remains an essential service. Under Alert Level 2, the Court will continue to undertake priority work, but also intends to undertake all previously scheduled work. A triage process has been operating in a number of courts to identify and progress priority cases and this will continue to be utilised.Feedback, comments and questions are always welcomed – please feel free to e-mail me on [email protected]: 03 443 0922W: www.aspiringlaw.co.nzTiffany Joyce specialises in property law, business & employment law, and family law at Aspiring Law.Please remember, this information is designed as a general guide, and should not replace specific legal advice on a particular issue.  

On March 17, the Government announced a wage subsidy to support businesses affected by the Covid-19 crisis, particularly those struggling to meet their obligations to their employees. Here’s what you need to know about the wage subsidy.Who is entitled to the wage subsidy?At present, the Covid-19 subsidy is available to all businesses, self-employed, contractors and sole traders, registered charities, and incorporated societies adversely affected by Covid-19.On March 27, the Government announced a ‘modified wage subsidy scheme’. With much of the country now in lockdown, it was announced that the ‘sick leave payment scheme’ was no longer needed. Applications for leave payments made before 27 March will still be processed.Qualifying for the wage subsidy schemeTo qualify for the modified scheme:the business must be registered in New Zealand;employees must be legally entitled to work in New Zealand;the business must have experienced at least a 30 percent reduction in actual or forecasted revenue over the period of a month when compared to the same month last year; andthe business must have taken steps to reduce the financial impact of the virus in their workplace.Most importantly, the employer must retain the employees named in the application for the period in which the subsidy is received, which at present is 12 weeks. That means an employer taking part in the scheme may not make their employee redundant for the 12-week period they are receiving the subsidy. Also, the employer must ‘try its hardest to pay the employee named in the application, at least 80% of their usual wages.’If that’s not possible, the employer must pay at least the full-time or part-time subsidy rate. Considering the vast uncertainties at the moment, it’s possible the scheme may be extended beyond the 12-week period. But in any instance, it provides employers and employees with some much-needed security during a very challenging time.There have been a few isolated issues with applying for the subsidy online but generally the feedback has been great. It’s a very straightforward process with prompt payment direct to your bank account. So if you haven’t applied already, jump online here for more information, click on the 'Apply for Wage Subsidy'link and fill out the Employer or Self-Employed application form.The wage scheme and rehiring redundant employeesAn important addition to the scheme is that employers who recently made employees redundant can now apply for the subsidy, provided they rehire those employees. This is a significant benefit to a number of employees who were made redundant in the wake of the announcement and economic downturn. In addition to maintaining the employment relationship, this enables businesses to scale up as the economy recovers.Need to know more?We all recognise these are very difficult times that can impact every facet of life. If you are an employee or an employer and have any questions, contact us at Aspiring Law and we’ll do our best to help.Feedback, comments and questions are always welcomed – please feel free to e-mail me on [email protected]: 03 443 0900W: www.aspiringlaw.co.nzJohn Mezger specialises in business, employment and immigration law at Aspiring Law.Please remember, this information is designed as a general guide, and should not replace specific legal advice on a particular issue.

At Aspiring Law, we’re helping more and more people with Property Sharing Agreements. Traditionally, Property Sharing Agreements were used by people in a relationship, but they can be used by family, friends or business partners considering buying a property together.Property Sharing Agreements are drawn up on a case-by-case basis but typically cover some or all of the following:How the property is going to be owned and how each party’s ownership share is recorded on the title.How the property will be maintained including who is responsible for paying rates, insurance, improvements to the property and any other costs.Who is responsible for managing the property, including paying the bills, organising renovations and managing tenants if the property is rented.Details of how the mortgage is going to be paid. What is the process if one of the parties defaults on their mortgage repayments?What is the decision-making process?What happens if one of the parties decides they want to sell the property? A common clause included in most agreements is a right of first refusal so that instead of going to a third party or real estate agent, the parties involved in the agreement have first option.Having a Property Sharing Agreement in place can help the owners avoid the aggravation and costs from potential disputes, particularly when it is time to sell the property. If you don’t have something in writing that clearly states your rights and obligations, then sharing a property with another person can potentially get very messy. If you, or anyone you know is considering buying a property with family or friends, please contact us to find out how we can help you with a Property Sharing Agreement.Feedback, comments and questions are always welcomed – please feel free to e-mail me on [email protected] T: 03 443 0900W: www.aspiringlaw.co.nzLucy Conway specialises in family law at Aspiring Law.Please remember, this information is designed as a general guide, and should not replace specific legal advice on a particular issue.

In the Winter 2019 edition of Property Speaking, we outlined schemes available to help first home buyers. Following the government’s announcement on 4 September 2019 of changes to the schemes, some schemes have been re-named:Welcome Home Loan is now the First Home LoanHomeStart Grant is now the First Home Grant, andHousing New Zealand, HLC and KiwiBuild have amalgamated to establish Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities.As part of more substantive changes, if you are a first home buyer, you now may be able to:Access a First Home Loan and First Home Grant even if you only have a 5% depositSell a KiwiBuild property after you have lived in the property for one year (instead of three), andPool together First Home Grants to buy a property with no limit on the total grant as long as all buyers will live in that property.The government has also announced that it will introduce new progressive ownership schemes, such as a rent-to-buy scheme.If you are unsure about whether you are eligible for a first home buyer scheme or how to apply, we can help.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 article. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of this firm. Articles appearing in Property Speaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source. Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2019. Editor: Adrienne Olsen. E-mail: [email protected]. Ph: 029 286 3650 or 04 496 5513.Aspiring Law is proud to be a member of NZ LAW Limited, an association of 53 law practices working together to proactively share ideas and expertise for the benefit of our clients.

On 30 January 2021, the new Trusts Act 2019 will come into effect, replacing the Trustee Act 1956. It’s the first major update to Trust laws in more than 70 years. The 2019 Act clarifies and modernises existing trust law providing better guidance and making it more accessible. It also promises to make it easier to resolve disputes and for beneficiaries to hold trustees to account.New Zealand has one of the highest levels of trusts per head of population globally. The government estimates there are somewhere between 300,000 - 500,000 trusts in New Zealand. Trusts are set up for a number of different reasons including: the protection of assets (whether from creditors, future partners, or children’s partners), distribution of income, making provision for someone with a disability, or assisting with an application for government support, such as long-term residential care subsidies. While most of the new Trusts Act updates or restates existing statute or case law, there are some changes that trustees and beneficiaries of a trust should be aware of. Under the new law, trustees may face increased compliance requirements and beneficiaries need to be kept informed about the trust without needing to request information.While there are benefits in the new Act (the maximum trust life is being extended from 80 to 125 years), there are also new obligations on trusts and trustees. If you’re a trustee, you need to start administering your trust in line with the new law from 30 January 2021.Trustees of a trust should review the terms and the reasons they set it up originally and decide whether or not it is still serving a useful purpose. They also should consider whether or not they are willing and able to undertake the increased record-keeping and reporting obligations that come with the new Act. If not, then the trustees may want to consider winding up the trust and distributing the assets of the trust.Before the assets of the trust are distributed, however, the trustees must consider the circumstances of all of the beneficiaries to determine who should receive assets from the trust. If appropriate, the beneficiaries should be consulted to obtain their views before proceeding. Trust assets can either be distributed to beneficiaries by utilising the right to distribute capital contained in the trust deed, or alternatively appointing an early final distribution date and distributing the trust assets on that date. If the trustees do decide to wind up the trust early, then it is essential that the trustees consult with an accountant or tax advisor to make sure there are no adverse tax consequences that may result (e.g., the forgoing of tax losses or imputation credits). Also, the Bright Line Test should be considered if a residential property is involved.If you are a trustee and have any questions about the new legislation, please feel free to call us at Aspiring Law or click here to talk through your options.

In the Winter 2019 edition of Property Speaking, we outlined schemes available to help first home buyers. Following the government’s announcement on 4 September 2019 of changes to the schemes, some schemes have been re-named:Welcome Home Loan is now the First Home LoanHomeStart Grant is now the First Home Grant, andHousing New Zealand, HLC and KiwiBuild have amalgamated to establish Kāinga Ora – Homes and Communities.As part of more substantive changes, if you are a first home buyer, you now may be able to:Access a First Home Loan and First Home Grant even if you only have a 5% depositSell a KiwiBuild property after you have lived in the property for one year (instead of three), andPool together First Home Grants to buy a property with no limit on the total grant as long as all buyers will live in that property.The government has also announced that it will introduce new progressive ownership schemes, such as a rent-to-buy scheme.If you are unsure about whether you are eligible for a first home buyer scheme or how to apply, we can help.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 article. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of this firm. Articles appearing in Property Speaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source. Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2019. Editor: Adrienne Olsen. E-mail: [email protected]. Ph: 029 286 3650 or 04 496 5513.Aspiring Law is proud to be a member of NZ LAW Limited, an association of 53 law practices working together to proactively share ideas and expertise for the benefit of our clients.

The proposed purchaser of a Dunedin property is at least $150,000 out of pocket after improperly cancelling his agreement. The outcome in the recent court case Strack v Grey1 warns buyers to take a diligent approach to conditions in an agreement for sale and purchase of property.Mr Grey signed an agreement which included conditions allowing him to cancel the purchase if he was dissatisfied with a written building report or unable to obtain sufficient finance. Last year, the High Court found that Mr Grey breached this agreement when he cancelled it on the basis that he was dissatisfied with the building report. Mr Grey’s concerns about the property’s retrofitted insulation were, in fact, founded in his own research, not the building report.In September, the Court of Appeal ordered Mr Grey to compensate the Stracks $150,000 for his breach (being the difference between Mr Grey’s offer and the offer of the property’s eventual buyer). In reaching its decision, the court rejected Mr Grey’s argument that he should not have to pay given he would have cancelled the agreement anyway under the finance condition. Mr Grey was unable to prove to the court that he would have been unsuccessful in obtaining finance as he only made preliminary enquiries with one bank.This latest decision in Strack v Grey reiterates that it is essential that your reasons for cancelling an agreement are properly linked back to any conditions in the agreement and that you do ‘all things that might reasonably be necessary’ to meet the agreement’s conditions before cancelling.1 Strack v Grey [2019] NZCA 432.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 article. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of this firm. Articles appearing in Property Speaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source. Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2019. Editor: Adrienne Olsen. E-mail: [email protected]. Ph: 029 286 3650 or 04 496 5513.Aspiring Law is proud to be a member of NZ LAW Limited, an association of 53 law practices working together to proactively share ideas and expertise for the benefit of our clients.

If you frequently buy and sell property, you may want to keep a close eye on Inland Revenue’s review of some property tax rules that was announced in September 2019. One area being targeted is the use of the ‘main home exemption’.Under current rules, you may be exempt from paying tax on a property sale if the property is your main home. You cannot rely, however, on the ‘main home exemption’ if:You have already claimed the exemption twice within the previous two years, orYou engage in a regular pattern of buying and selling residential properties.The IRD is considering tightening the exemption rules. It proposes reviewing property transactions under your own name together with transactions under the name of someone living with you or an entity associated with you, such as a family trust. If there appears to be a pattern when all those transactions are looked at together, you may be liable to pay tax.Further limits on the exemptions that apply to property used as residential and business premises are also contemplated. The IRD is likely to announce a decision on these changes later this year, with law changes being made in 2020. The full details on the proposed rule changes can be found here.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 article. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of this firm. Articles appearing in Property Speaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source. Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2019. Editor: Adrienne Olsen. E-mail: [email protected]. Ph: 029 286 3650 or 04 496 5513.Aspiring Law is proud to be a member of NZ LAW Limited, an association of 53 law practices working together to proactively share ideas and expertise for the benefit of our clients.

The High Court recently imposed a $36,000 fine against the New Zealand Trustees Association for sending 24,000 unsolicited commercial electronic messages. The Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007 outlines the rules for anyone sending messages electronically with marketing or promotional material, known as ‘commercial messages’.There are three general guidelines that can help keep you within the law when sending a commercial message:Ensure you have consent from the recipient to send them commercial messages.Include a functional unsubscribe facility in the message, andProvide accurate sender information to the recipient.You should not presume that because a person has provided contact details for another matter in the past that they have consented to receive further messages from your business.Make sure you are aware of the rules and, if necessary, talk with us if you are considering a marketing strategy that will involve sending commercial messages.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 article. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of this firm. Articles appearing in Commercial eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source. Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2020. Editor: Adrienne Olsen. E-mail: [email protected]. Ph: 029 286 3650 or 04 496 5513.Aspiring Law is proud to be a member of NZ LAW Limited, an association of 53 law practices working together to proactively share ideas and expertise for the benefit of our clients.

The High Court has declared a contract term ‘unfair’ for the first time since the 2015 amendments to the Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) that make unfair contract terms unenforceable.Home Direct Ltd sells goods to consumers online with delivery directly to a consumer’s home. Consumers can buy goods from Home Direct on credit and pay them off over time. Home Direct’s standard consumer contracts contained a voucher entitlement scheme. If a consumer continued to make direct debit payments to Home Direct after they had paid off their item, the additional payments would be converted into vouchers to be used to buy other items from Home Direct.The scheme had two terms that, together, the court considered were unfair:The vouchers were non-refundable, andIf not used within 12 months, the vouchers expired allowing Home Direct to keep the additional payments.Under the FTA, a term in a standard consumer contract could be unfair if it creates a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations, is not reasonably necessary to protect legitimate business interests and causes detriment to a party.This case highlights the need for businesses to review their terms of trade, particularly given that the government has announced its intention to extend these rules to include business-to-business contracts.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 article. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of this firm. Articles appearing in Commercial eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source. Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2020. Editor: Adrienne Olsen. E-mail: [email protected]. Ph: 029 286 3650 or 04 496 5513.Aspiring Law is proud to be a member of NZ LAW Limited, an association of 53 law practices working together to proactively share ideas and expertise for the benefit of our clients.

Immigration New Zealand has introduced changes that affect some employers and migrant workers. These will be introduced in various stages over the next 18 months to 2021. Changes include:A new three-stage employer-led visa application process (the employer check, the job check and the worker check)A new temporary work visa (replacing six temporary work visas)Classifying jobs as low or high-paid based on whether they are paid above or below the average New Zealand wageStrengthening the labour market test for low-paid jobs and open access for high-paid jobs in rural regionsSector agreements for some industries that regularly employ migrant workers, andReinstating the ability for lower-paid workers to bring their families to New Zealand.There are, however, changes for Talent Accredited Employers; these took effect from 7 October 2019. They include:An increase the salary employers must offer their employees before they can apply for a Talent (Accredited Employer) Work Visa (from $55,000 to $79,560), andA reduction in the period of accreditation of employers to 24 months.Some visa requirements and processes will remain the same. People holding visas based on lower-skilled work must still leave New Zealand for a one-year period after they have been working for three years, and Immigration New Zealand must still be satisfied that there are no New Zealanders available for that job before approving a visa.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 article. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of this firm. Articles appearing in Rural eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source. Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2019. Editor: Adrienne Olsen. E-mail: [email protected]. Ph: 029 286 3650 or 04 496 5513.Aspiring Law is proud to be a member of NZ LAW Limited, an association of 53 law practices working together to proactively share ideas and expertise for the benefit of our clients.

As a landlord, there’s still an obligation to manage risks in relation to your premises, even when you have a tenant in place.A landlord is a PCBU (Person Conducting Business or Undertaking) and as such they must ensure, so far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers, any workers it influences or directs, and any other people who could be put at risk by the work it does. In the case of a landlord, the work it does is leasing the property.In a commercial property, both the landlord and tenant are PCBU’s. Often their obligations overlap so there’s a duty to consult and work together to coordinate health and safety processes and procedures.Beware of trees needs trimmed!A recent WorkSafe prosecution clearly shows that landlords and tenants can both be prosecuted for failing to address risks in relation to commercial premises.  Heng Tong Investments Limited (“Heng Tong”) leased a property to Discoveries Educare, a Childcare Centre. A number of young children and a teacher were injured when a large tree fell on them.As part of an investigation into the incident, Heng Tong stated they relied on the tenant to raise issues and took no active interest in the health and safety management of the Centre. The court decision made it clear that this stance is not sufficient. There’s an expectation on the landlord to visit their property, conduct inspections and assessments, and coordinate with the tenant to manage risks.In this case, Heng Tong was fined $89,250 and ordered to pay reparation of $30,800.It might be easy to “spray and walk away” (as the saying goes) when you’ve signed up a tenant, but it doesn't work like that. “Plan, Do, Check and Act” is a helpful mantra to manage risk. Head to the WorkSafe website to get the information on how to implement the four-step system.https://worksafe.govt.nz/managing-health-and-safety/managing-risks/how-to-manage-work-risksInjury prevention scheme eligibilityAre you eligible for ACC’s workplace injury prevention scheme?Too many New Zealanders continue to suffer injuries at work with manufacturing one of the highest risk sectors. ACC, in collaboration with HASANZ, have designed a workplace injury prevention subsidy for businesses to access health and safety (H&S) services to improve their workplace H&S performance.The subsidy is available for small to medium-sized businesses with around six to 99 employees in the manufacturing sector.For more information check out the ACC website: https://www.acc.co.nz/for-business/workplace-health-safety/workplace-injury-prevention-subsidies/Feedback, comments and questions are always welcomed – please feel free to e-mail me on [email protected]: 03 443 0900W: www.aspiringlaw.co.nzJulie Aitken is an associate and legal design innovator specialist at Aspiring Law. Please remember, this information is designed as a general guide, and should not replace specific legal advice on a particular issue.

New Zealand has become a Mecca for travellers from all over the world but many who come here on tourist visas end up working on farms and orchards, bars and backpackers. Some work in exchange for free accommodation or food. Both the worker and the employer may consider this “volunteering” but the law says otherwise. The law says it is illegal and these “volunteers” should be treated as employees.The legal position of “volunteer worker” is that a person:Doesn’t expect to be rewarded for work to be performed as a volunteer;Receives no reward for work performed as a volunteerIf an employer pays a volunteer, then they are considered employees and protected under a variety of New Zealand laws. Volunteers are actually employees if:The worker is paid for their work with some form of reward including accommodation or food;There’s an economic gain to the business from the work performed by the worker; The work is an integral part of the business and is work that an employee would normally perform;The hours of work are controlled. The employer then has all of the obligations and responsibilities to the employee including: ACC and tax law obligations; meeting the minimum wage; maintaining records; providing the minimum holiday entitlements; and ensuring that the person has a valid right to work in New Zealand.The Willing Workers on Organic Farms (WWOOF) scheme is approved by the Labour Inspectorate if it involves a cultural exchange and training element, and the volunteer is not exploited for commercial gain. However, there’s a fine line between volunteering and exploitation. Event organisers that depend on volunteers also need to be aware of the law.Both employees and volunteers need to consider the nature of the entity, the relationship, and the intention of the person contributing. Feedback, comments and questions are always welcomed – please feel free to e-mail me on [email protected]: 03 443 0900W: www.aspiringlaw.co.nzJohn Mezger specialises in business, employment and immigration law at Aspiring Law.Please remember, this information is designed as a general guide, and should not replace specific legal advice on a particular issue.

An ongoing dispute for the MANUKA HONEY trade mark demonstrates the importance of identifying your intellectual property (IP) and protecting that IP in the markets in which you trade.The Mānuka Honey Appellation Society (MHAS) in New Zealand has applied to register a certification trade mark for MANUKA HONEY, which would limit the use of the term ‘Mānuka Honey’ in New Zealand to strictly New Zealand-based products.If MHAS’s trade mark application is successful in New Zealand, it will have little impact on the New Zealand market as almost all honey is produced domestically. However, MHAS also wants to register MANUKA HONEY in Australia, the US, UK, EU and China.Australian honey producers oppose the registration of this trade mark. They argue that there is no scientific difference between the New Zealand mānuka tree and the Australian tea tree, so the name mānuka cannot be limited to New Zealand honey. If MHAS’s international trade mark applications are successful, Australian honey producers would be barred from using the term ‘Mānuka Honey’ in relation to their honey in the respective countries.Intellectual property can be vital to your business. This dispute highlights the importance of identifying the IP in your business and making sure it’s protected.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 article. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of this firm. Articles appearing in Commercial eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source. Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2019. Editor: Adrienne Olsen. E-mail: [email protected]. Ph: 029 286 3650 or 04 496 5513.