• icon-head.png
  • icon-phone.png
  • icon-pin.png
  • icon-head.png
  • icon-phone.png
  • icon-pin.png
  • icon-head.png
  • icon-phone.png
  • icon-pin.png

New Zealand’s Specialist
Project Lawyers

There is a marked difference

in the way Greenwood Roche operates. From the outset we have focused on clearly defined specialist areas, retaining highly respected legal experts in each field. We then take that further; ensuring clients have direct and regular access to the most senior partners and lawyers, in a cost efficient manner.

Close contact with experts and clear cost advantages

We advise on a range of significant public and private sector projects. To ensure our specialists are always where they’re needed, we operate as one office with hubs in Auckland, Wellington & Christchurch.

img_homepage_column1.jpg

Recent Projects

Projects

Environmentally-friendly transport initiatives in Christchurch

Greenwood Roche assisted Christchurch City Council in launching and supporting the...

Environmentally-friendly transport initiatives in Christchurch

Recent Projects

Environmentally-friendly transport initiatives in Christchurch

Environmentally-friendly transport initiatives in Christchurch

Greenwood Roche assisted Christchurch City Council in launching and supporting the city’s recent environmentally-friendly transport initiatives intended to support sustainable multi-modal journeys, and complement and enhance the region’s existing public transport network. 


The initiatives comprise the introduction of the shared electric car fleet with Yoogo, a proposed public bike share system, and Lime’s e-scooters.

Christchurch City Council has partnered with a range of leading public and private sector organisations with a view to promoting the physical health of its residents, reducing the negative impacts that traditional transport options have on the environment, and reducing the number of cars on Christchurch roads.

Greenwood Roche’s team, led by James Riddoch, worked with Christchurch City Council to prepare the legal framework to support these projects, including advising Council on procurement matters, negotiating the commercial terms with the suppliers, and advising Council in relation to the required permits to allow these businesses to operate in the city.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x

The development of the Redhills area

Greenwood Roche is assisting Watercare deliver an improved wastewater network to...

Recent Projects

The development of the Redhills area

The development of the Redhills area

Greenwood Roche is assisting Watercare deliver an improved wastewater network to enable the development of the Redhills area.


Watercare is working with various interested parties to deliver improved wastewater services to enable the Redhills area to be extensively developed with the introduction of close to 10,000 residential properties.

Hadleigh Yonge is leading Greenwood Roche’s team which is advising Watercare on aspects of this project, including providing strategic advice, negotiating and acquiring property rights, and advising on and negotiating infrastructure funding agreements.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Northern Corridor Improvements Project

Greenwood Roche is assisting Align Limited to secure land for the development of...

Recent Projects


Northern Corridor Improvements Project

Greenwood Roche is assisting Align Limited to secure land for the development of the NZ Transport Agency’s Northern Corridor improvement works.


The Northern Corridor Improvements Project is part of the Government’s accelerated package of transport infrastructure improvements for Auckland and includes the upgrading of the connection between State Highway 1 and State Highway 18, the extension of the Northern Busway and additional lanes on State Highway 1.

Hadleigh Yonge is leading Greenwood Roche’s team which is advising on aspects of this project, including negotiating and acquiring property rights, and advising on and dealing with issues relating to compensation.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x

AA Insurance secures new premises in Auckland

Antonia Shanahan and Jimmy Tait-Jamieson advised AA Insurance Limited in respect...

AA Insurance secures new premises in Auckland

Recent Projects

AA Insurance secures new premises in Auckland

AA Insurance secures new premises in Auckland

Antonia Shanahan and Jimmy Tait-Jamieson advised AA Insurance Limited in respect of the relocation of its New Zealand head office to a new build in Sale Street, Central Auckland, as the anchor tenant of the building. 


The project involved significant negotiation with a prominent New Zealand developer, resulting in a number of transaction agreements, which included careful risk mitigation measures to remove leasetail issues.  Multiple parties were involved in the transaction with the property being sold to an overseas buyer before completion of the building by the developer. The transaction resulted in a new premises that aligned with the company’s values, and included an innovative and energy efficient design and flexible working space with light and views across Auckland city.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Sale of sought after 205 Queen Street towers, Auckland

Antonia Shanahan and Chris Moore recently acted for the owner of 205 Queen Street...

Sale of sought after 205 Queen Street towers, Auckland

Recent Projects

Sale of sought after 205 Queen Street towers, Auckland

Sale of sought after 205 Queen Street towers, Auckland

Antonia Shanahan and Chris Moore recently acted for the owner of 205 Queen Street, Auckland in relation to the sale of the multi-tenanted leasehold property to an overseas buyer, in the biggest property sale in the central Auckland business district since 2010. 


The property comprises two office towers (one tower has 22 levels and the other has 17 levels) located on the busy intersection of Queen Street and Victoria Street and accommodates approximately 60 tenants.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Acquisition of Maari Interests by Horizon Oil

Brigid McArthur and Rachel Murdoch acted for Horizon Oil International Limited on...

Acquisition of Maari Interests by Horizon Oil

Recent Projects

Acquisition of Maari Interests by Horizon Oil

Acquisition of Maari Interests by Horizon Oil

Brigid McArthur and Rachel Murdoch acted for Horizon Oil International Limited on its acquisition of an additional 16% interest in the Maari petroleum permit and associated joint venture assets.


Horizon Oil, already the holder of a 10% participating interest in the producing Maari/Manaia fields, has acquired an additional 16% interest from Todd Energy as a result of Todd’s rationalisation of its Taranaki oil and gas assets.  OMV (operator) and Cue Taranaki hold the balance.
 
Brigid and Rachel advised on the requisite Overseas Investment Office sensitive land application and the application for Ministerial consent under the Crown Minerals Act, and assisted Horizon Oil’s General Counsel with certain other closing matters.  Following the obtaining of these regulatory consents, closing was successfully completed on 31 May 2018. 
 
The Maari and Manaia fields have offered stable oil production since 2009 and stable employment opportunities for over 100 people.  As at November 2017, gross field production stood at 8,840bpd of oil.  Gross projected 2P reserves were at 21 mmbls and 2C reserves of oil at 69 mmbls, as at 30 June 2017.  Since 2017 the joint venture has been undertaking field optimisation work as part of the Maari Production Improvement Program.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Similar projects
Aratiatia hydroelectric plant refurbishment

Recent Projects

Aratiatia hydroelectric plant refurbishment

Aratiatia hydroelectric plant refurbishment

Greenwood Roche has assisted Mighty River Power with the procurement and negotiation of contracts for its plant refurbishment project at Aratiatia


Austria-based Andritz was awarded the contract to provide work on three generating units at the 78-MW Aratiatia hydroelectric station.

The Greenwood Roche team for this project comprised partner Barry Walker and special counsel Adrian Doherty.  Barry and Adrian are experienced international construction project lawyers, comfortable using a variety of international standard documents, including FIDIC, to assist in smooth cross-border negotiations.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x
Establishment of CarboNZero Certified Ecotricity Limited Partnership

Recent Projects


Establishment of CarboNZero Certified Ecotricity Limited Partnership

Ecotricity is New Zealand’s only “carboNZero” certified, 100% renewable electricity retailer. This means that it sources electricity only from sustainable and renewable sources, such as hydro and wind.



Partner Brigid McArthur recently acted for Ecotricity Limited on the establishment of the joint venture, by way of limited partnership, with Pioneer Generation Limited.  Pioneer owns and operates some significant renewable generation projects in the South Island.  The Ecotricity Limited Partnership is also investing in electric vehicles and associated infrastructure.
Together, Ecotricity and Pioneer are championing the case for investment in renewables and we congratulate them on their venture.  They are at the forefront of what is a growing trend away from conventional fossil fuel based technologies.  Your support can be enhanced by visiting the Ecotricity website and checking the deals on offer.  www.ecotricity.co.nz


Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x
Bid to Purchase Rimu, Kauri and Manutahi Oil and Gas Assets

Recent Projects


Bid to Purchase Rimu, Kauri and Manutahi Oil and Gas Assets

UK listed oil and gas explorer Mosman Oil & Gas was successful in striking a deal with Origin Energy to purchase the Taranaki Rimu, Kauri and Manutahi (RKM) petroleum fields and associated petroleum production infrastructure.


Alas, with oil prices falling below US$40 per barrel for a sustained period, Mosman and its joint venture partners were forced to cancel the sale and purchase agreement.  Reportedly, the assets may still be available for purchase.
Partner Brigid McArthur and solicitors Susan Baas and Kurt McRedmond worked with Mosman on its acquisition project, including on its due diligence, sale and purchase negotiations and applications for New Zealand Petroleum & Minerals and Overseas Investment Office consents.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x
Purchase of Alinta Energy

Recent Projects

Purchase of Alinta Energy

Purchase of Alinta Energy

Brigid McArthur, Monique Thomas and Sam Green acted earlier this year, alongside an Allen & Overy team, on New Zealand aspects of the purchase by Hong Kong-based Chow Tai Fook Enterprises of Australia’s largest electricity and gas utility, Alinta Energy.


The sale follows an about-face on Alinta’s delayed public float, which itself followed an earlier inconclusive sale process.  The deal remains subject to foreign investment approval in Australia.

In New Zealand, the Alinta assets include the Glenbrook Steel Mill cogeneration plant.

Chow Tai Fook is a privately-owned holding company with existing investments across 50 countries, straddling hotels, retail, property and jewellery businesses.

- Photo courtesy of Alinta Energy


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Similar projects
Bid to Purchase Rimu, Kauri and Manutahi Oil and Gas Assets

Recent Projects


Bid to Purchase Rimu, Kauri and Manutahi Oil and Gas Assets

UK listed oil and gas explorer Mosman Oil & Gas was successful in striking a deal with Origin Energy to purchase the Taranaki Rimu, Kauri and Manutahi (RKM) petroleum fields and associated petroleum production infrastructure.


Alas, with oil prices falling below US$40 per barrel for a sustained period, Mosman and its joint venture partners were forced to cancel the sale and purchase agreement.  Reportedly, the assets may still be available for purchase.
Partner Brigid McArthur and solicitors Susan Baas and Kurt McRedmond worked with Mosman on its acquisition project, including on its due diligence, sale and purchase negotiations and applications for New Zealand Petroleum & Minerals and Overseas Investment Office consents.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x
Establishment of CarboNZero Certified Ecotricity Limited Partnership

Recent Projects


Establishment of CarboNZero Certified Ecotricity Limited Partnership

Ecotricity is New Zealand’s only “carboNZero” certified, 100% renewable electricity retailer. This means that it sources electricity only from sustainable and renewable sources, such as hydro and wind.



Partner Brigid McArthur recently acted for Ecotricity Limited on the establishment of the joint venture, by way of limited partnership, with Pioneer Generation Limited.  Pioneer owns and operates some significant renewable generation projects in the South Island.  The Ecotricity Limited Partnership is also investing in electric vehicles and associated infrastructure.
Together, Ecotricity and Pioneer are championing the case for investment in renewables and we congratulate them on their venture.  They are at the forefront of what is a growing trend away from conventional fossil fuel based technologies.  Your support can be enhanced by visiting the Ecotricity website and checking the deals on offer.  www.ecotricity.co.nz


Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x
Greenwood Roche assists French construction giant

Recent Projects

Greenwood Roche assists French construction giant

Greenwood Roche assists French construction giant

Australasian utility contractor Electrix, part of McConnell Dowell, has been acquired by French construction giant VINCI Energies. Electrix has approximately 2,000 employees located in New Zealand and Australia and provides a range of maintenance and construction services for utility providers.


Greenwood Roche assisted VINCI in respect of New Zealand aspects of the transaction, working closely with VINCI Energies’ international legal teams from Baker McKenzie (Sydney) and Bolze Associés (Paris).  Greenwood Roche is proud to have worked with VINCI and its legal team on this project.

About VINCI:
 

  • VINCI Energies' is the world’s largest company in construction and related services and is listed on Euronext's Paris stock exchange and is a member of the CAC 40 index.
  • According to its website, in 2013 the VINCI Group had 171,678 employees and worked on 266,000 projects in 100 countries – with VINCI Energies having around 63,000 employees in 45 countries.
  • For more information on VINCI Energies, please visit www.vinci.com


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x
Bathurst Resources – Buller Coal Project

Recent Projects

Bathurst Resources – Buller Coal Project

Bathurst Resources – Buller Coal Project

New Zealanders are well aware of the severe challenges Bathurst Resources has overcome in progressing its West Coast coal mining project.


Greenwood Roche has been part of the Bathurst team on some important parts of the Buller Project, advising on land acquisition and land rights for the coal handling and preparation facility and the proposed aerial conveyor, and obtaining requisite Overseas Investment Office approvals.
 
We have also been acting jointly for Bathurst Resources and Westport Harbour on their joint arrangements for the siting, construction and operation of a coal handling facility at Westport Port.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Download as a PDF
Close window
x
Tiwai Point Electricity

Recent Projects

Tiwai Point Electricity

Tiwai Point Electricity

New Zealand's Aluminium Smelter at Tiwai Point produces the world’s highest purity primary aluminium, contributing more than $600 million annually in export income for New Zealand.


Tiwai Point is New Zealand's largest single user of electricity by a very large margin and is an integral part of the electricity market and system – employing 800 people directly with a flow-on employment profile of over three thousand jobs.

Greenwood Roche advises New Zealand's Aluminium Smelter and Pacific Aluminium on all aspects of the Tiwai Point Aluminium Smelter electricity supply, including the 2013 and 2015 renegotiations with Meridian Energy.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Arise Centre

Greenwood Roche assisted Arise with its flagship church project in Petone....

Arise Centre

Recent Projects

Arise Centre

Arise Centre

Greenwood Roche assisted Arise with its flagship church project in Petone.


Greenwood Roche acted for Arise on the construction of its distinctive new build church, the Arise Centre, in Petone, Wellington. 
 
The Arise Centre has now received an NZIA Local Architecture Award, recognising the Centre as being amongst the best new architecture in Wellington.  The “new take” on church architecture enables the congregation to be brought together in a large space where it can make some noise.  Located in a relatively sparse former industrial space, the building comes into its own at night, imbued with a golden light.
 
The Greenwood Roche team for the project included partner Doran Wyatt and principal James Riddoch.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Similar projects
Greenwood Roche assists French construction giant

Recent Projects

Greenwood Roche assists French construction giant

Greenwood Roche assists French construction giant

Australasian utility contractor Electrix, part of McConnell Dowell, has been acquired by French construction giant VINCI Energies. Electrix has approximately 2,000 employees located in New Zealand and Australia and provides a range of maintenance and construction services for utility providers.


Greenwood Roche assisted VINCI in respect of New Zealand aspects of the transaction, working closely with VINCI Energies’ international legal teams from Baker McKenzie (Sydney) and Bolze Associés (Paris).  Greenwood Roche is proud to have worked with VINCI and its legal team on this project.

About VINCI:
 

  • VINCI Energies' is the world’s largest company in construction and related services and is listed on Euronext's Paris stock exchange and is a member of the CAC 40 index.
  • According to its website, in 2013 the VINCI Group had 171,678 employees and worked on 266,000 projects in 100 countries – with VINCI Energies having around 63,000 employees in 45 countries.
  • For more information on VINCI Energies, please visit www.vinci.com


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Tiwai Point Fourth Potline Restart

Brigid McArthur has acted this year for New Zealand Aluminium Smelters  and...

Tiwai Point Fourth Potline Restart

Recent Projects

Tiwai Point Fourth Potline Restart

Tiwai Point Fourth Potline Restart

Brigid McArthur has acted this year for New Zealand Aluminium Smelters  and parent Pacific Aluminium on the electricity hedge contract and associated arrangements with NZX and Sumitomo, for the restart of potline 4 at the Tiwai Point Smelter.


On 1 May 2018 New Zealand Aluminium Smelters announced plans to restart the fourth potline at its Tiwai Point Smelter, that has been sitting idle in a low price aluminium market since 2012.
 
Greenwood Roche partner Brigid McArthur acted for NZAS on its contract with Meridian Energy for an additional 50 MW electricity hedge to enable the restart, underwriting NZAS’ spot price risk on the extra volume out to 2022.  The new contract effectively sits on top of the existing 572 MW contract for Tiwai, lasting until 2030.
 
Meridian itself supported the Tiwai arrangement with its own separate contracts with Contact Energy, Genesis Energy and Mercury.
 
The fourth potline restart is a further boon to the Southland economy, with an additional 32 skilled jobs and a further 85 tonnes of aluminium produced per day, and this from a smelter with one of the lowest carbon footprints globally.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Similar projects
Purchase of Alinta Energy

Recent Projects

Purchase of Alinta Energy

Purchase of Alinta Energy

Brigid McArthur, Monique Thomas and Sam Green acted earlier this year, alongside an Allen & Overy team, on New Zealand aspects of the purchase by Hong Kong-based Chow Tai Fook Enterprises of Australia’s largest electricity and gas utility, Alinta Energy.


The sale follows an about-face on Alinta’s delayed public float, which itself followed an earlier inconclusive sale process.  The deal remains subject to foreign investment approval in Australia.

In New Zealand, the Alinta assets include the Glenbrook Steel Mill cogeneration plant.

Chow Tai Fook is a privately-owned holding company with existing investments across 50 countries, straddling hotels, retail, property and jewellery businesses.

- Photo courtesy of Alinta Energy


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Similar projects
Bid to Purchase Rimu, Kauri and Manutahi Oil and Gas Assets

Recent Projects


Bid to Purchase Rimu, Kauri and Manutahi Oil and Gas Assets

UK listed oil and gas explorer Mosman Oil & Gas was successful in striking a deal with Origin Energy to purchase the Taranaki Rimu, Kauri and Manutahi (RKM) petroleum fields and associated petroleum production infrastructure.


Alas, with oil prices falling below US$40 per barrel for a sustained period, Mosman and its joint venture partners were forced to cancel the sale and purchase agreement.  Reportedly, the assets may still be available for purchase.
Partner Brigid McArthur and solicitors Susan Baas and Kurt McRedmond worked with Mosman on its acquisition project, including on its due diligence, sale and purchase negotiations and applications for New Zealand Petroleum & Minerals and Overseas Investment Office consents.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x
Establishment of CarboNZero Certified Ecotricity Limited Partnership

Recent Projects


Establishment of CarboNZero Certified Ecotricity Limited Partnership

Ecotricity is New Zealand’s only “carboNZero” certified, 100% renewable electricity retailer. This means that it sources electricity only from sustainable and renewable sources, such as hydro and wind.



Partner Brigid McArthur recently acted for Ecotricity Limited on the establishment of the joint venture, by way of limited partnership, with Pioneer Generation Limited.  Pioneer owns and operates some significant renewable generation projects in the South Island.  The Ecotricity Limited Partnership is also investing in electric vehicles and associated infrastructure.
Together, Ecotricity and Pioneer are championing the case for investment in renewables and we congratulate them on their venture.  They are at the forefront of what is a growing trend away from conventional fossil fuel based technologies.  Your support can be enhanced by visiting the Ecotricity website and checking the deals on offer.  www.ecotricity.co.nz


Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x
Greenwood Roche assists French construction giant

Recent Projects

Greenwood Roche assists French construction giant

Greenwood Roche assists French construction giant

Australasian utility contractor Electrix, part of McConnell Dowell, has been acquired by French construction giant VINCI Energies. Electrix has approximately 2,000 employees located in New Zealand and Australia and provides a range of maintenance and construction services for utility providers.


Greenwood Roche assisted VINCI in respect of New Zealand aspects of the transaction, working closely with VINCI Energies’ international legal teams from Baker McKenzie (Sydney) and Bolze Associés (Paris).  Greenwood Roche is proud to have worked with VINCI and its legal team on this project.

About VINCI:
 

  • VINCI Energies' is the world’s largest company in construction and related services and is listed on Euronext's Paris stock exchange and is a member of the CAC 40 index.
  • According to its website, in 2013 the VINCI Group had 171,678 employees and worked on 266,000 projects in 100 countries – with VINCI Energies having around 63,000 employees in 45 countries.
  • For more information on VINCI Energies, please visit www.vinci.com


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x
Bathurst Resources – Buller Coal Project

Recent Projects

Bathurst Resources – Buller Coal Project

Bathurst Resources – Buller Coal Project

New Zealanders are well aware of the severe challenges Bathurst Resources has overcome in progressing its West Coast coal mining project.


Greenwood Roche has been part of the Bathurst team on some important parts of the Buller Project, advising on land acquisition and land rights for the coal handling and preparation facility and the proposed aerial conveyor, and obtaining requisite Overseas Investment Office approvals.
 
We have also been acting jointly for Bathurst Resources and Westport Harbour on their joint arrangements for the siting, construction and operation of a coal handling facility at Westport Port.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Download as a PDF
Close window
x
Aratiatia hydroelectric plant refurbishment

Recent Projects

Aratiatia hydroelectric plant refurbishment

Aratiatia hydroelectric plant refurbishment

Greenwood Roche has assisted Mighty River Power with the procurement and negotiation of contracts for its plant refurbishment project at Aratiatia


Austria-based Andritz was awarded the contract to provide work on three generating units at the 78-MW Aratiatia hydroelectric station.

The Greenwood Roche team for this project comprised partner Barry Walker and special counsel Adrian Doherty.  Barry and Adrian are experienced international construction project lawyers, comfortable using a variety of international standard documents, including FIDIC, to assist in smooth cross-border negotiations.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x
Establishment of CarboNZero Certified Ecotricity Limited Partnership

Recent Projects


Establishment of CarboNZero Certified Ecotricity Limited Partnership

Ecotricity is New Zealand’s only “carboNZero” certified, 100% renewable electricity retailer. This means that it sources electricity only from sustainable and renewable sources, such as hydro and wind.



Partner Brigid McArthur recently acted for Ecotricity Limited on the establishment of the joint venture, by way of limited partnership, with Pioneer Generation Limited.  Pioneer owns and operates some significant renewable generation projects in the South Island.  The Ecotricity Limited Partnership is also investing in electric vehicles and associated infrastructure.
Together, Ecotricity and Pioneer are championing the case for investment in renewables and we congratulate them on their venture.  They are at the forefront of what is a growing trend away from conventional fossil fuel based technologies.  Your support can be enhanced by visiting the Ecotricity website and checking the deals on offer.  www.ecotricity.co.nz


Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x
Bid to Purchase Rimu, Kauri and Manutahi Oil and Gas Assets

Recent Projects


Bid to Purchase Rimu, Kauri and Manutahi Oil and Gas Assets

UK listed oil and gas explorer Mosman Oil & Gas was successful in striking a deal with Origin Energy to purchase the Taranaki Rimu, Kauri and Manutahi (RKM) petroleum fields and associated petroleum production infrastructure.


Alas, with oil prices falling below US$40 per barrel for a sustained period, Mosman and its joint venture partners were forced to cancel the sale and purchase agreement.  Reportedly, the assets may still be available for purchase.
Partner Brigid McArthur and solicitors Susan Baas and Kurt McRedmond worked with Mosman on its acquisition project, including on its due diligence, sale and purchase negotiations and applications for New Zealand Petroleum & Minerals and Overseas Investment Office consents.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Download as a PDF
Close window
x

See more projects
img_homepage_column2.jpg

News & Insights

Insights

Greenwood Roche Young Achiever of the Year Award 2018

We are pleased to continue to support the Property Council Southern Excellence Awards...

Greenwood Roche Young Achiever of the Year Award 2018

News & Insights

Greenwood Roche Young Achiever of the Year Award 2018

Greenwood Roche Young Achiever of the Year Award 2018

We are pleased to continue to support the Property Council Southern Excellence Awards which recognise and celebrate excellence in property in the South Island.  Christchurch Partner, Ranui Calman had the honour of presenting the Greenwood Roche Young Achiever Award as part of the event on 5 October 2018.


Congratulations to Nick Flack of Christchurch International Airport, this year’s winner of the Greenwood Roche Young Achiever Award.  Nick is the Asset Planning and Maintenance Manager at Christchurch International Airport, where he has achieved outstanding performance and has made a significant contribution to the planning, construction and on-going maintenance of the Airport’s infrastructure assets.  He has shown focus, dedication and commitment, as well as grit and determination when faced with difficult situations.  He models a collaborative work style that brings together the organisation to translate strategy into action and has the promise of being a future industry leader.

Nick is currently part of the Strategy Action Leadership Group, which is responsible for turning corporate strategy into action.  He has a passion for commercial, operational and master planning as well as for driving long lasting solutions.  He creates clarity of purpose for his teams, articulating the Airport’s property and asset vision and then translating that vision into projects and maintenance plans.

The judges commented on Nick’s determination and motivation to achieve his goals as evidenced by undertaking full time study to complete his Masters in Logistics and Supply Chain Management, whilst also working full time.  He has also been an active member in South Island Logistics Forums, organised personal mentors to help him achieve his goals and completed leadership training, which he has been able to put into practice as part of the Senior Leadership Team.  The work Nick has been involved in has made a significant contribution to the whole of the South Island and the judges were impressed by how Nick sees the big picture, is future focussed and pushes boundaries to achieve his goals.  Nick embodies what this award seeks to recognise and celebrate and is without a doubt a leader of the future.

Congratulations Nick, we look forward to working with you and seeing where your career develop.


Download as a PDF
Close window
x

ILANZ Greenwood Roche Private Sector In-House Lawyer of the Year Award 2018

Greenwood Roche extends its warmest congratulations to Marise Winthrop, Corporate Counsel...

ILANZ Greenwood Roche Private Sector In-House Lawyer of the Year Award 2018

News & Insights

ILANZ Greenwood Roche Private Sector In-House Lawyer of the Year Award 2018

ILANZ Greenwood Roche Private Sector In-House Lawyer of the Year Award 2018

Greenwood Roche extends its warmest congratulations to Marise Winthrop, Corporate Counsel, Livestock Improvements Corporation (LIC).  The award recognises Marise’s significant contribution to both LIC and the legal profession.


Marise manages the legal and intellectual property teams at LIC providing strategic and tactical options on the creation and protection of LIC’s growing portfolio of IP assets.

Greenwood Roche is proud to continue its support of ILANZ and to continue working alongside many of its members, providing pragmatic solutions in the delivery of various projects and initiatives that its members undertake.  In her speech at the awards, Greenwood Roche Partner Ranui Calman highlighted the increasing need for in-house lawyers to be innovative in their thinking, processes and their solutions. 

Greenwood Roche again wishes to congratulates all nominees and award winners on their various achievements throughout the year.


Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Digital Signatures and Storage - how and when they can be used?

From courier deliveries to agreements to purchase real estate, the emergence of digital...

News & Insights

Digital Signatures and Storage - how and when they can be used?

From courier deliveries to agreements to purchase real estate, the emergence of digital signatures in commercial transactions has become increasingly prevalent over the past decade. The Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (Act) consolidated a number of commercial statutes (including the Electronic Transactions Act 2002). The Electronic Transactions Act 2002 aimed to facilitate the use of electronic technology by reducing uncertainty relating to its legal effect. The Act, by incorporating that same intention, promotes a more innovative commercial landscape by providing guidelines for the use of digital signatures and the digital storage of documents.


Digital Signatures

Digital signatures are a sub-category of the more general “electronic signature”. An electronic signature is any form of identification indicating acceptance in an electronic form. It may be a scanned version of a signature, the ticking of an “I Accept” option or a signature formed by a finger on a tablet or smartphone. In a New Zealand context, digital signatures are electronic signatures that generally comply with the Act. A digital signature’s compliance with the Act is authenticated by embedded software that provides assurances as to identification, reliability and of course, acceptance.

The Act provides that, subject to a few exceptions (such as affidavits, statutory declarations, powers of attorney, or wills) digital signatures are permitted under New Zealand law. The Act sanctions the general rule that any legislation requiring dealings to take place on paper will also be permitted to take place electronically, provided both parties agree and the dealings are not expressly excluded from the Act.

Section 226(1) of the Act states that a digital signature must:

  • adequately identify the signatory and adequately indicate the signatory’s approval of the information to which the signature relates; and
  • be as reliable as is appropriate given the purpose for which, and the circumstances in which, the signature is required.

To help provide certainty to users of digital signatures, the Act gives a rebuttable presumption of reliability if certain requirements are met. Section 228 provides that a digital signature will be presumed reliable if:

  • the means of creating the digital signature are linked to the signatory and to no other person;
  • the means of creating the digital signature were under the control of the signatory and no other person;
  • any alteration made to that information (or the digital signature itself) after the time of signing is detectable; and
  • the purpose of the signature is to provide assurance as to the integrity of the information to which it relates.
Essentially, a digital signature (as opposed to a mere electronic signature) will be presumed reliable as it generally meets these requirements.

Digital Storage

Continued technological innovations mean that many documents are never created in a paper form and many companies are looking to cut costs and increase convenience by storing information in digital, rather than physical form.

To cater for this, section 222 of the Act permits digital versions of documents as sufficient alternatives to originals where the digital version is “readily accessible so as to be usable for subsequent reference.”  Provided that a digital system reliably ensures that the integrity of the digital version is maintained, it may replace the original.

Where a document might be used for evidential purposes in a court, digital evidence is not barred.  However, it must meet the rules of evidence contained in the Evidence Act 2006 (EA) relating to hearsay and general reliability.

When retaining documents for use as evidence, clearly the objective must be to ensure that they are admissible. There is no restriction on the type of evidence a party may bring to prove its case in court, but there may be issues as to reliability. The definition of “document” in the EA is wide enough to encompass any form of digital document as it includes “information electronically recorded or stored, and information derived from that information.”

Under section 19 of the EA, a statement made in a business document is admissible in court, generally, if the person who made the statement is either unavailable to appear as a witness or the appearance would be significantly inconvenient due to cost or delay.

Conclusion
 
Digital signatures and digital storage provide an effective way for companies to save time and money in the digital age. Their trend of increased prevalence will surely only continue. It is important therefore, that parties have a good understanding of what constitutes a digital signature and when it may be appropriate. Likewise, parties need to understand the steps required to ensure digitally stored documents will withstand the test of time.  If you would like to know more, please contact Rowan Barbalich.
 


Download as a PDF
Close window
x

When does a Director have Power to Bind a Company?

The customary authority of one director of a board of several, acting alone, is very...

News & Insights

When does a Director have Power to Bind a Company?

The customary authority of one director of a board of several, acting alone, is very limited:  there needs to be some evidence of customary authority


The recent Court of Appeal decision in Bishop Warden Property Holdings Limited v Autumn Tree Limited,[1] upholding an earlier High Court finding,[2] has alarmed some in the legal and business community.

Contrary to some suggestions, the case is not authority at Court of Appeal level for the novel proposition that one director alone cannot bind a company to a contract.  Nor are its particular findings expected to change too much for most ordinary business contracting, as it appears to have been decided very much on its own facts.

The case is nonetheless significant in terms of company contracting.  It reaffirms existing law and the correct interpretation of section 18 of the Companies Act 1993.  It also sends a salutary reminder to those involved in negotiating and settling contracts as to the extent of a director’s authority and as to when care should be exercised in assuming actual or apparent authority.

Key facts

The case involved an application by Autumn Tree to remove a caveat from land it owned that was subject to an unconditional sale and purchase agreement with Bishop Warden.

Autumn Tree was a company formed solely for the purpose of owning and subdividing some residential land in Meadowbank, Auckland.  This was its sole property.  The company was owned by 3 shareholders, with a Mr Zhao holding 50%, Anna 30% and Tina 20%.  Tina was sole director, seemingly as nominee for all 3 shareholders.

Removal of the caveat depended on whether or not the Agreement was valid (ie. had been validly entered into).  It was accepted that if the Agreement wasn’t valid, Bishop Warden had no interest to support its caveat and the caveat should therefore be removed.

In the space of one afternoon, late on 3 August 2017, Mr Blomfield (representing Bishop Warden) and Tina negotiated a sale and purchase of the land, valued post-subdivision at some $3.35M, for $1.1M.  Tina had explained she wanted to exit the company and did not want to proceed with the subdivision.  Mr Blomfield alleged he believed at the time, based on a company search undertaken that morning, that Tina was the sole director of Autumn Tree.

Unbeknownst to Mr Blomfield, some sort of disagreement existed between the Autumn Tree shareholders as a result of which the Companies Office records were adjusted by Autumn Tree’s accountants on instruction from Mr Zhao.  The companies register showed a transfer of Tina’s shareholding in Autumn Tree to Anna being registered just before midday on 3 August, and Anna registered as a new director around 1 pm.  Tina’s removal as a director was not recorded until 5 August, but was effective from 3 August.

The legal issue

The legal argument centred around section 18(1) of the Companies Act and its codification of the common law “indoor management rule” and the doctrine of apparent authority.  Applied to the facts, the question was whether, as one of two directors, Tina had authority to bind Autumn Tree to the Agreement.

Section 18(1) and the indoor management rule

Section 18(1) is based on the proposition that a person dealing with a company is entitled to assume that the company’s internal requirements have been complied with and its officers are acting lawfully.  Otherwise, business interactions would be greatly complicated.

To this end, section 18(1) restricts the circumstances in which a company can assert against a person dealing with it that the company, or the person held out by it as acting on its behalf, lacked authority to enter into the relevant transaction.  The company cannot cite:

  1. non-compliance with the Companies Act or the Constitution;
  2. that someone named as a director on the Companies Office records is not a director, has not been duly appointed, or does not have authority to exercise a power which a director of such a company customarily has;
  3. that a person held out by it as a director, employee or agent has not been duly appointed or does not have authority to exercise a power which such persons customarily have in businesses of that type; or
  4. that a document issued on behalf of the company by a director, employee or agent with actual or usual authority to issue the document is not valid or genuine,
unless, in each case, unless the person has, or ought to have, by virtue of his or her position with or relationship to the company, knowledge of the relevant defect.

The courts’ decisions

Both the High Court and Court of Appeal found that at the time the Agreement was concluded (around 6 pm on 3 August), for all intents and purposes Autumn Tree was holding out both Tina and Anna to be directors.  This was what at the time was showing on the companies register and that amounted to “holding out”.  Mr Blomfield could not rely on his belief that Tina was the sole director, in reliance on his earlier search.

Bishop Warden was found to have failed to establish that Tina had actual authority.  The case therefore fell to be decided on the question of her apparent authority.  Section 18(1) did not assist Mr Blomfield in the circumstances, and Autumn Tree won on its claim that Tina lacked actual or apparent authority and the sale and purchase transaction was therefore invalid.

Both courts found that the position as to customary authority (in terms of section 18(1)(b) and (c)) varies significantly between the customary authority of a sole (or managing) director and that of a director who is one of a board of two or more directors.  The customary authority of one director of a board, acting alone, is very limited.

Citing ample respected academic and judicial authority, the courts noted that a director acting solely in that capacity must act as part of a board in order to bind the company.  Directors can act only collectively as a board.  The function of an individual director is to participate in board decisions.  Absent some express or implied representation made by the company, a director has no ostensible authority to bind it.  Moreover, it is not sufficient for the person claiming authority simply to assert it.  There has to be some representation or holding out by the company.

In this case, the courts held that one of two directors of a property development company, acting unilaterally, does not customarily have authority to enter into a significant property transaction.

It is all a question of what is customary, or usual, director authority for a company of the type in question.  Here, with a company owned by three distinct shareholders, whose sole purpose was to hold this one land asset, it would not be customary for one director acting alone to have authority to dispose of that asset.  Major transaction approval by shareholders would be required.  Moreover, found the High Court, Mr Blomfield was aware of sufficient suspicious circumstances (including the sale price at an obvious under-value) as to have deemed knowledge that Tina would lack authority to transact.  That he was operating under the possibly mistaken impression that Tina was the sole director was no excuse.

Helpfully, the Court of Appeal confirmed the effect of the proviso to section 18(1), reaffirming the High Court’s finding on the proviso in Equiticorp Industries Group Limited (in statutory management) v Attorney-General (No 47)[3].  The proviso creates two classes of knowledge which preclude reliance by the third party on section 18(1):  actual knowledge (including wilful blindness) and constructive knowledge.  Constructive knowledge will only be imputed where there is something in the third party’s position with or relationship with the company to justify it.  This has to be an on-going relationship, rather than that around a one-off transaction.

This limitation on the proviso’s effect means that more often than not, parties will be able to rely on the protection afforded by the indoor management rule as embodied in section 18(1).

Commentary and practical suggestions

The case reminds us of the need for caution, but at the same time we have to be able to go about business sensibly.

The key take-out for lawyers and clients is not that all manner of solicitors’ certificates, additional signatories, warranties and due diligence checks are required.  It will not be a case of requiring all directors, and only directors, of a company to sign contracts.  You will not be needing to vet the company’s corporate authorisation resolutions or delegations (though if you choose to, do correct them if deficient!).

The point is to be aware of the governance limitations as a matter of law (which are both sensible and well-established), consider each set of circumstances on its merits, ask sensible questions of clients, agents and advisors (including about corporate authorisation of the transaction and similar transactions, what is customary for this company and what delegations or powers of attorney are in place).  Undertake what should be regarded as basic housekeeping due diligence (for example, obtaining company searches and updating these just prior to signing, checking what the constitution says about signing of documents).  Check the signatures on the executed document.

Importantly, consider whether there is anything in the circumstances, or through your or the client’s relationship with the company, that means you may not be able to rely on the proviso to section 18:  might you be imputed with some actual or constructive knowledge of a defect in authority, by virtue of your relationship with the company?

Where the consequences of any invalidity are significant, you may want to insist on two directors signing, thus reducing any risk.

From the company’s perspective, as a matter of best practice make sure that transactional authorisations are in place, management are complying with corporate delegations and Companies Office records are up to date.

If you are dealing with a company that has only one sole director, relax.  That director is the board and the voice of the company.  You can rely on that person’s signature unless there is something in the circumstances, or some “holding out” by the company to the contrary.  Be wary nonetheless of the possible need for major transaction approval.
 
 
[1] [2018] NZCA 285
[2] Autumn Tree Limited v Bishop Warden Property Holdings Limited [2017] NZHC 2838
[3] [1998] 2 NZLR 481


Download as a PDF
Close window
x

UDAs in New Zealand: Auckland’s Turn

The concept of urban development authorities as tools to expedite large scale urban development...

UDAs in New Zealand: Auckland’s Turn

News & Insights

UDAs in New Zealand: Auckland’s Turn

UDAs in New Zealand: Auckland’s Turn

The concept of urban development authorities as tools to expedite large scale urban development has been floated in New Zealand for over a decade.  The “housing crisis” has, however, injected new momentum into the conversation in recent times with both the previous and current government discussing proposed legislation to introduce urban development authorities.   


Last week Minister for Housing and Urban Development Phil Twyford announced plans to establish an urban development authority in Auckland proposed for introduction by the end of this year or early next year.  The authority’s scope of powers and functions is not yet clear, however it seems likely they will include some ability to fast-track planning approval for projects.  The delivery of housing is clearly the focus for this new entity, but earlier comments from the Government indicate that urban development authorities could also deliver broader infrastructure and community projects in support of its housing focus.


While the proposed Auckland urban development authority will be the first of its kind under the new proposed legislation, it will by no means be the first or only entity empowered by special purpose legislation to fast-track development.  First touted by then Minister Gerry Brownlee as an “urban development authority”, Regenerate Christchurch is a statutory entity charged with and empowered to lead the regeneration of the Christchurch district.  While it does not have the full suite of “tools” that might be expected for an urban development authority (including land acquisition, securing funding, infrastructure development), it does have the ability to override local planning documents to expedite regeneration initiatives.


The experience of Regenerate Christchurch and CERA before it (which was given an even broader suite of powers to enable the expedited recovery of Christchurch) offers invaluable lessons to those who are charged with establishing the new urban development authority, and indeed, to those who are charged with leading it.  Tools granted by special legislation to fast track development can be very effective, both in terms of ease of delivery and in obtaining high quality outcomes.  The use of those tools can also enhance – rather than compromise – public engagement and iwi consultation on urban development projects.  This can, in turn, incentivise innovation and investment, particularly where development can be scaled.  However, as always with great power comes great responsibility.  The exercise of these powers is not without political risk.  As a result the successful use of this legislation will, as Auckland is about to find out, depend at least in part on both the political and public appetite for that risk.


Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Audit of councils’ long term plan consultation documents 2018-2028

The Auditor General has recently released a review of the success (or otherwise) of councils’...

News & Insights

Audit of councils’ long term plan consultation documents 2018-2028

The Auditor General has recently released a review of the success (or otherwise) of councils’ 2018-2028 long term plan consultation documents (Consultation Documents). In 2015 it became mandatory for councils to produce Consultation Documents while undertaking a review of their long term plans. The aim of these documents is to provide “an effective basis for public participation in local authority decision-making processes about the content of a long-term plan”. Essentially, the Consultation Documents should provide members of the public with an explanation of the important issues the council faces during the next 10 years.


The report looked at the different methods councils adopted when preparing their Consultation Documents and how effective the documents were in facilitating community participation. The report notes that effective Consultation Documents should contain clear language, be clear on which issues are subject to consultation and where to find the underlying information that the content of the document relies on.
 
The Auditor General made several observations on accessibility, length, effectiveness of grouping issues and the questions asked noting these are all important elements that will determine the success of the Consultation Documents. It also assessed the ways councils had tried to improve community participation. The report commended those who engaged with the community prior to the consultation period, focused on effective communication (e.g. using simple language), limited the number of issues consulted on and promoted the documents through advertising campaigns.  It also highlighted the need to update the community about progress on issues already consulted on.
 
In regards to the issue of resilience, the Auditor-General found that most councils acknowledged the need to consider the effects of climate change and risks from natural hazards and observed that councils are developing an understanding of their exposure to risk that will then inform investment decision-making for long-term planning processes.
 
While the Report could not be said to provide any revolutionary insight into the consultation process, it is hoped that it will help to guide councils in the development on their future plans and lead to more meaningful public participation.


Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Mischief mismanaged? Auckland Council’s proposed remedy to its incorrect application of the Auckland Unitary Plan

Over the last couple of days, the media has been covering what has been dubbed Auckland...

News & Insights

Mischief mismanaged? Auckland Council’s proposed remedy to its incorrect application of the Auckland Unitary Plan

Over the last couple of days, the media has been covering what has been dubbed Auckland Council’s “botch-up” whereby some 430 consents were granted by the Council for works on properties located within the Single House Zone (SHZ) and Special Character Areas Overlay (SCA Overlay) in accordance with what the Environment Court has held to be an incorrect application of the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP).  Reports state that the Council is now requiring these consent holders to cease works and apply for replacement consents, to be paid for, and assessed by, Council in accordance with the correct application of the AUP as determined by the Environment Court.  For the reasons set out below, we consider that the Council’s proposed solution, as reported, may be problematic from a legal perspective.


Origin of Council’s current action

The Council’s current action has been triggered by a series of three decisions issued by the Environment Court between December 2017 and March this year in the case of Auckland Council v Budden.  Auckland Council sought declarations from the Environment Court confirming that the way it had been applying the AUP rules was correct.  In that regard, where restricted discretionary consent was required for works on a property located within both the SHZ and SCA Overlay, the Council had been assessing the consent application against the Overlay provisions only, as if they replaced the SHZ standards.  The Environment Court held that this approach was incorrect, declaring that:

Where a proposed activity:

  1. is on a site located within both the Residential – Single House zone (“SHZ”) and the Special Character Areas Overlay – Residential (“SCAR”) of the partly operative Auckland Unitary Plan (“AUP”); and
  2. is classed as a restricted discretionary activity either under Activity Table D18.4.1 or, due to its non-compliance with a SHZ or SCAR development standard, under Rule C1.9(2) –

then the relevant SHZ, SCAR and General Rules (and any relevant objectives and policies) apply, in the processing and determination of any resource consent application for the proposed activity, without the SCAR rules prevailing over or cancelling out other rules.

Status of consents granted

While Council has now changed its approach to assessing applications for restricted discretionary activities in both the SHZ and SCA Overlay so that it considers both sets of standards, it is apparent that some 430 consents were granted under its previous, now deemed to be incorrect, application of the AUP.  Importantly however, as a matter of law, the decision of the Environment Court did not overturn these consents.  It is a general principle of administrative law that all things are presumed to be correctly done.  This presumption of validity provides that a decision should be treated as valid unless set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction. 

Council’s proposed remedy

There is no authority for the Council to require consent holders to cease the exercise of their resource consents where such consents have not been overturned or found to be invalid.  While the decisions made by the Council, in accordance with its incorrect application of the AUP, are open to challenge by judicial review (for example, by aggrieved neighbours or community groups), unless and until a determination on them is made, consent holders are entitled to exercise their consent.  While it is pragmatic of the Council to reduce both its risk (as the consent authority that granted the consents in accordance with an incorrect application of the AUP) and the consent holder’s risk (as the holder of a consent granted using an incorrect approach), by requesting consent holders apply for new consents, we do not consider that there is any authority for the Council to require consent holders to do so, or to require them to stop works while their replacement consent application is determined.

If a consent holder does not apply for a replacement consent, they can continue to rely on their existing consent, recognising that there is the potential for it to be challenged on judicial review on the basis of the Environment Court’s declaration.  Even on a successful judicial review on a point of law, practically the consent holder may not be required to alter/remove its consented works as, in our experience, the Courts are less likely to meddle in granted consents where construction has been completed (depending of course on the scale of alterations/development undertaken in accordance with the consent).

The Auckland Council has indicated that consent holders should seek their own advice and we concur with that, however we accept it is somewhat inequitable to require that of consent holders who have relied on Auckland Council getting it right in the first place.  We expect to hear much more about this matter in the weeks to come.


Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Davidson Court of Appeal Decision - Reviving Part 2

The Court of Appeal yesterday released its decision regarding the application of the...

News & Insights

Davidson Court of Appeal Decision - Reviving Part 2

The Court of Appeal yesterday released its decision regarding the application of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in King Salmon to resource consent applications.  In the judgment delivered by Cooper J, the Court of Appeal overturned part of the High Court’s judgment, reinstating the ability for consent authorities to have recourse to the purposes of the Resource Management Act in Part 2 in those instances “when it is appropriate to do so”. 


The Decision

The long awaited decision offers clarity (for now) on the “pre-eminence” of Part 2 in assessing resource consent applications following the Supreme Court’s rejection of the overall broad judgment approach in the context of plan changes.  Applying King Salmon the High Court determined that because Part 2 had found its expression in the higher order planning documents, recourse to those provisions directly was neither required nor authorised in consent decisions unless some invalidity, incomplete coverage or uncertainty of meaning in those documents could be identified.  That finding, and the application of King Salmon to resource consent decisions, was the subject of the challenge before the Court of Appeal.

In brief the Court considered that the High Court’s position did not find support in the plain language of section 104(1), its legislative context or history, or previous judicial interpretation of the purpose and function of Part 2 in consenting decisions.  Nor did it find support in the judgment of King Salmon itself, or in consideration of the inherent differences between plan changes and resource consents as planning tools under the RMA. The Court identified that planning documents unlike consent applications are developed/amended through a legislative process and as part of a hierarchy which ensures implementation of higher order documents and Part 2.  However, they cannot always furnish a clear answer as to whether consent should be granted or declined.  In those instances the Court found that it is appropriate and indeed section 104(1) provides for, the ability for consent authorities to directly consult the purposes of the Act to reach a decision.

Further the Court of Appeal determined that if the Supreme Court intended its approach to apply “across the board”, it is inevitable that the Court would have expressly said so given the wide reaching implications.  In any event, the Supreme Court’s reasoning was expressly tied to the “plan change context under consideration”.

Those awaiting a return to pre-King Salmon days of the RMA may however be disappointed.  While the Court of Appeal acknowledged the “pre-eminence” of Part 2 in resource consent decisions and reinstated the ability to consult it directly, it considered that the circumstances in which that would be required may be limited, particularly where the relevant plan “has been competently prepared under the Act”.  In those instances where it is clear that a plan has been prepared having regard to Part 2 and contains a coherent set of policies leading toward clear environmental outcomes, reference to Part 2 is unlikely to add anything.  In instances where the NZCPS is engaged, the Court goes as far to say that resort to Part 2 for the purposes of subverting clear restrictions in the NZCPS would expose the consent authority to being overturned on appeal.  However absent assurance of the alignment between Part 2, the planning documents and the proposed consent decision, the Court considered that direct consideration of Part 2 is both appropriate and necessary. That, in the words of the Court, is the implication of the words “subject to Part 2” in section 104(1). 

Implications

So while King Salmon no longer applies to resource consent decisions (at least for now), the Court of Appeal’s judgment is hardly a slam dunk on the Supreme Court’s broader rationale. While decision makers may now consult Part 2 directly on consent applications, the Court is clear that that exercise is unlikely to add anything to the evaluative exercise where the plan is clear on the way Part 2 is to be achieved. In what we would suggest is a cautionary warning shot, the Court adds that in those instances, reference to Part 2 cannot justify an outcome that is contrary to the thrust of the policies.  However where it appears that a plan has not been prepared in a manner which appropriately reflects Part 2, or the objectives and policies are pulling in different directions, consideration of Part 2 is both appropriate and necessary.

We will be following how the Court of Appeal’s decision is interpreted in the coming months, and of course, an appeal of the Court’s decision to the Supreme Court remains a possibility. While the “pre-eminence” of Part 2 has (in our opinion, rightly) been restored for consent decisions, the Court of Appeal’s decision has not significantly eroded the renewed focus on the careful application of the plan provisions.  We would therefore expect increased involvement in plan review processes to secure/protect desired planning and environmental outcomes. 

For further information on this case, its implications or any resource management queries, please don’t hesitate to contact any one of our team.


Download as a PDF
Close window
x

See more news & insights
img_homepage_column3.jpg

People

Nick Dunn – Principal

Nick is an experienced lawyer specialising in corporate and commercial and property law. He...

Nick Dunn

James Riddoch – Principal

James is an experienced commercial property lawyer with particular expertise in construction...

James Riddoch

Rowan Barbalich – Lawyer

Rowan joined Greenwood Roche in 2018 after a brief stint in the UK where he was involved in...

Rowan Barbalich

Rosie Fowler – Lawyer

Rosie joined Greenwood Roche in 2017 as a graduate from the University of Otago. She undertakes...

Rosie Fowler

Rob Harris – Lawyer

Rob has a wide range of experience in property and construction projects, in particular in...

Rob Harris

Anna Hickmott – Lawyer

Anna joined Greenwood Roche in 2018 after working in the UK on various large scale residential...

Anna Hickmott

Letitia Stenberg – Lawyer

Letitia acts for a number of government and large commercial sector clients, and undertakes...

Letitia Stenberg

Jimmy Tait-Jamieson – Lawyer

Jimmy joined Greenwood Roche in 2014. He undertakes a range of general commercial and commercial...

Jimmy Tait-Jamieson

See more people
img_homepage_column4.jpg

Contact Us

Full details are provided on the Contact us page.

Auckland

Phone: +64 9 306 0490

Fax: +64 9 302 6119

Email: Email Us

Email: Email Us

Physical: Level 12
2 Commerce Street
Auckland 1010

Mail: PO Box 106006
Auckland 1143

Map: Open a Google map

Auckland

Map
x

Wellington

Phone: +64 4 494 8500

Fax: +64 4 494 8501

Email: Email Us

Email: Email Us

Physical: Level 13
36 Customhouse Quay
Wellington 6011

Mail: PO Box 25501
Wellington 6146

Map: Open a Google map

Wellington

Map
x

Christchurch

Phone: +64 3 353 0570

Fax: +64 3 353 0578

Email: Email Us

Email: Email Us

Physical: Level 5
83 Victoria Street
Christchurch 8013

Mail: PO Box 139
Christchurch 8140

Map: Open a Google map

Christchurch

Map
x
Return to top

There is a marked difference

in the way Greenwood Roche operates. From the outset we have focused on clearly defined specialist areas, retaining highly respected legal experts in each field. We then take that further; ensuring clients have direct and regular access to the most senior partners and lawyers, in a cost efficient manner.

Close contact with experts and clear cost advantages

We advise on a range of significant public and private sector projects. To ensure our specialists are always where they’re needed, we operate as one office with hubs in Auckland, Wellington & Christchurch.