About

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

These two projects are estimated to cost Watercare $800 million. The Northern Interceptor wastewater project will be constructed in various stages with construction to begin soon on stage one to service the growth areas in Massey North, Whenuapai, Hobsonville, Kumeu, Huapai and Riverhead. The North Harbour No.2 watermain will service the new Albany reservoir and will replace the existing watermain which cannot be maintained without disrupting local water supplies.

Hadleigh Yonge is leading Greenwood Roche’s team which is advising Watercare on all aspects of these projects, including providing strategic advice, negotiating and acquiring property rights, and advising and dealing with issues relating to compensation.

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.

Greenwood Roche acted for Mitre 10 in respect of the procurement and engagement of the contractor and consultant team for its new head office and support centre in Albany.

The facility will comprise approximately 7,000 m² at 65-67 Corinthian Drive, Albany, Auckland. It is being developed by Mitre 10 itself and is due for completion in late 2016.

The Greenwood Roche team for the project included partner Barry Walker and special counsel Adrian Doherty.

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.

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

Purpose of the Bill

The Bill proposes to address issues relating to:

• the obligations of landlords and tenants for damage or desruction to rental premises;
• methamphetamine manufacture and use in rsidential premises; and
• the application of the Tenancy Tribunal's jurisdiction in relation to premises not lawfully able to be used for residential premises.

In the main, the Act is not intended to substantively change our land transfer laws. However, some controversy exists regarding the right of an owner to reclaim title under the manifest injustice provisions arguably eroding the principle of indefeasibility. Also, not all changes promoted have been adopted, such as placing more onus on mortgagees to verify the identity of their clients, separately defining encumbrances and permitting senior legal executives to sign and certify instruments in Landonline.
 
Some key changes are set out below.

New terminology
The Act includes new terminology aimed at modernising the language used. For example, a “certificate of title” and the clumsy “computer freehold/leasehold/interest register” will be a “record of title”, and “registered proprietor” becomes “owner”. There is also a concept of “replacement lease”, which is a renewed lease or a new lease in substitution for a prior lease between the same parties and relating to the same land.
 
Withholding information for a person’s safety
The Registrar-General of Land will be able to refuse to provide a copy of an instrument or title that identifies a person, as well as refuse to include those details on the public register in the first place, if it is satisfied that the information discloses or is likely to disclose the person’s location and prejudice their safety.
 
Caveats
An express right for an owner of an estate or interest to lodge a caveat against their own title where there is a real risk of fraud.
 
Guaranteed title searches
Guaranteed searches back up the security of the land transfer system, by providing a right to compensation if a purchaser of an interest in a land transaction suffers loss due to the registration of a competing interest. Under the Old Act, the purchaser must obtain a “guaranteed search” within 14 days before settling the transaction, and must lodge the transaction documents within 2 months after settlement.
 
The Act updates these periods to reflect the electronic nature of land transactions by:
 

• requiring that a guaranteed search of the title be obtained within 5 working days before settlement; and
• reducing the period after settlement during which loss may occur to 20 working days.

Please visit the NZSO website to check out the 2017 Season, and help us to support the Orchestra.  And if you are keen to attend a particular concert with us, do let us know as we would be keen to host you!
 
We are also pleased to announce that Greenwood Roche specially sponsors Sam Jacobs, Section Principal Horn.  Sam is an extraordinary French horn player, and has just recently returned from the UK where he was Principal horn with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra in London and is seen as one of the rising future leaders of the Orchestra.

We have recently helped the NZSO move to temporary new Wellington CBD premises, and will be assisting it later in the year with the new Wellington Music Hub, in conjunction with Wellington City Council and Victoria University.

The Director-General’s decision, challenged by Forest and Bird, was based on the relative conservation values of the 22 hectares of forest park compared with the conservation values of the land for which it was to be exchanged.  The evidence was that the forest park land has high conservation values which warrant continued protection, and there was no suggestion in the Director-General’s decision that the forest park land did not still warrant protected status.  The Director-General’s decision was made on the basis that overall, there would be a net conservation gain from the exchange.

The majority of the Court of Appeal held that the conservation park status of the land could only be revoked if its intrinsic values had been detrimentally affected such that it did not justify continued preservation, for example if the purposes for which the land is was held were undermined by natural or external forces.  The majority of the Supreme Court agreed, although it did not consider that only complete destruction of the values justifying protection and preservation could warrant revocation.  Rather, the status could only be revoked if the intrinsic values of the land did not justify continued preservation and protection so that the status of conservation park was inappropriate.  In majority decisions, both Courts held that that any gain arising from an exchange should not have been considered when deciding whether to revoke the special conservation status of the land.

The decision has been celebrated by environmental groups but the Government has signalled that it may change the law to enable such exchanges to occur in future.  In her press release of 6 July 2017, Conservation Minister Hon Maggie Barry noted that, for the last 30 years, the Government believed that the legislation allowed low value conservation land to be swapped for higher value land, and that law changes to promote best conservation outcomes would now need to be investigated.  The Government’s view is that the Supreme Court majority decision that the revocation of conservation status and the exchange of land steps could not be conflated created a clear problem, particularly on the back of the differences between the High Court and Court of Appeal.

Meanwhile, work to secure Department of Conservation land for the proposed Waimea dam in the Tasman District is reported to be on hold pending advice on the implications of the Supreme Court decision for that project.  Tasman District Council is reported to be considering acquiring the conservation land it requires under the Public Works Act 1981 instead.  Forest and Bird does not appear to have a formal position on use of the PWA as yet but have suggested that there are issues with the use of the PWA process.  Given that local authorities have no power to “take” Crown land under the PWA, we expect that any attempt to use the PWA to acquire conservation land in the absence of agreement with the Ministers of Conservation and Land Information would likely fail.  Those same issues would apply to any attempt by the Hawkes Bay Regional Council to take land for the Ruataniwha scheme.  The Hawkes Bay Regional Council is reported to be divided on any potential use of attempting the PWA process.

Proponents of the Waimea dam may be best to wait for whatever solution Parliament chooses to offer – but that wait will likely need to extend beyond the election.

The award was one of two presented to Helen during the evening, who has had a significant role in transforming IPENZ’s complaints and disciplinary process over the course of the year, in addition to providing excellent support to the Institution through her role as General Counsel.
 
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 his speech at the awards, Greenwood Roche Partner Doran Wyatt highlighted the increasing recognition of the value of in-house lawyers not just in terms of their legal input, but also in management and strategic oversight of their respective organisations.  Greenwood Roche again wishes to congratulates all nominees and award winners on their various achievements throughout the year. 

In summary, the Supreme Court in King Salmon found that unless there is invalidity, incomplete coverage or uncertainty of meaning in the statutory planning documents, there is no need to look at Part 2 of the RMA when making decisions on plan changes. The Court reasoned that Councils are required to give effect to Part 2 in preparing planning documents, therefore a further assessment of Part 2 would be unnecessary duplication.

When the King Salmon case came out it was considered a ‘game changer’ as it related to plan changes, however it did not clarify whether the ruling applied to decisions on resource consents. Since King Salmon, the Environment Court has taken a tentative approach on how King Salmon should be interpreted in respect of resource consent applications (see: RJ Davidson Family Trust v Marlborough DC [2016] NZEnvC 81 and KPF Investments v Marlborough DC [2014] NZEnvc 152). The Davidson High Court judgement clarifies how decision makers should apply Part 2 of the RMA when assessing a resource consent application. Davidson confirms that the ruling in King Salmon applies to resource consent applications, as it would be “inconsistent with the scheme of the RMA and King Salmon to allow Regional or District Plans to be rendered ineffective by general recourse to Part 2 in deciding resource consent applications” (Davidson Family Trust v Marlborough District Council [2017] NZHC 52 at [63]).

In practical terms, this means that in completing a resource consent application the main focus should be on the planning documents, such as National and Regional Policy Statements and Regional and District Plans, rather than focusing on the matters outlined in Part 2 of the RMA. Part 2 of the RMA should be referred to only in circumstances where plans are outdated or there are inconsistent objectives and policies. Many resource management practitioners have adopted this approach since King Salmon. The Davidson case confirms that this is the correct approach.

The High Court delivered their judgement on the 31st January 2017, so it is possible that this decision will be appealed to the Court of Appeal.