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

News & Insights

 

Search

News & Insights

Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2)

The Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2) was introduced on 23 May 2017 and public submissions to the Social Services Select Committee on the Bill closed on 22 August 2017...

Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2)

News & Insights

Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2)

Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2)

The Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill (No 2) was introduced on 23 May 2017 and public submissions to the Social Services Select Committee on the Bill closed on 22 August 2017.


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.
Limit on tenant liability resulting from careless damage
 
Amendments on the tenant liability front seek to swing the balance back in favour of landlords, following the recent Osaki Court of Appeal decision that tenants are immune from a claim for loss resulting from careless or negligent action by the tenant or a guest of the tenant, to the extent provided in sections 268 and 269 of the Property Law Act 2007.
 
Before Osaki, insurers had the ability to recover losses from the person who had caused the damage (including insurance excess payments).  Following Osaki, however, the tenant is not liable for any costs of careless damage where the landlord is insured, nor for damage caused by certain events (including fire, flood or explosion), whether or not the tenant carelessly caused the events and whether or not the landlord is insured for those events.  Nor are landlords are able to recover the cost of insurance excess from tenants.
 
The Bill caps the tenant’s liability in relation to “each incident of damage”, in the case of a careless act or omission, at the value of the landlord's insurance excess. If the landlord is not insured, the tenant’s liability is limited to the value of four weeks' rent. Quite how the limitation of “each incident” will be construed will likely provide some room for disagreement, potentially increasing disputes in front of the Tenancy Tribunal as to whether the damage is careless or intentional.
 
Under the Bill, the landlord is obliged to disclose its insurance cover at the beginning of the tenancy and will be liable for exemplary damages if it fails to do so.
 
Additionally, the Bill limits the ability of insurance companies to enforce the rights of their clients and prevents insurance companies from taking account of a tenant’s payment for careless damage to the landlord when calculating premiums. As a result, insurers say their risk is increasing and premiums for rental properties may increase.
 
The other point to note on liability is that even if a bond to the value of four weeks’ rent is held, the liability limitation now introduced may operate to mean that the landlord may not be entitled to all of the bond in the case of a careless act or omission by the tenant, if the landlord’s insurance is less than four weeks’ rent. The likely outcome is that landlords will increase insurance excess to the equivalent level.
 
Methamphetamine manufacture and use in residential premises
 
In a move that will be welcomed by landlords, the Bill allays concerns following a Ministry of Health funded report released in late 2016 that cast doubt on Ministry’s guidelines for the “unsafe” level of methamphetamine contamination in residential properties.
 
The Bill provides a right of entry for methamphetamine-testing without the tenant’s permission, an obligation to disclose the results to the tenant within 7 days of receiving them, and an effectively immediate right of termination for either party if the results reveal a particular level of methamphetamine contamination. Rent will cease to be payable if the tenant was not responsible for the contamination.
 
The long awaited New Zealand Standard (NZS 8510) released on 29 June 2017 assigns significance to contamination levels and documents appropriate remedial action.  Regulations will be developed to prescribe a “maximum acceptable level” of methamphetamine contamination for residential premises, provide how testing must be carried out, and prescribe the decontamination process.
 
While it’s a shame the Regulations are not available for comment at the same time, at least the Bill is heading in the right direction on this costly issue.
 
Premises unlawful for residential use
 
The 2013 High Court decision in Anderson v FM Custodians Ltd has meant that the jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal was limited to making orders only in relation to “residential properties”.
 
In another measure bolstering the position of landlords, the Bill now clarifies the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to ensure it can hear cases that relate to premises “occupied or intended to be occupied for residential purposes”, regardless of whether the occupation is lawful. The Tribunal will have full jurisdiction to order the landlord to refund all rental paid by the tenant for the full period of occupation. The proposed change will have a significant implication for landlords of properties with secondary dwellings (for example, “granny flats”) that don’t comply with the Building Act and/or the Resource Management Act.


Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Key changes introduced by the Land Transfer Act 2017

The Land Transfer Act 2017 (Act) has received Royal Assent and will be in force by 10 January 2019. It will repeal the Land Transfer Act 1952 (Old Act) and is intended to modernise, simplify and consolidate the Old Act and its amendments. Some provisions such as the amendments to the Property Law Act 2007 (PLA) regarding covenants in gross may come into force earlier than 2019...

Key changes introduced by the Land Transfer Act 2017

News & Insights

Key changes introduced by the Land Transfer Act 2017

Key changes introduced by the Land Transfer Act 2017

The Land Transfer Act 2017 (Act) has received Royal Assent and will be in force by 10 January 2019. It will repeal the Land Transfer Act 1952 (Old Act) and is intended to modernise, simplify and consolidate the Old Act and its amendments. Some provisions such as the amendments to the Property Law Act 2007 (PLA) regarding covenants in gross may come into force earlier than 2019.


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.
 
As with the Old Act, no compensation will be payable if the title search disclosed the competing interest.
 
Compensation
Compensation is payable by the Crown when loss occurs in certain circumstances (including, but not exclusively, under “guaranteed search” situation). Under the Old Act, the calculation for compensation is based on the land value at the time the loss occurred. The Act will shift the date on which compensation is to be assessed to when the claimant “gained (or ought reasonably to have gained) knowledge of the loss”.
 
The Act confirms that the value of the lost estate or interest in land is the “market value”.
 
The High Court may adjust compensation where the amount determined by the prescribed calculation is inadequate or excessive, and may determine at which date the market value should be assessed which may include a revised assessment as at the day of the court judgment.
 
Cancellation of land transactions in cases of “manifest injustice”
The High Court will have limited discretion to order the alteration of titles to avoid “manifest injustice”, but only where compensation or other damages would not properly address the injustice. The High Court may cancel registration of a land transaction after taking into account how the land was acquired, the length of time the parties have owned or occupied the land, the nature of any improvements made, the special characteristics of the land and its significance, and any other relevant circumstances. The Court cannot make an order if the estate or interest has subsequently been transferred to a third person acting in good faith.
 
Fraud
Fraud is one of the main exceptions to an owner’s title to land.  “Fraud” is now defined as forgery or other dishonest conduct of an owner or agent of an owner in acquiring an estate or interest in land. It is worth noting that, for the purposes of a Court order cancelling a land transaction in the case of “manifest injustice”, the existence of forgery or other dishonest conduct will not itself constitute the required level of injustice.
 
Introduction of covenants in gross and what it means for encumbrances
Currently it is not possible to register, on a certificate of title, an instrument that imposes obligations or restrictions on a landowner “in gross” – i.e. in favour of another person, rather than benefitting another parcel of land. To reduce the widespread use of encumbrances, which are a form of mortgage, as a mechanism for securing what are regarded more as private contract arrangements the PLA will be amended to allow covenants in gross to be noted on the record of title. This has been long awaited and should provide a registration option which is more palatable especially to banks. It will also allow affected owners to seek modification or cancellation of existing encumbrances and replace them with covenants in gross.
 
While encumbrances are commonly used as a mechanism to register covenants, they are also properly used to register rent-charges on land, and encumbrances will still be referred to in the provisions governing mortgages. So, the change still allows encumbrances to remain a viable instrument of title but, where the real purpose is to require a landowner to do or not do something for the benefit of someone else, a covenant in gross will be the appropriate instrument.
 
Registrar’s power to correct titles
The Act clarifies the circumstances in which the Registrar will be able to correct titles. The Registrar’s power will be limited to circumstances such as correcting an error by the Registrar, an error made by a person preparing a document or information for registration, recording a boundary change due to accretion or erosion, or giving effect to a court order.
 
Overriding statutes
The Act repeals the Statutory Land Charges Registration Act 1928, with the Act dealing with the registration, priorities and release of relevant charges.
 
Regulations
The Land Transfer Regulations 2002 will be revoked but will be replaced with new regulations still to be issued.


Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Our New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Partnership

We are delighted to announce that as of June 2017 we have become a Concerto Partner of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra.  Now in its seventieth year, the NZSO is a truly world class national orchestra, consistently blowing away audiences’ expectations with its marvellous performances.  In looking for a partner in the arts, we wanted an organisation that would resonate as very special, national, and with an ability to inspire both young and old.  The NZSO is a perfect fit and we look forward to a long relationship...

Our New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Partnership

News & Insights

Our New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Partnership

Our New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Partnership

We are delighted to announce that as of June 2017 we have become a Concerto Partner of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra.  Now in its seventieth year, the NZSO is a truly world class national orchestra, consistently blowing away audiences’ expectations with its marvellous performances.  In looking for a partner in the arts, we wanted an organisation that would resonate as very special, national, and with an ability to inspire both young and old.  The NZSO is a perfect fit and we look forward to a long relationship.


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.


Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Supreme Court Confirms Department of Conservation’s Decision on Ruataniwha Dam Land Exchange Unlawful

The Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme will flood 22 hectares of land in the Ruahine Forest Park in the Hawke’s Bay.  The Forest Park is held by the Minister of Conservation under the Conservation Act 1987 as conservation park, a category of specially protected land.  The Director-General of Conservation decided to effectively downgrade the conservation status of the land to be flooded, to enable it to be exchanged for other land to be provided by the proponent of the dam, Hawkes Bay Regional Investment Company Limited. ..

Supreme Court Confirms Department of Conservation’s Decision on Ruataniwha Dam Land Exchange Unlawful

News & Insights

Supreme Court Confirms Department of Conservation’s Decision on Ruataniwha Dam Land Exchange Unlawful

Supreme Court Confirms Department of Conservation’s Decision on Ruataniwha Dam Land Exchange Unlawful

The Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme will flood 22 hectares of land in the Ruahine Forest Park in the Hawke’s Bay.  The Forest Park is held by the Minister of Conservation under the Conservation Act 1987 as conservation park, a category of specially protected land.  The Director-General of Conservation decided to effectively downgrade the conservation status of the land to be flooded, to enable it to be exchanged for other land to be provided by the proponent of the dam, Hawkes Bay Regional Investment Company Limited. 


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.


Download as a PDF
Close window
x

ILANZ Greenwood Roche Private Sector In-House Lawyer of the Year Award 2017

Greenwood Roche extends its warmest congratulations to Helen Davidson, General Counsel and Complaints Manager for the Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand.  The award recognises Helen’s outstanding contribution to both to IPENZ and the legal profession. ..

ILANZ Greenwood Roche Private Sector In-House Lawyer of the Year Award 2017

News & Insights

ILANZ Greenwood Roche Private Sector In-House Lawyer of the Year Award 2017

ILANZ Greenwood Roche Private Sector In-House Lawyer of the Year Award 2017

Greenwood Roche extends its warmest congratulations to Helen Davidson, General Counsel and Complaints Manager for the Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand.  The award recognises Helen’s outstanding contribution to both to IPENZ and the legal profession. 


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. 


Download as a PDF
Close window
x

King Salmon Reigns

The High Court decision of Davidson Family Trust v Marlborough District Council [2017] NZHC 52, clarifies how the King Salmon (Environmental Defense Society Inc v The New Zealand King Salmon Co Ltd [2014] NZSC 38) decision should be applied in relation to resource consent applications...

News & Insights

King Salmon Reigns

The High Court decision of Davidson Family Trust v Marlborough District Council [2017] NZHC 52, clarifies how the King Salmon (Environmental Defense Society Inc v The New Zealand King Salmon Co Ltd [2014] NZSC 38) decision should be applied in relation to resource consent applications.


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.


Download as a PDF
Close window
x

The Auckland Unitary Plan – Development Potential

The Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) was notified as Operative (in part) on 15 November 2016.  (Some provisions are yet to be made operative, pending the resolution of a number of appeals to the Environment and High Courts.)  The AUP is the rulebook for Auckland’s future development, determining what we can build and where we can build it.  Auckland’s population is expected to increase by up to 1 million additional residents over the next 30 years and providing for that demand was a central issue during development of the AUP, with the debate between Auckland Council and submitters focussed on whether Auckland’s growth should be accommodated in taller buildings or if Auckland’s urban limits should be allowed to “sprawl”...

News & Insights

The Auckland Unitary Plan – Development Potential

The Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) was notified as Operative (in part) on 15 November 2016.  (Some provisions are yet to be made operative, pending the resolution of a number of appeals to the Environment and High Courts.)  The AUP is the rulebook for Auckland’s future development, determining what we can build and where we can build it.  Auckland’s population is expected to increase by up to 1 million additional residents over the next 30 years and providing for that demand was a central issue during development of the AUP, with the debate between Auckland Council and submitters focussed on whether Auckland’s growth should be accommodated in taller buildings or if Auckland’s urban limits should be allowed to “sprawl”.


Ultimately, Auckland will need to grow both up and out to meet projected demand.  Under the AUP, there are four primary residential zones across Auckland.  The higher density zones will serve as the focus for future intensification, while the single house zone has been used to identify areas where lower density residential neighbourhoods (often with character or heritage value) are to be preserved:

1.  Single house: The purpose of the Residential – Single House Zone is to maintain the amenity values of established residential neighbourhoods. The particular amenity values of a neighbourhood may be based on special character informed by heritage features, large sites with significant trees, a coastal setting or other factors such as a specific neighbourhood character. This zone is generally characterised by one or two storey buildings consistent with a suburban built character.

2.  Mixed housing suburban: The Residential – Mixed Housing Suburban Zone is the most widespread residential zone covering many established suburbs and some greenfields areas. The zone enables intensification, while retaining a suburban built character. Development within the zone is generally intended to be two storey detached and attached housing in a variety of types and sizes to provide housing choice.

3.  Mixed housing urban: The Residential – Mixed Housing Urban Zone is a reasonably high-intensity zone enabling a greater intensity of development than that provided previously. Over time, the appearance of neighbourhoods within this zone is intended to change, with development typically up to three storeys in a variety of sizes and forms, including detached dwellings, terrace housing and low-rise apartments. Up to two dwellings are permitted as of right subject to compliance with the standards.

4.  Terrace housing and apartment buildings: The Residential – Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone is predominantly located around metropolitan, town and local centres and the public transport network to support the greatest density, height and scale of development of all the residential zones. Buildings are enabled up to five, six or seven storeys in identified Height Variation Control areas, depending on the scale of the adjoining centre, to achieve a transition in height from the centre to lower scale residential zones. This form of development will, over time, result in a change from a suburban to urban built character with a high degree of visual change.

Whilst there is speculation that the Auckland housing market may be cooling, shrewd investors and developers are pouring over the AUP to identify land with favourable zoning.  A premium will inevitably be placed on land nearby town centres and transport corridors that are likely to thrive with the benefit of improved public transport networks.

The key to maximising opportunities presented by the AUP will be identifying land that is well located but also of a sufficient size to enable a feasible development to take place. Some commentators are predicting that approximately only 15% of the new zones will be utilised to their potential. This is understandable given that some well-established residential suburbs have been zoned for terraced housing and apartment buildings, but will require the amalgamation of several individually held titles before any development of real scale can be progressed.  In other locations, while land has been up-zoned, new infrastructure or upgrades to provide additional capacity are required before further intensification can occur.

Investors and developers will also find more choices available as a result of the new residential zoning.  House-hunters previously faced two primary options: detached dwellings or small apartments.  The AUP’s flexibility will allow other types of homes (duplexes and townhouses) and greater variety in terms of size.  In particular, the relaxation of density rules creates many more opportunities to subdivide small sections both vertically (eg terraced housing) and horizontally (eg multi-storey flats). 

The new opportunities for small-scale development could not have come at a more important time.  Financing large projects has become more difficult.  The apartment squeeze in Australia (particularly in Sydney, where off-the-plan purchasers are reportedly walking away from deposits) has put the pressure on New Zealand subsidiaries of Australian banks to tidy up their loan books and steer away from property.  At the same time, New Zealand is in the midst of a construction boom.  Our construction industry, made up of many small to medium sized businesses, is struggling to up-scale to meet the demands of new major projects.  Small-scale developments can help to avoid both these issues:  the capital costs are significantly lower (smaller-scale builds avoid the large land requirements and expensive mechanical services associated with apartment complexes) and they are a more natural fit for our construction industry.  As it becomes increasingly difficult to obtain funding for apartments, Auckland will rely on a more modest section-by-section approach to increasing density and alleviating the housing shortage.

As with any property development or investment, due diligence will be paramount when assessing the AUP and the impact it may have. Our team at Greenwood Roche comprises experienced advisers and would be happy to help with any queries.

Chris Moore (Partner)
Chris is one of New Zealand’s leading property lawyers and is the immediate Past President of the New Zealand Law Society, following from his role as the chair of the Property Law Section of the Law Society from 2004-2013.  He has over 35 years’ experience in commercial leasing and commercial property issues acting for a range of public and private sector clients. 

Francelle Lupis (Principal)
Francelle offers specialist advice on law reform and district and regional plan formulation.  Over the last four years she has been closely involved in the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan process, including early involvement in the draft Plan, feedback and formal submissions, convening and leading submitter working groups to reach collaborative outcomes, and participation in mediations/hearings for a large number of clients and industry groups.


Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Update: Construction Contracts Amendment Act 2015

In October this year, the Government introduced a Bill which would provide that the new retentions regime under the Construction Contracts Amendment Act 2015, due to come into force from 31 March 2017, will not apply to a construction contract that was entered into before 31 March 2017...

News & Insights

Update: Construction Contracts Amendment Act 2015

In October this year, the Government introduced a Bill which would provide that the new retentions regime under the Construction Contracts Amendment Act 2015, due to come into force from 31 March 2017, will not apply to a construction contract that was entered into before 31 March 2017.


Under the current Amendment Act, the regime would apply to any retentions money held under commercial construction contracts from 31 March 2017, regardless of when the contract was entered.  The proposed change has been issued in response to the significant concerns raised by the industry regarding the approach under the Amendment Act, discussed further in this article here.
 
The Bill is currently before the Select Committee.
 
For further information regarding the Construction Contracts Act 2002 or any construction related matters, please don’t hesitate to contact one of our team.


Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Greenwood Roche expands Resource Management team

Greenwood Roche is delighted to welcome Francelle Lupis as a Principal in our national Resource Management team...

Greenwood Roche expands Resource Management team

News & Insights

Greenwood Roche expands Resource Management team

Greenwood Roche expands Resource Management team

Greenwood Roche is delighted to welcome Francelle Lupis as a Principal in our national Resource Management team.


Francelle joins Greenwood Roche having spent the last ten years at a large Auckland firm, after returning from London.  Francelle’s appointment expands our Resource Management capability in Auckland and she will be working alongside our existing specialists Lauren Semple, Monique Thomas, Hannah Marks, Rachel Murdoch, Georgina Thomas and Sean Conway.


Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Greenwood Roche Young Achiever of the Year 2016

We were pleased to continue our support of the Property Council Southern Excellence awards which recognise and celebrate the people in property in the South Island. The award winners were announced in a spectacular event in Christchurch on 18 November 2016...

Greenwood Roche Young Achiever of the Year 2016

News & Insights

Greenwood Roche Young Achiever of the Year 2016

Greenwood Roche Young Achiever of the Year 2016

We were pleased to continue our support of the Property Council Southern Excellence awards which recognise and celebrate the people in property in the South Island. The award winners were announced in a spectacular event in Christchurch on 18 November 2016.


Congratulations to Nick Yannakis of Powell Fenwick Consultants, the winner of the Greenwood Roche Young Achiever of the Year Award.  Nick, in his role as Technical Director, has worked on a variety of leading projects including the QEII Recreation and Sports Centre, the Transitional Cathedral, the Christchurch Arts Centre and currently the Metro Sports Facility.  Nick will also receive a prize provided by the Property Council’s South Island Education Trust which includes complementary attendance at the Property Council’s National Conference in 2017.
 
James Riddoch, in presenting Nick with the award, said, "We are delighted to be able to continue our support for the Property Council and the Southern Excellence Awards through this award.  The quality of nominees for the Greenwood Roche Young Achiever of the Year was very high and should stand the South Island property sector in good stead for the future.  Congratulations to Nick, a very worthy recipient for his ongoing commitment to, and excellence in, property (particularly in relation to aquatic engineering) and his significant contribution to his community".


Download as a PDF
Close window
x