Monique Mackie is a Special Counsel in the Private Client, Trusts, Estate Planning & Asset Protection team at Glaister Keegan. She has over twenty years’ experience practising in the area of Trusts and Personal Asset Planning. Prior to specialising in this area of practice, she also worked in the tax team of a large New Zealand law firm. This experience allows Monique to bring an understanding of structuring and commercial considerations when advising clients. Monique prides herself on being approachable, caring and professional while providing expert legal advice on such an important area of law for individuals and families. Frank Chan is a Senior Associate in the Private Client, Trusts, Estate Planning & Asset Protection team at Glaister Keegan. Frank has built a diverse legal career spanning residential and commercial property, trusts, wills, estates, and banking and finance law. Over the years, Frank has had the privilege of advising families, small‑to‑medium businesses, family trusts, estates, property developers, and financial institutions. He takes pride in offering practical, effective legal advice that empowers clients to achieve their goals, whatever they may be.
Several changes impacting on employer/employee relationships have been introduced under the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2026 with effect from 21 February 2026. New Remuneration Threshhold for Unjustified Dismissal Claims: A new provision has been implemented whereby employees earning more than $200,000 per year will no longer be able to raise a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal, or unjustified disadvantage relating to the dismissal. It is necessary to be aware that the $200,000 annual income threshold is based on total remuneration - this includes not only salary but also bonuses, commissions, share-related benefits and other allowances actually paid in the year before dismissal. Employers are no longer required to comply with the usual unfair dismissal procedures, such as providing reasons or following good faith obligations, when dismissing high earner employees. Those employees do still retain rights to bring grievances on other grounds (eg discrimination, harassment, etc). On a practical level, there is a transition period of 12 months for current employees, before the change takes effect, and even after that initial period the threshold does not automatically override existing terms and policies in employment agreements. The Act does allow parties to opt out of the new provisions. Action: Employers and employees affected by the changes should look to renegotiate the terms of their employment agreements before the end of the transition period if appropriate. Unless there are specific provisions imposing obligations on the employer to follow a fair and reasonable process and have justifiable reason for termination, the employee will be subject to termination at will. It is however still possible for parties to opt out of the new sections under the Act and to allow an employee to retain the right to claim unjustifiable dismissal. Another option is to look at an extended notice period so an employee will have a reasonable time in which to look for a new job. Changes to Justification for Dismissals and Reduction in Remedies: The new law introduces stronger consequences where an employee’s conduct has contributed to a personal grievance. The amendments provide that contributory conduct can significantly reduce or eliminate remedies that were commonly previously awarded. Minor procedural defects will no longer automatically result in a dismissal being unjustified, unless the defects result in unfair treatment. If an employee’s own behaviour contributed to the situation, for example misconduct, dishonesty, or refusal to obey reasonable instructions, the compensation which might be awarded may be reduced by up to 100%. Where the actions of the employee amounted to serious misconduct then the Employment Relations Authority or Employment Court will not award any remedy at all. Contractor v Employee – New “Gateway” Test: The amendment aims to provide more upfront certainty for employers and workers to determine whether they are a contractor or an employee. The historical position has been that Courts (or the Employment Relations Authority) looked at the real nature of the working relationship between the parties to determine the worker’s status. The Employment Relations Act now sets out prescribed criteria that, if met, will recognise a worker as a specified contractor and exclude them from the definition of an employee. The key criteria are: There is a written agreement specifying that the worker is an Independent Contractor (or not an employee); The worker is not restricted from performing work for others; The worker is not under control as to how and when the work is done, or is allowed to sub-contract the work; The business/employer cannot terminate the arrangement if the worker turns down additional work; The worker had a reasonable opportunity to seek independent advice before entering into the agreement. If any of the gateway test criteria are not met, the existing common law test of employment status will still be used. Conclusion – Action: In light of the changes which have been introduced it will be important to review and amend terms of existing employment agreements, particularly for employees on or approaching the high threshhold remuneration level, within the next 12 months. When entering into a new arrangement to engage a worker or to undertake work, consider whether the criteria are met to be defined as an independent contractor rather than employer. When actions or conduct of an employee bring disciplinary action into consideration, take into account whether the employee’s behaviour is of such a level that it may impact on the justification for dismissal.
The Circumstances Wimax New Zealand Limited (“Wimax”) and the Fuge family (“the Fuges”) own properties that share a common driveway on land owned by Wimax, which is subject to a right of way in favour of the Fuges. The right of way area is about 6.2 metres wide. A sealed driveway was formed on the right of way in the early 1960s, which does not take up the right of way’s entire width. An easement instrument was registered in 1964 and was updated in 2017 without making any changes to the right of way area itself. A number of historical structures owned by Wimax encroached on the right of way area, but not on the sealed driveway. In 2018, the Fuges discovered this fact and requested that Wimax remove them. Wimax declined to do so, and the dispute was referred to arbitration. The Dispute It was agreed that for the Fuges to have a cause of action for nuisance, Wimax’s structures needed to substantially interfere with the Fuges’ use the right of way for its intended purpose. It was also agreed that neither the Fuges nor the previous owners of their land had any difficulties in using the sealed driveway to access their property, despite the encroachment of the structures on the right of way area. The arbitrator found in favour of Wimax, but on appeal the High Court found in favour of the Fuges. Both parties took the matter to the Court of Appeal. At the Court of Appeal the judge noted that the arguments between the parties had evolved into a question of whether the Fuges were entitled to succeed in a claim for nuisance in circumstances where Wimax’s structures did not interfere with the current use of the right of way, but might impact the Fuges’ possible future plans to develop their property (the Fuges argued that the presence of Wimax’s structures would prevent a widening of the sealed driveway). The Court of Appeal reversed the High Court’s decision, finding that the Fuges would only have a cause of action in nuisance if Wimax’s structures: (a) substantially interfered with the Fuges’ use of the right of way, and (b) interfered with the Fuges’s use of the right of way at the time of the offending action . Since neither of the above applied, the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court’s decision and found in favour of Wimax. The Fuges have appealed to the Supreme Court, who will address the question of whether it is necessary to decide the issue by reference to the Fuges’ present requirements, and not the “reasonable possibility of future development.” The Supreme Court heard the appeal on 17 February 2026, but as at the time of writing has yet to issue its judgment. Takeaways The mere presence of the structures on the easement area, even though they were found not to interfere with the neighbours’ easement rights, has led to lengthy and costly litigation and has no doubt degraded the relationship between the neighbours. The Court of Appeal emphasised that its analysis of whether there was substantial interference with the Fuges’ use and enjoyment of the right of way was one of “fact and degree” – in other words, something not necessarily cut-and-dried or immediately obvious to everyone involved. Although Wimax was successful at the Court of Appeal and may still prevail at the Supreme Court, it would be prudent for landowners to avoid encroachments on easement areas, where possible. If you have land that is either burdened by, or has the benefit of, a right of way or any other type of easement, it is vital that you understand its terms, your rights, and your obligations. Talk to the Property Team at Glaister Keegan if you have any questions or concerns about your own property.
A recent Tenancy Tribunal decision gives us an opportunity to consider the strengths and limitations of fixed term tenancies. Background Shadrock was a tenant under a fixed-term residential tenancy. She attempted to terminate her tenancy, citing that the rent was too expensive. The landlord reminded her that she had a fixed-term tenancy and could not end it by notice. Shortly thereafter, she tried to terminate the tenancy under s 56B of the Residential Tenancies Act, which allows tenants to urgently withdraw from residential tenancies if they have been victims of family violence. She could not, however, provide the evidence required by the Act. Shadrock eventually vacated the premises and the landlord re-took possession. The landlord sought an order from the Tenancy Tribunal seeking payment of the bond to them, payment for rent up to the date they had re-taken possession, and other costs (including the costs to repair water damage that had occurred to the premises). The Tribunal found that the tenant had no grounds to terminate the lease under s 56B, ordered that the entirety of the bond be released to the landlord, and that the tenant pay an amount to the landlord for cleaning and carrying out repairs to the premises. S 56B Residential Tenancies Act 1986 This section permits a tenant to withdraw from a residential tenancy (whether periodic or fixed term) with 2 days’ notice, provided qualifying evidence is provided showing that either the tenant or a dependent of the tenant has been the victim of family violence while a tenant of the premises. The qualifying evidence must be given by one of a broad number of prescribed people, such as a medical professional, police employee, social worker, school principal, or lawyer, and can be: a written statement that they reasonably believe that the tenant or their dependent has been a victim of family violence; the first page of a family protection order; a Police safety order; or a charging document under s 14 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 relating to family violence against the tenant. All of the above must show or state that the violence occurred while the tenant was a tenant of the premises. If the tenant is the sole tenant under the lease, the lease immediately terminates. If there are remaining tenants, the rent is temporarily reduced for two weeks and a special procedure determines how the bond is to be treated. Termination of a Fixed-Term Residential Tenancy Landlords and tenants are obviously limited in their ability to terminate a fixed-term tenancy prior to its expiry. Aside from the provisions of s 56B, a tenant may terminate a fixed-term tenancy: where the premises is destroyed or otherwise rendered uninhabitable; or where the premises has been contaminated above the prescribed maximum safe level. A landlord may also terminate a fixed-term tenancy with 14 days’ notice where a tenant has assaulted the landlord, a member of the landlord’s family, or the landlord’s agent. The Tenancy Tribunal may also order a residential tenancy to be terminated where the tenant is chronically arrears in rent, has seriously breached the tenancy agreement, or has committed incidents of anti-social behaviour. Tenant’s Liability for Damage to the Premises In Shadrock’s case, the tenant was found to have carelessly, but not intentionally, caused water damage to the premises from a series of accidental floods in the kitchen and bathroom. Section 49B(3)(a) of the Residential Tenancies Act sets out a tenant’s liability for damage to premises: When caused carelessly and covered by the landlord’s insurance, the tenant’s liability is limited to either the landlord’s excess, or four weeks’ rent (whichever is lesser). When caused carelessly and not covered by the landlord’s insurance, the tenant’s liability is limited to four weeks’ rent. When caused intentionally, the tenants will be liable for the costs of repair, and an insurer will be entitled to pursue the tenant for the full costs of repair. A Trap For Unwary Players A fixed term tenancy of longer than 90 days does not automatically end on the scheduled end date – it will instead automatically become a periodic tenancy unless either the landlord or the tenant give written notice to the other between 21 and 90 days before the end of the term, confirming that the tenancy will end on the end date. Conclusion Even if a fixed term tenancy is brought to an end correctly, there can be unanticipated costs for the tenant. Both parties – landlord and tenant - need to be aware of their rights and obligations when a tenancy ends, whether it is a fixed-term or periodic tenancy.
The Government has announced proposed changes to the Earthquake-Prone Building (EPB) system aiming at making the system more proportionate and risk-based and targeting higher seismic risk areas and buildings that pose greater safety risks. The proposed changes include: Removal of NBS system – The New Building Standard (NBS) system currently used to assess the seismic performance of a building will be removed. The NBS ratings will not be used to identify EPB’s. Low-risk areas removed and reclassification of Coastal Otago – Auckland, Northland and the Chatham Islands will be removed from the EPB system due to their low seismic risks. Coastal Otago will be reclassified as a medium seismic hazard area and will continue to fall within the EPB system. Targeted building types – Buildings of three or more storeys with heavy construction (e.g. concrete) and unreinforced masonry buildings that are not in Auckland, Northland and the Chatham Islands will remain under the EPB system. Tiered risk mitigation requirements – The new risk mitigation requirements include: a requirement to remain on the national EPB register façade securing targeted retrofit full retrofit, and these requirements will apply according to the location of the building and the building type. No automatic fire and accessibility upgrades – The requirement for concurrent fire and accessibility upgrades will be removed so that seismic work will not automatically trigger these upgrades. Deadline extension – Building owners will be able to apply for seismic work deadline extensions subject to conditions. Councils can grant up to 15-year extension to the seismic work deadline. Priority building status – Priority building status will no longer automatically apply to government agencies (such as hospitals, fire stations or schools). Only unreinforced masonry that risks pedestrians or vehicles and buildings that could block emergency routes will qualify as priority buildings. It is expected by the Government that the proposed changes will remove around 55% of EPBs (approximately 2,900 buildings) from the EPB system and save building owners around $8.2 billion. The proposed changes will be implemented through the Building (Earthquake-prone Building System Reform) Amendment Bill, which is expected to be passed into law in 2026. If you would like to discuss any of these proposed changes or how they may affect your building(s), feel free to get in touch with our property team.
Proposed Plan Change 120: What You Need to Know What is PC120 and why does it matter? Auckland Council has proposed a change to the Auckland Unitary Plan called Plan Change 120 (PC120) . This change is about two main things: Rezoning areas of residential land to allow more housing intensification in and around urban centres and transport hubs. Making communities safer from natural hazards like flooding and landslides. Why is this happening? By way of background, PC78 (Auckland’s former intensification plan change, as required by the National Policy Statement on Urban Development 2020) incorporated the Medium Density Residential Standards that were required at the time. Generally, this allowed three dwellings of up to three storeys to be built on most residential sites without the need for resource consent. In August 2025, the Government amended the Resource Management Act 1991 to allow for greater intensification in town centres and around existing and planned transit routes. As a result, PC78 was withdrawn in part by Auckland Council and PC120 was notified. What will PC120 do? Increase housing density within and around town centres and transport hubs. Allow taller buildings: At least 6 storeys within walkable catchments of the city/town centre zone and around existing and planned train and bus routes. At least 10–15 storeys around certain train stations listed in the Resource Management Act 1991. These heights and densities must be enabled unless a ‘qualifying matter’ applies to a site which makes that level of development inappropriate. Natural hazard rules PC120 also introduces stricter rules to manage natural hazards such as flooding, landslides, and coastal erosion. This is a response to recent severe weather events like the 2023 Auckland floods caused by Cyclone Gabrielle. The updated rules and hazard mapping re-classify hazard areas and their risk level and require mitigation measures to be implemented that avoid creating or worsening natural hazard risks. What does this mean for property owners and developers? Expect more multi-storey and apartment-style housing near town centres and transport hubs, and an increase in shared spaces and communal assets. Intensification may lead to issues concerning: Boundary and airspace rights. View and sunlight obstruction. An increase in easements and restrictive covenants in already built-up areas. New subdivision and land uses may only be allowed where the natural hazard risk is considered tolerable or acceptable. Coastal development will become more difficult. The impact of a proposed development on existing floodplains and overland flow paths will be scrutinized. Maintenance or upgrade works may be required to ensure stormwater runoff and flood waters are adequately conveyed. Why should you care? These changes could affect your property rights, development plans, and legal obligations. If you’re buying, selling, or developing land, it’s important to understand how PC120 impacts you. Please get in touch with our property team if you’d like to discuss how these proposed changes could affect your property or future plans. https://www.glaisterkeegan.co.nz/our-expertise/property#CommercialProperty
Sole v Hutton – disclosure obligations for apartment sales and the importance of thorough due diligence when purchasing In Sole v Hutton [2025] NZHC 430, the High Court dealt with a dispute over undisclosed weathertightness issues in an apartment complex and delivered a strong reminder about vendors’ disclosure obligations. In 2019, the Purchasers (the Soles) purchased an apartment in Mount Maunganui for $1,495,000. Less than a year after settlement, they discovered major weathertightness issues affecting the entire building. The Body Corporate embarked on an extensive remediation project, and the Purchasers were hit with more than $1,300,000 in special levies for their share of the work. The Court found that the Vendors (the Huttons) had attended Body Corporate meetings in 2014 where multiple expert reports highlighted significant leaks and recommended re-roofing and re-cladding of the building. Despite this, the Vendors told their agent that there were no known weathertightness issues and this information was passed onto the Soles. The Court held that:- · The Vendors breached the warranty in clause 11.2(7) of the Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Real Estate, which requires disclosure of any facts that may give rise to liabilities under the Unit Titles Act 2010; · The failure to disclose the reports and the assurance that there were “no issues” amounted to misrepresentation. The Soles were awarded $926,806.48 plus interest in damages, including their share of remedial costs (after a 30% betterment reduction, as the remedial works increased the value of the property), alternative accommodation and general damages for stress and inconvenience. Key takeaways:- · Vendors : Always disclose all known issues including historic reports and AGM minutes, even if you believe the matter has been dealt with or is no longer significant. · Purchasers : Buying a unit title property comes with shared risk. Ensure you complete thorough due diligence including reviewing all Body Corporate records, reports and minutes to understand potential liabilities and future levies. · Risk management : Non-disclosure can lead to expensive litigation, while thorough due diligence can prevent nasty surprises. Thinking of buying a unit title property? Our property team can guide you through a thorough due diligence process so you have a clear picture of any potential liabilities before you buy. This can save you from unexpected costs and disputes down the track. Selling a unit title property? Full and accurate disclosure is not just a legal requirement, it’s the best protection against expensive claims after settlement. If you’re unsure what must be disclosed or how the warranties in the Agreement for Sale and Purchase apply to your situation, get in touch with our property team. We can help you prepare clear, compliant disclosure statements and minimise the risk of future disputes. https://www.glaisterkeegan.co.nz/our-expertise/property#ResidentialConveyancing
In a significant move to ease housing pressures, the New Zealand Government has passed legislation allowing homeowners to build granny flats—up to 70 square metres—without needing building consent. This change, part of the Building and Construction (Small Standalone Dwellings) Bill, is expected to take effect in early 2026, following the removal of resource consent requirements by the end of 2025. The exemption applies to standalone dwellings that are simple in design, comply with the Building Code, and are constructed by authorised building professionals. While formal building consent is no longer required, homeowners must still notify their local council before starting and after completing the build. This reform aims to increase housing supply, reduce costs, and boost productivity in the construction sector. It offers practical benefits for multigenerational families, rural communities, and those seeking affordable housing options. For clients considering adding a granny flat to their property, now is the time to begin planning. Engaging qualified designers and builders early will ensure compliance with the exemption criteria and avoid delays once the regulations come into force. https://www.glaisterkeegan.co.nz/our-expertise/property#ResidentialConveyancing
Are you or one of your family members planning to buy a first home? Share our guide to help them navigate the process with confidence. Purchasing your first home is exciting - but it can feel overwhelming. At Glaister Keegan Lawyers, we help first-time buyers navigate the legal side of property transactions with confidence. Here are key steps and tips to get started: Build Your Support Team Early Before you start attending open homes, assemble a small team of trusted professionals: Lawyer: Engage a trusted lawyer (like us) before you start house hunting. We’ll guide you through agreements and complete mandatory Anti-Money Laundering checks upfront so you’re ready when you find the right property. Mortgage Broker: A broker can help you secure finance on favourable terms and explain lending conditions. Building Inspector: A qualified inspector can provide an independent assessment of the home’s condition, whether it’s a new build or an older property. Secure Pre-Approval and Understand Your Finances Get pre-approval from your bank or mortgage broker before you start making offers. Ask whether your finance is conditional on a valuation, and make sure you’re comfortable with repayments if interest rates rise. If you’re using KiwiSaver, confirm your eligibility and timeframes well in advance, especially if the funds will be used to pay your deposit. Keep in mind that the agreement deposit (usually 10%) is different from the bank’s deposit requirement (often 20%, unless you qualify for a low-deposit loan). Making an Offer – Know What You’re Signing Most property sales use the standard REINZ/Law Society Agreement for Sale and Purchase. Always have us review it before you sign, as once the agreement becomes unconditional, you’re legally required to settle. It’s always cheaper and safer to involve a lawyer before signing than to fix problems later. Common conditions to consider including are: Finance condition – gives you time to confirm your loan approval. Building inspection – ensures the property is structurally sound. LIM report – provides council information such as consents and hazard risks. Lawyer’s approval allows us to review and confirm the agreement’s suitability. Due diligence clause for broader protection as to assessing the suitability of the property. If you’re buying at auction , your offer is unconditional, so complete all due diligence before auction day. Using KiwiSaver for an auction deposit can be complex, contact us well before auction day. Complete Proper Due Diligence We will check the record of title to confirm ownership type (fee simple, cross lease, or unit title) and identify restrictions such as easements, covenants, or consent notices. Other things to consider: · You should also obtain your own LIM report, which includes building consent records and hazard information. Combine this with a professional building inspection, especially important for homes built between 1980 and 2010, when weather-tightness issues were more common. · If the property is on a cross lease, make sure the dwelling matches the flats plan on the title. Any unapproved alterations could create legal or financing issues. · For unit titles, review the pre-contract disclosure statement, body corporate minutes, and the long-term maintenance plan to identify potential defects, levies, or disputes. Avoid Common Mistakes such as: Signing before getting legal advice Skipping building or LIM reports Assuming KiwiSaver funds or insurance will be available at short notice We’re Here to Help A first home is a major investment. Early legal advice can prevent costly surprises and ensure the process runs smoothly. If you’re thinking about buying, our team can guide you through every step from reviewing agreements to settlement day so you can buy with confidence. Visit our website for our comprehensive guide to first home buying or get in contact with us today. https://www.glaisterkeegan.co.nz/our-expertise/property#ResidentialConveyancing
Glaister Keegan had its biennial firm photo this month, it was great to get the team together for this shot to celebrate the people behind the work!
A recent High Court decision has clarified whether owners can rent out their homes via Airbnb in subdivisions that restrict “commercial activity”. The outcome may surprise some. In Cameron Drive Management Company Ltd v Jo-Ann Real Estate Ltd [2025] NZHC 721 , a homeowner occasionally rented their holiday home on Airbnb. Other owners in the 14-lot subdivision believed this breached a land covenant, which stated no commercial activity could be carried out on or from a property except for “private homestays”. This exception applied so long as the homestays didn’t affect the neighbourhood’s character or others’ privacy. The Court was asked to decide whether short-term Airbnb rentals, where the owner is not present, counted as prohibited commercial activity. Interestingly, the Court found that, while Airbnb hosting is in fact a commercial activity, it did not breach this particular covenant. The key reason being that the business side of the transaction happened online; that is, off-site. The booking and payment were made via the Airbnb platform, not on the property itself. Once guests arrived, they simply stayed at the house like any other occupant. In contrast, a “private homestay” (which the covenant allowed) typically involves the owner being present and actively hosting. The Court explained that “private homestays” were known in 1999 (when the covenant was drafted) as situations where the owner stays in the house with guests. Airbnb-style renting, where the owner is absent, didn’t fit that model. But because the owner wasn’t actively running a business from the property during the rental period, there was no breach. This decision serves as a reminder that land covenants must be interpreted in light of their wording, intent, and context at the time they were created. If you're buying in a subdivision with covenants, it’s important to seek legal advice early on so you understand exactly what they mean and how they could limit what you can do with the property.
Trees offer a wide range of benefits. They improve air quality, offer cooling and shade, reduce soil erosion, beautify the land, and can increase the value of your property. Unfortunately, not everyone sees trees the same way.What is a peaceful garden feature to one neighbour, can be a nuisance (or even a threat) to another. Overhanging branches, invading roots, blocked sunlight, or leaf-clogged gutters can all spark tension, and lead to potentially bitter and costly legal disputes between otherwise friendly neighbours. At Glaister Keegan, we have seen first-hand when something as natural as a tree can become the “root” of a bitter, costly legal dispute. Here's what you need to know before taking action, and how we can assist you in protecting your rights. Your Rights as a Property Owner Every property owner has the right to enjoy and use their land, and that includes planting trees. But that right has limits. When a tree on your neighbour’s property starts affecting your land, the law steps in. Common problems include: overhanging branches crossing the boundary line roots damaging driveways, foundations, or pipes trees blocking access to sunlight or scenic views; and fallen leaves or branches clogging gutters and drains. Can You Just Cut It Back? Yes—But Carefully You are generally allowed to trim back any branches or roots that cross onto your property, but only up to the boundary line. This is known as “abatement.” However, there are a few important rules: you must not trespass onto your neighbour’s land you must not cause unnecessary harm to the tree or surrounding property; and because the cuttings still belong to your neighbour, you may be required to return the cuttings. Importantly, some trees are protected by local council regulations, resource consent conditions, or covenants on the title. Cutting or damaging a protected tree without permission could result in significant penalties. We strongly recommend getting legal advice before doing any trimming (even if the branches are clearly on your side). When Trees Cause Damage or Safety Hazards If a tree is damaging your property, you may be able to: remove the offending roots or branches (within legal limits); and recover the cost of repairs and removal through the Disputes Tribunal (for claims under $30,000) or District Court (for larger claims). If the tree poses a safety risk, or unreasonably interferes with your view, sunlight, or enjoyment of your land, you can apply to the Court for an order under the Property Law Act 2007. The Court can order your neighbour to trim or remove the tree if it is deemed fair and reasonable to do so. The Court will consider: what the risk to people, property, or health is whether your view or sunlight is being unduly obstructed whether the tree is interfering with crops, drains, or everyday enjoyment of your land what the tree’s public, historical, or cultural value is; and whether the tree existed before you bought your property. To succeed, you will need to show you will suffer more hardship if the tree stays than your neighbour would if it were removed. Timing and Costs If the Court orders the tree to be trimmed or removed, your neighbour usually has 20 working days to comply. While the Court can order them to contribute to the cost, the expense usually falls to the person making the application. Need Legal Advice? We are Here to Help If a tree is causing conflict between you and your neighbour or you are unsure of your legal position, talk to us first. We can guide you through your options, help you protect your rights, and, where needed, represent you in the Disputes Tribunal or Court. Contact our litigation team for practical, reliable advice before a small dispute takes root and grows into something much bigger. Paul Kim, Alex Wang, Brett Vautier
Few things can sour a neighbourly relationship like a dispute over a fence. What begins as a simple question of who pays, who builds, and where exactly does the boundary lie, can quickly escalate into a frustrating, and often expensive, legal conflict. Generally, an owner is not required to fence off his or her land from the adjoining land of a neighbour. If intending to do so, however, consent of the neighbour or a court order is a prerequisite. At first glance, fences may seem straightforward. Most are built with mutual agreement and shared cost because both neighbours benefit from a well-constructed, properly placed fence. But when opinions differ or communication breaks down, disagreements can arise —sometimes over the smallest details. Common Fence Disputes Between Neighbours Fence disputes typically occur when: one neighbour erects, repairs, or replaces a fence without the other’s consent there is disagreement about who should pay; and the fence does not align with the actual legal boundary. What the Law Says Under New Zealand’s Fencing Act 1978, neighbours share equal responsibility for the cost of building or maintaining a boundary fence, provided the proper legal process is followed. Here’s how it works: Fencing Notice : To start the process, you must issue a fencing notice to your neighbour. This formal document outlines: where the fence will be built the type of work and materials proposed the estimated costs and how they will be shared; and what happens if the neighbour does not respond. Objections and Time Limits : Your neighbour has 21 days to issue a cross-notice if they disagree with any aspect of your proposal. Legal Requirements : Strict compliance with the required process is important. That means, a flawed fencing notice means your neighbour is not legally obliged to contribute. Conversely, if your neighbour doesn’t respond in time, the proposed work is considered agreed upon. Unresolved Disputes : If agreement cannot be reached, you can apply to the Disputes Tribunal or District Court to determine: where the fence should go what kind of fence is appropriate who pays for what; and who carries out the work. Unapproved Fences : If you build or alter a fence without consent or if your fence crosses into your neighbour’s land, they can apply to the Tribu n al or Court to have it removed or altered; even if, you were not seeking financial contribution. What should you do if a dispute arises? Should you have a disagreement with your neighbour concerning a fence, we recommend you discuss the problem with your neighbour in the first instance and attempt to reach agreement directly. Often, misunderstandings can be resolved through clear and respectful communication. However, where a neighbourly relationship has broken down and the parties cannot agree, resort to the courts may be the only way forward. Whether you are planning to build a new fence, facing an unexpected fencing notice, or already caught in a dispute with your neighbour, we can help you understand your rights and options. Contact our litigation team for clear, practical legal advice tailored to your situation. We are here to protect your interests and help you resolve the issue, quickly and cost-effectively.
1 July 2025 We are delighted to announce the promotion of four high-performing staff to Associate; Jessica Perrett, Hope Horrocks and William van Roosmalen, and Danielle Moore to Associate - Registered Conveyancing Practitioner. All four are highly experienced legal practitioners who provide thoughtful, tailored advice and outstanding client service. The appointment is effective from 1 July 2025. Jessica Perrett Jessica is a solicitor in our Trusts, Estate Planning and Asset Protection team. With over 15 years of legal experience, as firstly a legal executive, then as a solicitor, she has an invaluable understanding of client needs. She delivers excellent outcomes for her clients and has a proactive and efficient approach. Hope Horrocks Hope is a solicitor in our Commercial Property team. She has several years of commercial experience prior to working in the law. She prides herself on undertaking the highest-quality work for her clients in a supportive, efficient and commercially minded-manner. William van Roosmalen William is an experienced litigator with a proven track record in resolving disputes of all shapes and sizes. He has worked in criminal prosecution, specialised in insolvency litigation, and more recently worked with a broad range of civil and commercial litigation. Clients appreciate William’s advocacy, highly responsive, relatable, and pragmatic approach. Danielle Moore Danielle is a Registered Conveyancing Practitioner in our Property team. She has extensive experience with residential conveyancing and a passion for property law. Her clients value her highly responsive, friendly and professional manner.
Planning for the future means ensuring your assets are protected and your wishes are clearly set out. At Glaister Keegan, we provide tailored Trusts, Estate Planning & Asset Protection solutions to help you safeguard what matters most. Comprehensive and Personalised Estate Planning Protecting yourself and your assets from unforeseen events is an important consideration for many New Zealanders. At Glaister Keegan, we offer comprehensive estate planning services, including wills and enduring powers of attorney. As asset values increase and creditors become more aggressive, trust structures can also play a crucial role in asset protection. Tailored Solutions for Peace of Mind Our clients benefit from our extensive experience and the time we take to understand their circumstances and future goals. This personalised approach allows us to provide solutions that align with each client’s specific needs. Our in-depth knowledge of trusts and estates ensures your affairs are managed effectively, giving you confidence in the future. Flexible, Strategic Advice There is no one-size-fits-all approach to estate planning. We take the time to sit down with you, clarify your objectives, and develop the right structure to meet your needs. Our approach is strategic, adaptable, and designed to provide the best outcome for you and your family. Seamless, Comprehensive Support Estate planning often intersects with property and business matters. Glaister Keegan’s team works across these areas to provide seamless, well-rounded advice. We are large enough to offer a full range of services yet small enough to ensure a personalised experience. The beginning of the year is a great time to review your estate planning documents and ensure they reflect your current wishes and circumstances. If you haven’t updated your will, enduring powers of attorney, or trust structure recently, now is the perfect time to do so. If you need guidance or assistance, our team is here to help you navigate the next steps and ensure your plans are in place for the future.
When a business is sold, employers must balance their legal duty to employees with the practical realities of making a sale. The Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA) requires employers to keep employees informed about any changes that could impact their jobs and to give them an opportunity to share their thoughts and provide feedback before decisions are finalised. However, this requirement can be challenging when a business sale is involved. Why This Matters Selling a business is a complex process and almost always affects employees, because their jobs with the current employer typically end when the sale is completed. The law requires employers to discuss these potential changes with employees before making final decisions. However, sharing sale details too early can be risky for business owners, because it involves sensitive commercial information. Common Approaches After-Sale Consultation: Many businesses wait until a sale agreement is signed before discussing the impact with employees. This allows employers to protect confidential business details but does not fully meet the legal requirement for early consultation. Conditional Sale Agreements: Some businesses use conditional sale agreements, meaning the sale only goes through once certain conditions are met. This allows time to consult employees before the sale is finalised; although, it may not fully satisfy the ERA’s requirements. Protecting Confidential Information Employers are allowed to withhold certain confidential details from employees if sharing them would harm the business. However, they must have a valid reason for keeping information private. Confidential information, in this case, refers to details shared under an expectation of secrecy. Finding the Right Balance Balancing transparency with business interests is challenging. While employers must act in good faith by informing and consulting employees, they also need to protect the business. Exploring different approaches, such as conditional sale agreements, can help businesses navigate this tricky situation while staying as compliant as possible with employment laws. Recent Case Law The above issues have been addressed by the Employment Court in 2024 in Birthing Centre Limited v Matas . The Court of Appeal subsequently declined the appeal against the findings brought by the Birthing Centre Limited. The case involved the acquisition of a private birthing centre by the MidCentral District Health Board (“MDHB”). The transaction resulted in the vendor closing its centre, terminating the employment of all midwives, with the MDHB offering them new employment. The MDHB requested that the employees not be informed of the negotiations due to confidentiality reasons and the terms of the agreement were only announced after the transaction was finalised. Although the affected employees were consulted about some terms and conditions of employment with MDHB, the termination and transfer of their employment was effectively concluded by the time they were notified. Several employees raised personal grievances for unjustified dismissal and breaches of good faith alleging they were not adequately consulted. The key focus of the arguments before the Employment Court were whether the threshold had been met allowing the vendor to withhold details of the sale until completion on the grounds that it was commercially sensitive. The Employment Court held that the vendor had failed to meet its obligations and concluded “a fair and reasonable employer could in the circumstances have considered options for exploring whether it could maintain the integrity of [its] commercial position as well as the DHB’s commercial position, while informing its employees of the proposal in a confidential way”. The Employment Court further held that the vendor had failed to: consider whether providing information to the union was viable on an embargoed basis; direct employees not to share information during the consultation process; include as a condition of sale that staff be consulted on a confidential basis and their view sought before the sale agreement became unconditional. Conclusion It is necessary to take into account basic employee rights when selling a business. Although it may be important to protect commercially sensitive information, employers need to look at ways to ensure that employees are kept informed about potential decisions which will affect their employment. A business will need objective evidence to justify maintaining confidentiality of information, including evidence of unreasonable prejudice to their commercial position which would occur if they did share information with employees prior to finalising a sale. If you have any questions or seek advice or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact Brett Vautier or Stephanie Harris.
Understanding Cross-Leases
At Glaister Keegan, protecting your financial security is a top priority. While we use a secure email server, unauthorized access to personal email accounts can still pose a risk. That’s why we have measures in place to safeguard your transactions. How We Protect Your Payments First-Time Payments to You – When we make a payment to you for the first time, we’ll always call you using the phone number we have on file. This ensures we verbally confirm both your account name and number before processing any transfer. When You’re Paying Us – To verify our payment details, we strongly encourage you to call us directly on our publicly listed number before making a payment, to confirm our account name and number, especially for first-time transactions. Bank Security Enhancements New Zealand trading banks have introduced a ‘confirmation of payee’ system. This means when you enter our account details, the bank will let you know if the account name matches the account number. If they don’t match, do not proceed with the payment. What’s Next? To enhance security further, we are in the process of becoming a registered payee with major trading banks. This will provide extra reassurance that you’re sending payments to the right place. Your security matters to us, and we’re committed to keeping your payments safe. If you ever have any concerns, don’t hesitate to reach out.
Learn why obtaining a LIM (Land Information Memorandum) is crucial when buying property in New Zealand. Discover key information a LIM includes, its role in due diligence, and why you should get your own report.
Learn how landlords can address tenant rent defaults under New Zealand's Property Law Act 2007. Explore PLA Notices, lease cancellation, and obligations to mitigate losses while avoiding legal pitfalls.
Struggling with unpaid invoices? Learn about debt recovery options, from letters of demand to statutory demands and court proceedings. Protect your business's cash flow with expert guidance.
Navigate separation with expert legal advice on property division, child arrangements, financial support, and protection orders. Discover tailored solutions to ensure the best outcome for you and your family.
Learn how the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Act 2023 protects subcontractors in New Zealand. Understand new trust requirements, reporting obligations, and penalties for non-compliance.
Explore Collaborative Practice, a non-adversarial approach to resolving family law issues in New Zealand. Learn how it fosters cooperation, reduces costs, and supports tailored, respectful solutions for families.
Learn about private nuisance law in New Zealand, including examples, legal elements, and remedies. Discover how to address issues like noise, odours, and encroachment that interfere with property enjoyment.
Explore the Supreme Court’s Mainzeal decision on insolvent trading, its impact on directors’ duties under the Companies Act, and the need for Companies Act reform. Learn how this ruling reshapes expectations for directors managing near-insolvency.
Explore the pros and cons of purchasing leasehold properties in New Zealand. Learn about ground rent, lease terms, rent reviews, and how leasehold compares to freehold. Get expert advice to make an informed decision.
New Zealand’s most commonly used standard form construction contract has undergone a long-awaited review and update in what is now the NZS 3910:2023 form
The Property (Relationships) 1976 (“Act”) sets out the rules for the division and distribution of a couple’s property (whether they are a de facto couple, in a civil union, or married) on their separation or on the death of either of them.