Proud to be a delivery partner for Wild n Art and Pop Up Penguins

Penelope the Penguin, situated at The Commons

Penelope the Penguin, situated at The Commons

Wild n Art has brought its second sculpture trail to Christchurch, Pop Up Penguins.   It gives residents and visitors to the city, a fresh opportunity to discovery in all that makes Christchurch special. 

The public art trail of individually decorated sculptures designed by artists and children includes 50 large penguins, including our very own Penelope the Penguin, who is resident in the Commons area outside our building on Durham Street and 65 penguins decorated by schools as part of the learning programme.

After the nine weeks out and about, the street size penguins will be auctioned to raise money for a very good cause, Cholmondeley Children’s Centre. 

Penelope is running some competitions for both children and adults so look out for these appearing in social media shortly.

We invite you to be part of this special event that is free, fun and memorable for all by downloading the app Pop up Penguin from the app store or google play.

New changes for temporary work visa holders in New Zealand

1.         All existing employer- assisted temporary work visas who are currently in New Zealand and are holding a visa expiring before 31 December 2020, have had their visa extended by six months.

2.         The 12 month ‘stand-down’ period for lower paid workers who are holding an employer assisted work visa has been delayed.  This time-limited change will allow the lower skill worker (with their visa expiring between August 2020 and December 2020) to work for the same employer, in the same position, and location for a further six months in align with 1.  The stand-down period remains if a migrant worker who is subject to the stand-down period moves to another Essential Skills Work Visa (low skilled).

3.         All new lower-paid Essential Skills Work Visas will be granted for a period of six months (not 12 months) to help INZ mitigate future labour market risks.  This will apply to all new lower-paid Essential Skills Work Visas applied to INZ from 10 July 2020.

It is now official.  From 27 July 2020, ANZSCO will no longer be used.  The national medium wage (currently at $25.50 per hour) will be used to assess whether a position is lower or higher skill.  Any position paid below the national medium wage will need to include a Skills Match Report (SMR) from the Ministry of Social Development.

This is only a short term relief for many of you.  Please feel free to contact immigration@tp.co.nz to discuss your current immigration situation and to start your visa application process now.

New beneficiary disclosure obligations

The Trusts Act 2019 comes into force on 30 January 2021 and brings with it several important changes that increase trustee responsibilities.  This includes new beneficiary disclosure obligations and a requirement to respond to their requests for further information. Section 51 of the Act provides that trustees must issue beneficiaries with “basic trust information” without beneficiaries having to ask for it. 

The basic trust information to be provided to all beneficiaries includes:

·         The fact that the person is a beneficiary of the trust;

·         The name and contact details of the trustee(s);

·         Details of each appointment, removal and retirement of a trustee as it occurs; and

·         The right of the beneficiary to request a copy of the terms of the trust or trust information.

Before providing the information, trustees must consider a range of factors set out in the Act and if the trustees reasonably consider that the information should not be disclosed, then they may withhold it. 

This is a major change for trustees and one of the key intentions behind the new Act is to ensure that beneficiaries have sufficient information to enforce trusts in which they have an interest.  Trustees must be in a position to have assessed the requirement to provide or withhold information and to communicate basic trust information to all entitled beneficiaries by 30 January 2021. 

Accordingly, it is important for trustees to take steps now to ensure they have in place:

(i)            a robust decision-making procedure around the provision of information;

(ii)           a complete list of all beneficiaries of the trust (and their contact details); and

(iii)          a proper plan for communications with beneficiaries.

We understand that this requirement is a significant change for trustees, and we have begun to work through this process with our existing trust clients.

For further assistance, please contact the General Manager of our trust management team, clinton.tamati@tp.co.nz, +64 21 916 226

COVID-19: Employment Law update – what you need to know

The key thing to remember during the COVID-19 pandemic is that normal employment law continues to apply. Employers and employees simply cannot throw the rule book out the window during this rapidly evolving situation.

It is important to keep up to date with the updates to the guidance issued by the Government, in particular information in relation to the administration of the Wage Subsidy, the obligations on employers who have applied for the Wage Subsidy and changes applying to workers in essential businesses who are unable to go to work.  

As at 7 April 2020, you should be familiar with the following updates:

New Essential Workers Leave Support

The COVID-19 Essential Workers Leave Support is available for essential businesses to pay employees who:

·         cannot come into work because Ministry of Health guidelines recommend they stay at home; and

·         the employee cannot work from home.

Employers can apply for both for the Wage Subsidy and the Essential Workers Leave Support but you cannot receive both payments for the same employee at the same time. You should apply for the payment that is most appropriate to your employee’s situation.  Essential businesses will not be able to apply for the Wage Subsidy if they cannot show actual or predicted 30% decline in revenue due to COVID-19.  The Essential Workers Leave Support is paid for 4 weeks.   

Key takeaway: Only essential business can apply for the Essential Workers Leave Support

New Wage Subsidy obligations

From 27 March 2020, all employers who apply for the Wage Subsidy must agree to comply with a number of new obligations. The key changes are as follows:

The 80% Top Up Requirement

Employers must use their “best endeavours” to pay at least 80% of each named employee’s ordinary wages. This requires employers to exhaust all possible means before electing NOT to top up their employees wages from the Wage Subsidy amount to 80%.

What does “best endeavours” mean? Although this has yet to be tested, the Government has said that where a business is unable to pay any more that the Wage Subsidy, having exhausted all possible other ways to top up, the employer will be justified in simply passing on the Wage Subsidy to employees without topping it up.

Key takeaway: If employers can top up the Wage Subsidy, they should. Even if they can’t top it up to 80%, they should top it up as much as financially possible.  Simply passing on the Wage Subsidy is the last resort, rather than the default option. 

Retaining employees

All employers applying for the subsidy after 27 March 2020 must undertake to retain all employees for who the application is made for the 12 week period of the subsidy. Applications made prior to 27 March 2020 only required employees to use “best efforts” to retain the employees named in the application.

Key takeaway: It is possible for an employer to commence a restructuring process during the Wage Subsidy period, however the employee cannot be made redundant until the expiration of the Wage Subsidy period. If the employer applied for the Wage Subsidy before 27 March 2020, they are not obliged to retain all employees named in the application however, they must continue to use best efforts to retain all named employees. We recommend retaining all employees until the expiration of the Wage Subsidy to avoid potential personal grievance claims for unjustified disadvantage.

A copy of the full declaration can be found here: https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/online-services/covid-19/declaration-wage-subsidy.html

Part-time or casual employees who normally earn less than the Wage Subsidy

Currently, the part time Wage Subsidy (less than 20 hours per week) is $350 per week. Employers must pass the Wage Subsidy on to the employee. However, some employees might only work a small number of hours on a weekly basis and not have earned $350 gross per week before the lockdown.

If you have any part-time employees in this situation, you must:

1)    Pay the part-time employee his/her normal wage earned pre-lockdown; and

2)    Apply any surplus Wage Subsidy to top up the wages of other staff to get them as close to 80% of their normal wage.

Key takeaway: It is important to ensure that all wage subsidies, whether for full time or part-time employees are paid to employees only and not used for any other business expenses.

Employees who do not have set hours of work

If your employees do not have set hours of work, the employer must calculate the average number of hours worked over the last 12 month period (or for the period of time the employee has been employed) to determine which Wage Subsidy (full time or part time) to apply for.

If the average number of hours is more than 20, you must pay the employer the full-time Wage Subsidy. If the average number of hours is less than 20, you must apply for the part-time rate for that employee. If the average number of hours is less than 20 and results in the employee receiving less than the part-time Wage Subsidy, you will need to apply the same principles as set above, under the heading  ‘Part-time or casual employees who normally earn less than the Wage Subsidy’.

Rehiring employees

If an employer made employees redundant because of COVID-19, the employer can now rehire those employees and apply for the Wage Subsidy provided the following criteria are met:

1)    The employee was employed by you as at 17 March 2020;

2)    You made the employee redundant because of COVID-19; and

3)    You have not previously applied for the Wage Subsidy.

Key takeaway: Good faith obligations continue to apply. You cannot rehire your employee on less favourable terms. Re-employment must be on a fixed term basis which is subject to the 12 week period for the Wage Subsidy.

Leave Payment

As of 3.00pm on 27 March 2020, the Leave Payment is no longer available. If you submitted your Leave Payment application before this deadline, your payment will be processed as normal.

When you need to repay the Wage Subsidy

Employers will need to repay some or all the COVID-19 Wage Subsidy if:

  • they no longer meet the criteria for the subsidy;

  • they are not meeting their obligation to use the subsidy to retain and pay their employees;

  • they are covered by insurance (e.g. business continuity insurance) for any costs otherwise covered by the subsidy; or

  • they provided false or misleading information in their application.

General Advice

What not to do

·         Do not make employees redundant within the 12 week Wage Subsidy period if your application was submitted on or after 27 March 2020.  Even if your application was submitted prior to 27 March 2020, we urge you to seek legal advice beforehand if you are considering making employees redundant.

·         Employers cannot impose reduced hours or wages on employees – they need to communicate, consult and seek their employees’ agreement.  But if you need to reduce wage costs in order to keep the business going, you can advise (but not threaten!) your employees that if costs aren’t reduced, it may be necessary to consider a restructuring of the business and ultimately, redundancies may be unavoidable. 

·         Do not use any surplus Wage Subsidy funds for any other business expenses other than wages.

What to do

·         Act in good faith

·         Communicate with employees

·         Top up the Wage Subsidy if you can. If you can’t, tell your employees why.

·         Rehire any employees made redundant due to COVID-19 on a fixed term contract and apply for the Wage Subsidy to avoid claims for personal grievance.

·         If you are considering commencing a restructuring process, you must follow a particular process and it is easy to get it wrong. We recommend you get in touch with the Tavendale and Partners Employment Law team for advice on the process.

·         Correct your mistakes. It can be difficult to know for sure if you are making the right decisions. If you have got it wrong, make it right as soon as possible.

Frequently asked questions

Can I reduce employee’s hours and/or wages?

The golden rule is that an employer cannot and should not reduce hours of work or pay without the employee’s consent. Consultation is key. Employers who fail to obtain employee consent run the risk of claims for significant arrears in wages once the lockdown period finishes.

Can I dismiss my employee relying on a ‘Force Majeure’ or ‘Business Interruption’ clause in their employment agreement?

These provisions can potentially be invoked where circumstances outside the employer’s control result in the employer’s being unable to provide work to its employees. However, the threshold is very high and careful scrutiny of the clause would be required to consider where a pandemic situation like COVID-19 would apply.

Can I rely on the Doctrine of Frustration to terminate the employment relationship?

If you wish to rely on frustration, you must be able to prove that it is impossible to perform the contract. As the current lockdown period in New Zealand is temporary only, it may be very difficult for employers to show an inability to maintain the employee’s employment during the lockdown period. The employer would be required, at the very least, to show that it had exhausted all other options including applying for the Wage Subsidy, negotiating a reduction in pay or the option for employees to take leave. A contract is either impossible to perform or it is not.

Still confused? Have a question?

We are here to help and answer your questions. We are aware that everyone’s situation is unique and we are here to guide you through your unique situation.  There is no doubt that this is a difficult time for both employees and employers. Please get in contact with the Tavendale and Partners Employment Law team if you require any assistance.

CONTACTS:

Julian Springer | Legal Advisor, UK Qualified                      

T +64 3 374 9999

+64 21 919 234

julian.springer@tp.co.nz

or

Sara Jamieson | Senior Associate                       

T +64 3 374 9999

 M +64 21 221 7725

sara.jamieson@tp.co.nz

Covid-19 Alert Level 4: Guide for landlords and tenants

The Covid-19 situation is rapidly changing by the day. Already its impacts are being felt across industries and regions, impacts which will only become more pronounced as New Zealand goes into lockdown. 

This is particularly so for ‘non-essential’ business tenants, who have been forced to close during the Covid-19 Alert Level 4 stage, but remain subject to a lease for their business premises.  Whether such a tenant is entitled to any rent relief from a landlord is not straightforward and will depend on the contractual terms of the lease.  We provide some guidance below on common forms of lease, but recommend that landlords and tenants seek legal advice on their rights and obligations regarding rent relief.    

ADLS Lease Sixth Edition 2012

An epidemic is included as an emergency under the current ADLS lease’s no access provisions. Accordingly, a tenant under this form of lease will be entitled to a rent and outgoings reduction if it is unable to gain access to its premises to fully conduct its business during the lockdown. The rent and outgoings reduction will be a “fair proportion”.

What is a “fair proportion” will depend heavily on the specific circumstances of both tenant and landlord and the extent to which it is unable to fully conduct its business. While a tenant won’t have to pay full rent, it is unlikely that a full abatement of rent and outgoings is ‘fair’ – for both landlord and tenant.. A tenant still has exclusive possession of the premises (and continuing rights to return to the premises when the lockdown ends), may have equipment stored there during the lockdown or other systems (such as servers) within the premises which they can use to work or operate outside the premises, and a landlord may have no insurance cover for the lost/reduced rent and may still have to meet costs of finance for the premises.  Because of the nuances, we recommend landlords and tenants seek legal advice as to what a fair proportion reduction might be depending on their specific circumstances.

Older editions of the ADLS Lease

Earlier editions of the ADLS lease (fifth edition or earlier), unless they have been amended or contain further terms which address the issue, do not contain the ‘no access’ provisions of the 6th edition. As such, tenants are not contractually entitled to a reduction in rent.  Landlords and tenants may negotiate rent relief but there is likely no contractual mechanism to do so.

It is also highly likely that tenants, who are required to close during the lockdown, cannot terminate a lease because of the inability to access the leased premises.. This is because of the high threshold for a lease to be considered ‘frustrated’ – this would normally require the premises to be inaccessible or untenantable for more than a temporary period. However, please contact us if you wish to consider your individual circumstances.

Property Council New Zealand Lease 2013

The  Property Council New Zealand Lease 2013 (which is often used for office spaces and shopping centres) provides for rent relief, but this is a two-step approach (unlike the ADLS 6th edition lease). First, there must be no access available to the premises because of the Government directive; secondly, the landlord also needs to be able to make an insurance claim in respect of lost rent solely because of the inaccessibility. The two-step approach may prevent rent relief as there has been no physical damage to the premises which has prevented access – normally, a landlord will only have cover for lost rent which is triggered by physical damage. Again, the circumstances of each landlord and tenant is different and we recommend you seek further advice on your rights or obligations under this form of lease.

Other bespoke leases

Absent agreement between a landlord and tenant, whether or not there is any entitlement to receive, or obligation to provide, rent relief is determined solely by the contractual terms of the lease.  In our experience, such bespoke leases tend not to provide for rent relief, but the terms of each lease will need to be considered carefully.

Don't underestimate the power of covenants over land

When purchasing or developing property, it always pays to treat covenants with respect.  Even when it may seem that a covenant is no longer required because of development and growth around the property which appears contrary to the purpose of the covenant, the courts will be slow to sweep it aside.  This was the outcome in New Zealand Industrial Park Ltd (NZIPL) v Stonehill Trustee Ltd (STL).[1]

 STL had purchased land and was on-selling it to Synlait, which began building a dairy plant.  The land though was subject to a 20-year old covenant in favour of NZIPL which prevented this.  NZIPL owned neighbouring property that could be used for a quarry.  The covenant was intended to protect NZIPL in the event it decided to operate a quarry.  It provided for two things: one, part of STL’s land could only be used for grazing, lifestyle farming or forestry; and two, STL could not object to any proposed quarry on NZIPL’s land.  The covenant was to last for 200 years. 

 However, STL took the view that, given the extent of recent surrounding development, new zoning, and that there had been no quarry on NZIPL’s land for the 20 years since the covenant was registered, the covenant was no longer required.  STL applied to the High Court to have it removed.  NZIPL protested.

 The High Court held that in the circumstances the covenant could be removed.  NZIPL appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal (CA).  The CA took a different view, overturning the High Court’s decision and holding the covenant should remain.

 The CA noted that covenants play an important role in providing property owners with greater or more focused protection than planning controls.  The courts should not remove this protection simply because it inconveniences other owners of property.  The CA had to consider, and answered, the following questions:

  • Had there been a change in the nature and extent of use of the properties to which the covenant applies?  No, NZIPL still had the opportunity to operate a quarry and STL’s use of the land – a dairy plant – since the covenant was registered was the very thing the covenant prevented.  While the zoning of both properties had changed over time, this didn’t prevent a quarry and the purpose of the covenant was to protect from potential zoning changes.

  •  Had there been a change in the character of the surrounding area?  While there had been significant residential growth and industrial development in the neighbourhood, this did not increase the burden on STL’s land imposed by the covenant.  The developed, surrounding land was also never subject to the covenant.

 The CA also considered there were no other relevant circumstances to remove the covenant, refusing to entertain STL’s argument that because the dairy plant could be built on part of STL’s land that wasn’t subject to the covenant this meant the covenant should be removed. Further, given the covenant was to last for 200 years the CA found that it would have been foreseeable that its terms would provide relatively increased restriction on land use if zoning changed or zoning restrictions were relaxed in the future. 

 Finally, while zoning changes may have made it more difficult for NZIPL to obtain consent to operate a quarry, it didn’t prevent it entirely, and the CA found that NZIPL ultimately wanted to quarry their land.  The dairy plant could impede that development.  So, to remove the covenant would substantially injure NZIPL’s property rights.

 Importantly, for anyone considering removing or ignoring a covenant, bear in mind it’s not unusual for covenants to specify that the party who has the burden of it has to pay all the enforcement costs of the party who has its benefit. That was the case here and the CA awarded indemnity costs in favour of NZIPL.  That meant STL would not only have to pay all its legal and other expert costs, but all NZIPL’s legal and other expert costs as well.  These costs would not be insignificant.

[1] New Zealand Industrial Park Limited v Stonehill Trustee Limited [2019] NZCA 147.