New Zealand’s Specialist
Project Lawyers

The Model is science’s best estimate of the likelihood and strength of earthquakes across New Zealand and the review is a big deal – it has taken two-and-a-half years and will reflect the significant advances in knowledge since the last update in 2010, including from international best practice and the Canterbury and Kaikōura earthquakes. The impacts of change will be significant: end-users of the Model, including MBIE, EQC, local authorities, NZTA, land use planners and the insurance sector all rely on the Model to estimate the impact of earthquakes on land, buildings, and infrastructure. This in turn underpins government policy, public and private sector investment decisions and helps to increase resilience. 

While many uses of the Model are forward-looking, the review will have immediate impacts on the property sector, particularly for building owners and tenants. One effect will be the update of structural design requirements under the Building Code, which the Model directly informs. The current structural design standard, NZS1170.5, was based on an earlier 2002 Model, so revision of the Model and design standards is overdue. The Seismic Risk Working Group is currently considering how new Model outputs will be incorporated into the building code, but, in general terms, an increase in assessed seismic risk can be expected to mean an increase in structural design requirements. Any changes there will have obvious implications for the design and cost of new buildings.

The most immediate and significant impact for the property sector, however, is likely to be on the seismic standard of existing buildings. In short, this is because an increase in Building Code requirements for new buildings will mean a decrease in the relative compliance of existing buildings. Existing buildings face being downgraded as new building standards move on.

How far existing buildings will be affected depends upon the degree of change to the Model and the Building Code, but the outlook isn’t promising. A recent paper by Professor Brendon Bradley of the University of Canterbury in the NZSEE journal (Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis of Peak Ground Acceleration for Major Regional New Zealand Locations) shows that major changes in some areas are likely.

Bradley’s research showed that, for 24 locations across New Zealand, expected mean earthquakes magnitudes and peak ground accelerations were generally higher than current Building Code requirements under NZS1170.5. While some areas were unaffected, in others, such as Wellington, Gisborne and Napier, the differences were significant. Peak ground accelerations for Wellington, for example, were more than 50% higher than is currently assumed under NZS1170.5. As a result, changes to the Code and effective downgrades to buildings could be significant; some buildings may effectively fall below the 67% or 80% NBS thresholds often seen by tenants as red lines.

While specific changes are yet to be confirmed, we can make some predictions:
 

• What is the rating? As the last few years have shown, seismic risk is a key concern for tenants in higher risk areas. The Wellington market, in particular, is affected on an almost weekly basis by assessments based on revised seismic assessment guidelines introduced in 2017-18.  Tenants and owners will want to know where their buildings sit against revised standards, whether or not this is supported by seismic assessment guidelines.
• Is vacating an option? To date, tenants have been prepared to vacate when buildings have fallen short. However, with a rising standard, it may be different. If all existing buildings are effectively not as safe as we thought, tenants may be more likely to shrug their shoulders and stay. Downgrades across the market may also constrain relocation options.
• Knowing the risk is key. Due diligence on acquisitions and new leases will remain be critical and a “flight to quality” will continue. Expert advice is also key – having a lawyer (and often an engineer) who can navigate and explain the complexity is important.
• Legal provisions will be in the spotlight. Rights for tenants to abate rent, vacate and even terminate leases due to low NBS ratings have become the norm. Whether or not these rights are effective – if tenants want to exercise them – will be tested.
• Experts and government have a role to play. The market has adapted relatively quickly to seismic issues, but understanding of risk still has a way to go.  Engineers have more work to do to educate the market on the appropriateness and limits of NBS as a proxy for safety. Equally, government needs to ensure that a transparent and effective measure, reflecting the public’s desire for reliable consistent ratings of buildings, is available.
• Higher standards and more upgrades? Some existing buildings have reached the economic and technical limits of upgrade capacity, but demand will mean that building strengthening projects continue. Anecdotally, some agencies have already begun insisting on increased design assumptions to take account of the anticipated building code changes.

Construction supply chain woes continue, EBOSS reports

The demand for construction materials has escalated drastically over the last 12 months and forecasts from EBOSS suggest that it will only continue to rise until Q3 2022 at the very least. Couple this with a constrained supply chain as a flow-on effect from the pandemic and you have the recipe for continual increases to prices and lead times of construction materials.

Starting with the supply issue, the problem largely stems from the New Zealand industry’s reliance on freight. The report found that 90% of all construction product sold in New Zealand is either imported or contains imported components. This dependence on imports was never an issue until the market experienced rapid change over the last year. New Zealand is currently experiencing a significant increase in its construction workload (which include the measures taken to address the housing crisis). Globally, other countries are having the same idea. The United States is experiencing a 15-year housing boom, and both China and India are anticipating construction demand to grow at least 12%. New Zealand is struggling to get access to both materials and freight in the face of this. In fact, EBOSS’ survey found that four out of five domestic suppliers are experiencing issues relating to either:
 

• increased freight costs;
• access to worldwide shipping;
• the lead times for freight getting out of ports;
• delays at NZ ports; or
• freight availability.

• plan ahead and discuss areas where delays or additional costs can be expected (and ensure these are factored into project budgets and programmes);
• consider mitigation measures available;
• consider whether fixed prices are the best option for the project; and
• consider the financial health of each party and ability of each to continue to perform their obligations if either party takes the risk on cost escalation throughout the life of a project (including insolvency risk).

1. The cost estimate was between $2.5 and $2.8m;
2. Mr Smith would ensure costs would be reasonable and in accordance with the contract; and
3. KM Smith would ensure the subcontractor costs were reasonable.

Key changes to the PLA

• the tenant at any time “is unable to gain access to all or any part of the leased premises to conduct fully their operations from all or any part of the leased premises, because of reasons of health or safety related to the epidemic” (No Access Period); and
• the parties have not already agreed a rent and outgoings abatement prior to 18 August 2021. However, to the extent that any agreed abatement does not apply for the full No Access Period, the Act will apply in respect of the period not covered by the abatement.

• there is likely to be dispute as to which factors should to be taken into account by the parties when agreeing the fair proportion (apart from the mandatory requirement to consider the loss of the tenant’s income during the No Access Period);
• by referring only to the loss of the tenant’s income during the No Access Period, there is an argument that the PLA is directing the parties to disregard any subsequent increase in income (which may have the effect of off-setting the tenant’s loss) following the end of the No Access Period; and  
• generally speaking, when determining a “fair proportion”, it is currently understood (but by no means settled by the Courts) that the parties should consider a range of factors including the remaining term of the lease and rights of termination, COVID-19 related financial assistance, the relative resources of the parties and the actual impact of COVID-19 related restrictions on the tenant’s ability to generate income. The Property Council has recently introduced guidelines in relation to assessing a “fair proportion” which may be of assistance.  

We specifically focus on construction contracts but our comments apply equally to a range of professional services contracts in which fitness for purpose is often sought to be implied.
 
What is a “fitness for purpose” warranty?
A fitness for purpose warranty is a contractual or implied warranty given by a contractor, consultant or supplier to deliver a product (or a building or service) that is capable of being used in the way that the principal intends to use it. The warranty is included as the principal is reliant on the contractor’s particular skill and expertise to design, build and/or supply a product or service that will perform as required. 
 
A contractor/consultant has a separate duty at common law to exercise a duty of care in accordance with professional standards, and may be liable for breach if it is proven not to have met that level of care (subject to relevant common law tests). In comparison, breach of a fitness for purpose warranty only requires evidence that the product (or building) does not meet a certain standard that the principal has made clear is required (or sometimes which can reasonably be inferred from the principal’s requirements). This lower threshold makes fitness for purpose warranties far more onerous for the contractor and very often will have adverse insurance repercussions.
 
A fitness for purpose warranty may be:

• created by an express contractual provision;
• implied by statute, such as under section 362I of the Building Act 2004 (in relation to household units) and under section 8 of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (in relation to goods supplied to consumers); or
• in some circumstances, implied into a contract by common law.

• be reasonable and equitable;
• be necessary to give business efficacy to the contract;
• be so obvious that it goes without saying;
• be capable of clear expression; and
• not contradict an express term.

• check the interaction with your professional indemnity insurance; and
• limit the express fitness for purpose warranty to a measurable standard against which you can design and construct.

Under sections 245 and 246 of the Property Law Act 2007, a landlord can cancel a lease after serving notice on a tenant for non-payment of the rent or a breach of other obligations under a lease (such as the obligation to pay outgoings). The recent High Court case of SHK Trustee Company Limited v NZDMG Limited serves as a warning to landlords who intend to cancel a lease for non-payment of rent and outgoings during an emergency.
 
The landlord leased an office and a warehouse space to a kitchen manufacturer under two separate leases. The leases were on the widely-used Auckland District Law Society (ADLS) deed of lease, which includes a “no access in emergency” provision at clause 27.5. The tenant ceased rental payments from the first day of the first alert level 4 lockdown on 26 March 2020 and claimed a rent abatement under the “no access” clauses in the leases.
 
In August 2020, the landowner served a notice on the tenant informing the tenant that it was in default of its obligation to pay the rent and outgoings and requiring that the outstanding sums be paid within 30 working days. The notice made no allowance for the required abatement of rent and outgoings due to the “no access in emergency” clauses. After the tenant did not comply with the notice, the landlord cancelled the leases, took possession of the premises and later commenced summary judgment proceedings to recover the rent arrears.
 
The High Court declined the landlord’s application in respect of the amounts claimed as the landlord had failed to provide for an abatement of the rent in light of the ongoing pandemic.
 
As this was a summary judgment application for unpaid rent, the Court was not able to assess what the “fair proportion” abatement should have been (as this is “an evaluative exercise that cannot be done on a summary judgment application”) or determine whether the landlord’s breach notice was invalid. If the breach notice was invalid, the cancellation of the leases would have been unlawful. The Court stated that it was arguable that the breach notice was invalid on the basis that it did not make an allowance for the required abatement of rent and outgoings under clause 27.5 of the leases. The Court recommended that the landlord ought to have obtained an authoritative determination of the rent payable by suing the tenant and obtaining a formal judgment of the unpaid rent, or to have only served the breach notice for the undisputed rent arrears.

The case is an illustration of the risks involved in serving breach notices. Where claimed rent arrears relate to a period during which the rent abates under the terms of the lease or due to a statutory entitlement, landlords must draft breach notices with caution. Landlords might choose to rely on outstanding rent or outgoings payable in respect of non-abatement periods, agree the abated “fair proportion” with tenants or obtain judgment through legal proceedings as to the amount owing under the lease during the abatement period. Landlords also need to consider statutory interventions due to the COVID-19 pandemic (such as the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill) – relying on the words of the deed of lease alone may not be sufficient.

October 2021

The Covid Bill amends several pieces of legislation. In this note, we focus only on the proposed amendments to the Property Law Act 2007 (PLA).

This is the second attempt at implying rent abatement provisions into commercial leases since Minister Little’s proposals in 2020, which did not make it beyond a Cabinet paper.

The Bill has received criticism both within and outside of Parliament for cutting across existing commercial leasing contracts, and the press release by the Government announcing the Covid Bill did not indicate the extent to which a lack of rent abatements is a problem in commercial leases.

The Property Council and a number of significant figures in the property industry have come out in opposition, noting the issues around defining the quantum of a rent abatement. Interestingly, the Property Council is seeking to gather information from its members about abatements or deferrals already agreed. The results may be a useful indicator as to whether there is a widespread problem necessitating Government intervention, or otherwise.

Key proposed changes to the PLA
 

• From 28 September 2021 a “no access in an emergency clause” (implied clause) is implied into leases that do not include such a clause that covers an epidemic: Unamended ADLS leases from 2012 onwards already contain a similar clause and will not be affected by the proposed legislation, but other forms of leases such as Property Council leases and bespoke leases will need to be considered on a case by case basis.

• The implied clause is triggered when a tenant “is unable to gain access to all or any part of the leased premises to conduct fully their operations from all or any part of the leased premises, because of reasons of health or safety related to the epidemic”:  What “fully” conduct means is to be determined and may cover situations where the tenant is operating in the premises sub-optimally, such as restrictions to capacity, customer access or social distancing requirements.

• The implied clause provides that a fair proportion of rent and outgoings will abate under the lease during the period of the tenant’s inability to access all or part of the leased premises, backdated to 28 September 2021 (but possibly earlier), and ending when the inability ceases:  A “fair proportion” is not defined and nor is there any guidance on this. Much will depend on the circumstances, and negotiated outcomes will vary depending on the nature of the tenant’s business, the premises and the terms of the lease.  The provisions around when the abatement commences are unclear.  We expect these will be further developed in Select Committee.

• The implied clause will not apply where the parties have already agreed contractually to vary the rent payable if access to the premises is restricted because of an epidemic (a “pre-commencement rent variation agreement”) and the agreement applies to the period covered by the implied clause: The implied clause might therefore apply for some of the period not covered by the pre-commencement rent variation agreement.

• Until the landlord and tenant determine what a fair proportion is, a landlord cannot terminate a tenant’s lease for non-payment of rent and outgoings:  Section 246 of the PLA has not been amended so, a landlord may still cancel a lease for breach of other covenants of the lease.

• Any dispute about what is a “fair proportion” is to be referred to arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1996. Arbitration could be expensive and lengthy: This does not preclude the parties from agreeing other methods of dispute resolution.

• This rent abatement is specific to the COVID-19 epidemic:  It is expressly repealed when the Epidemic Preparedness (COVID-19) Notice 2020 expires or is revoked.

• The implied covenant may be negatived, varied or extended by express agreement after 28 September 2021:  Relying on clauses in existing leases which exclude implied terms in the PLA will not be sufficient to exclude this implied covenant.

What can a landlord or tenant do?
Until the Covid Bill achieves Royal assent, landlords are not legally obliged to offer a rent or outgoings abatement where they do not have clause 27.5 of the ADLS lease (or a similar clause) in their leases. This is obviously a hard-nosed approach to be taken by landlords, but not an illegal one. Though the Covid Bill is only proposed legislation, tenants have been given a certain level of bargaining power to start discussions to achieve a rent and outgoings abatement and landlords can expect to see an increase in requests of this nature. Similar requests occurred shortly after Minister Little’s announcement in 2020.

Regardless of the passing of the Covid Bill, landlords and tenants are still free to come to agreement on a rent and outgoings abatement. Provided they agree from 28 September 2021, this will exclude the implied rent relief provisions in the Covid Bill entirely, perhaps in return for some other consideration. One particular incentive for the parties to agree an abatement is the lack of guidance over “fair proportion”. It is our experience that parties often pre-agree fixed discounts that will apply for Alert Levels 3 and 4.

We strongly recommend that landlords do not take any action to terminate leases for non-payment of rent and outgoings without seeking advice first. Particular caution should also be exercised as to whether a landlord calls on a bank guarantee or other security in respect of rent and outgoings, which may later be found to be properly subject to abatement from 28 September 2021. The Courts have regularly made decisions favourable to tenants, where landlords have acted aggressively in uncertain situations.

What leases are intended to be caught?
Leases which already contain a “no access in an emergency clause” are excluded from rent abatement provisions in the Bill.

The proposed wording of the “no access in an emergency” provision is close to, but not the same as, the wording used in clause 27.5 of the ADLS lease. However, by way of example, the equivalent clause 7.5(c) of the Property Council office lease is less clear in that:
 

• the concept of “no access in an emergency” has slightly different triggers (such as the narrower concept of “inaccessibility”); and

• there is also an additional requirement before a tenant may obtain rent relief, being that the landlord must be able to collect loss of rent insurance.

Is clause 7.5(c) of the Property Council office lease a “no access in an emergency clause” for the purposes of the Covid Bill? It is questionable and will likely be the subject of legal debate. However, the overall intention appears to be that, if there is a clause in a lease that operates akin to clause 27.5 of the ADLS lease, the implied clause proposed pursuant to the Covid Bill will not apply.

Watch this space
The Covid Bill is proceeding quickly through the Select Committee process and we can expect some strong submissions and public comments to be made before the Covid Bill is passed.

If you would like any further information about the effect of the PLA changes or how to deal with them, please contact Antonia Shanahan, Steve Woodfield, Mark Hay, Simon Mee or any of our experienced property lawyers.

October 2021

Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill

In early June Parliament introduced the Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill which, if passed, will further amend the retention regime under the Construction Contracts Act 2002 (CCA). The proposed changes address shortfalls in the current regime, such as situations where an insolvent contractor has co-mingled retention funds with its working capital, and its subcontractor is barred from recovering the full sum.

The headline changes are:

• Retention money must be held on trust in a New Zealand bank account established and used solely for the purpose of holding retention money (or held in the form of complying instruments such as a bond or guarantee). Bank account names must include “retention money trust account” and identify for whom the money is held. The bank must also be notified that the account is holding retention money under the CCA;
• Contractors must disclose information to subcontractors regarding retention monies when money is first retained, and then at least every three months thereafter; and
• The introduction of offences for failing to comply with the new requirements. Contractor companies can be liable to fines for up to $200,000 whereas directors (or persons who act as a director) can be liable for up to $50,000.

1. All persons who provide professional engineering services must be registered. This would ensure all professional engineers obtain a practicing certificate and are subject to a code of conduct, mandatory CPD, and a complaints and disciplinary process;
2. The introduction of a licencing regime for high risk engineering disciplines. Discipline classes would be established based on the potential for significant harm resulting from subpar engineering work. MBIE recommend making it an offence to practice in a restricted field without a licence, which could be issued by examination, evaluation of work, interviews, and track records; and
3. Establishment of a regulator to oversee the regime. This independent regulatory board would be accountable to the Minister for Building and Construction and monitored by MBIE. Funding for the regulator would come from registration and licencing fees as well as levies.

The case confirms that landowners can be liable for damage caused by their trees despite the trees being outside the “growth limit zones” imposed by the Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulations 2003 and despite the owner of the electricity line not having a registered easement for the line.

The electricity line was constructed in the late 1960s or early 1970s by a predecessor electric power board to the current owner of the line, Unison Networks Limited. Section 22 of the Electricity Act 1992 permits Unison Networks to keep the line on the land, and section 23 allows Unison Networks to have access to the land to maintain the line. No registered easement is needed for the line.

The property was acquired by the current owner in the early 1990s and converted to forestry in 1994.

The Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulations 2003 sets growth limit zones measured out from electricity lines. The growth limit zone for the line here extended only for 2.5 metres. Under those regulations, line owners can require that tree owners cut or trim trees which extend into the growth limit zones. Here, however, the trees were located outside the growth limit zones, with damage to the line caused by trees falling over during or following adverse weather.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the earlier High Court judgment that the tree owner was liable to the line owner in “nuisance”. A nuisance is an ongoing or recurring activity or state of affairs that causes a substantial and unreasonable interference with the plaintiff’s land or the plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of that land.

Normally a nuisance occurs in the context of neighbouring properties; the defendant will cause something to emanate from the defendant’s land, like smoke or noise, which interferes with the plaintiff’s use of adjoining land. Here, the lines and trees were on the same land but both the High Court and Court of Appeal were comfortable that the tort of nuisance could apply in this situation. As noted by the Court of Appeal, the trees were, in effect, emanating from Nottingham Forest’s land and causing damage to Unison’s property.

The key factor here was the repetitive nature of tree falls. A succession of trees, which had grown to a height greater than their distance from the line, fell onto the line and caused damage. Given the inevitability of tree falls, the Court of Appeal had no doubt that it was unreasonable for Nottingham Forest to allow trees to grow to the height at which they would cause damage to the line if they fell. By creating this state of affairs, Nottingham Forest was strictly liable for any resulting damage, and could not avoid liability by showing that all reasonable precautions had been taken.

This was a novel case, although it pulled together strands of settled law, and could have widespread application especially to commercial forest owners. It clarifies that the Electricity (Hazards from Trees) Regulations 2003 do not oust common law liability for damage to electricity lines caused by trees and that, in circumstances involving a series of events, landowners could be strictly liable for that damage. As shown in this case, liability can exist where the trees are outside the “growth limit zone” but within falling distance of the line, where the trees are otherwise healthy and where the line is protected by a statutory right rather than a registered easement.

Julian Smith from Greenwood Roche advised Unison Networks on this claim, and has advised other electricity lines companies on tree management issues – amongst other things – for more than 20 years. We can also advise forestry companies on their obligations here and the impact on potential plantable areas.

June 2021