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

New Zealand’s Specialist
Project Lawyers

There is a marked difference

in the way Greenwood Roche operates. From the outset we have focused on clearly defined specialist areas, retaining highly respected legal experts in each field. We then take that further; ensuring clients have direct and regular access to the most senior partners and lawyers, in a cost efficient manner.

Close contact with experts and clear cost advantages

We advise on a range of significant public and private sector projects. To ensure our specialists are always where they’re needed, we operate as one office with hubs in Auckland, Wellington & Christchurch.

img_homepage_column1.jpg

Recent Projects

Projects

Acquisition of hotel businesses by overseas investors

In 2020 and 2021 Greenwood Roche has advised on the acquisition by overseas investors...

Acquisition of hotel businesses by overseas investors

Recent Projects


Acquisition of hotel businesses by overseas investors

In 2020 and 2021 Greenwood Roche has advised on the acquisition by overseas investors of two separate hotel businesses, advising on sale and purchase terms for the land and business and application of the overseas investment rules, conducting due diligence, drafting and advising on management contracts, advising on liquor licensing, advising on transitional hand-over arrangements and generally arranging for completion of the transactions to occur with minimal disruption to the business.


Our work here builds on significant experience across different team members’ work on previous hotel transactions, including large international hotel chains throughout New Zealand.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Macleans College land

Greenwood Roche assisted Hāpai Commercial Property Limited Partnership with the...

Recent Projects


Macleans College land

Greenwood Roche assisted Hāpai Commercial Property Limited Partnership with the establishment of its partnership with Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Trust and the new entity’s acquisition of the 13 hectares of land under Macleans College in Bucklands Beach, Auckland in what has been reported as the largest Treaty-based school transfer.


Our work included advising on and implementing the joint venture structure, undertaking due diligence on the property, assisting with the financing of the transaction and settling the acquisition.

The acquisition was part of Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki’s Deed of Settlement with the Crown, which was finalised in 2018, and included the leaseback of the land to the Ministry of Education.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x

New Dunedin office for Accident Compensation Corporation

Ngāi Tahu and the Accident Compensation Corporation have announced the development...

New Dunedin office for Accident Compensation Corporation

Recent Projects

New Dunedin office for Accident Compensation Corporation

New Dunedin office for Accident Compensation Corporation

Ngāi Tahu and the Accident Compensation Corporation have announced the development of a new office complex in Dunedin.


Greenwood Roche lawyers Bob Roche and Sam Green recently assisted ACC with the development of a new office building in Dunedin through a 50/50 partnership with Ngāi Tahu.

The Dunedin hub is essential for ACC’s national operations and this purpose-built four-storey complex will house 650 staff who are currently spread across four separate buildings.

Construction of this modern and environmentally friendly building is set to start this year. The 8,000 square metre building will be located on Dowling Street.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Similar projects
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment – New National Office Redevelopment

Recent Projects

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment – New National Office Redevelopment

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment – New National Office Redevelopment

At over 20,000m2 of space, the redevelopment of a landmark Wellington building has provided the New Zealand Government’s largest Ministry with a substantial new National Office.


Greenwood Roche has successfully assisted the Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment in the redevelopment and lease of MBIE’s new National Office premises in Wellington.
 
Greenwood Roche has continued to provide advice to MBIE throughout the course of the redevelopment, including assisting with the sale of the building to an NZX-listed property investment company during the project.
 
MBIE’s new National Office is one of a number of substantial redevelopment projects within Wellington on which Greenwood Roche has acted.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x
New National Head Office for Transpower

Recent Projects


New National Head Office for Transpower

Greenwood Roche represented Transpower New Zealand Limited in relation to the redevelopment and lease of Transpower’s future national head office at Boulcott Street, Wellington.


Transpower plans, builds, maintains and operates New Zealand’s high voltage electricity transmission network. The new premises will house around 500 staff and the 24/7 control room for the National Grid.  At approximately 8,400m2, the Boulcott Street transaction is one of the largest commercial office leasing deals in New Zealand this year.

The Greenwood Roche team included partner John Greenwood and principal Doran Wyatt, both based in the firm’s Wellington office.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x
New National Head Office for Ministry of Education

Recent Projects

New National Head Office for Ministry of Education

New National Head Office for Ministry of Education

Greenwood Roche represented the Ministry of Education on the redevelopment and 15 year lease of the Ministry’s new national head office at 33 Bowen Street, Wellington.


At approximately 13,100m2, the Bowen Street transaction was a full building lease and one of the largest commercial office leasing deals in New Zealand for the year. Greenwood Roche assisted the Ministry on all aspects of the negotiation and documents for the transaction, which included substantial refurbishment works, a seismic upgrade for the building and an integrated fitout.

The Greenwood Roche team for the deal were partner Jeannie Warnock and principal Doran Wyatt, both based in Wellington.
 


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Similar projects
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment – New National Office Redevelopment New National Head Office for Transpower Redevelopment of 56 The Terrace, Wellington

Recent Projects


Redevelopment of 56 The Terrace, Wellington

Kiwi Income Property Trust, one of the country’s largest listed property investors, is undertaking a $67 million redevelopment of its property at 56 The Terrace, Wellington, for lease by the Ministry of Social Development.


We are advising Kiwi Income Property Trust on this project. Our work has included advising on the development agreement and the 18 year deed of lease with the Crown and preparing and advising on the construction contract for the development works.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x
New Co-located Processing facility in Palmerston North

Recent Projects


New Co-located Processing facility in Palmerston North

New Zealand Post has recently commenced operations at its new Manawatu Co-located Processing Facility.


Comprising over 7,000 square metres including a mail processing warehouse, staging interchange areas, and associated office accommodation (and a combined investment of over $10 million), the facility houses NZ Post’s mail processing functions for the entire lower North Island.

The facility is situated in the heart of Palmerston North’s main industrial area, and is strategically convenient to all major transport systems in the city (including the airport, state highways and rail network).

Greenwood Roche assisted NZ Post on the development, construction and leasing aspects of the facility. The development agreement provided for delivery of tenant works as a variation to the landlord's main contract and early engagement of the Main Contractor on a fixed margin open book basis. Both features enabled the project to be completed seamlessly to a tight schedule while maintaining the appropriate distribution of risk and responsibility between the parties.
 


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x
Watercare’s new head office

Recent Projects

Watercare’s new head office

Watercare’s new head office

Watercare Services Limited is responsible for providing water and wastewater services to the greater Auckland region, and employs a large number of people across many different teams.


We acted for Watercare in relation to its new head office premises located in Newmarket, Auckland. This was a significant project, involving the negotiation of a comprehensive redevelopment agreement and subsequent deed of lease, and further extensive advice in relation to Watercare’s ability to terminate its existing tenancies at that time.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Download as a PDF
Close window
x
Redevelopment of 56 The Terrace, Wellington Sale, redevelopment and leaseback of New Zealand Post House

Recent Projects


Sale, redevelopment and leaseback of New Zealand Post House

As part of New Zealand Post’s strategy to release capital from its corporate properties, it sold the landmark New Zealand Post House in Wellington to listed commercial property company Argosy Property in 2013.


We acted for New Zealand Post on the sale and leaseback of New Zealand Post House and on the negotiation of a comprehensive development agreement committing the purchaser to undertake a $40 million extensive redevelopment of the building.
 
The sale, for $60 million, was one of the single largest commercial real estate deals completed in Wellington in 2013.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x
Watercare’s new head office New Hamilton office for Accident Compensation Corporation

Recent Projects

New Hamilton office for Accident Compensation Corporation

New Hamilton office for Accident Compensation Corporation

Tainui Group Holdings and the Accident Compensation Corporation have announced the development of a $50m-plus Hamilton office complex.


Greenwood Roche lawyers Bob Roche, Sam Green and Jane McDiarmid are assisting ACC with a significant office consolidation project, which has recently reached a milestone with the conclusion of a development agreement for a new office building in Hamilton.

At each of ACC's main hubs, Dunedin and Hamilton, we are advising ACC on the RFP process for new office accommodation, development agreements for the design and build of new office buildings and the deeds of lease. Each building will have office space of approximately 8,500 square metres and will be significant construction projects for these cities.

The new Hamilton building will be developed by Waikato-Tainui and will be located on the corner of Collingwood Street and Tristram Street. The building is designed as a state of the art, low-rise, three-pavilion building and will be a substantial boost for the Hamilton CBD.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Ocean Outfall Pipeline, Hokitika

Greenwood Roche has assisted Westland Dairy Company Limited with its $26 million...

Ocean Outfall Pipeline, Hokitika

Recent Projects

Ocean Outfall Pipeline, Hokitika

Ocean Outfall Pipeline, Hokitika

Greenwood Roche has assisted Westland Dairy Company Limited with its $26 million Ocean Outfall Pipeline project.


Our work involved drafting and negotiating land occupation and easement documentation with the Westland District Council for the deaeration chamber and the pipeline and drafting construction contracts for the two stage pipeline project.  The pipeline and deaeration chamber due for completion in the first quarter of 2021 will convey treated wastewater from Westland Milk’s Hokitika dairy factory, remove the air and discharge it into the ocean via an 800 metre underwater pipe.  The company considers it is a more acceptable environmental solution and more sustainable system than the current system of discharge into the Hokitika River.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Overseas investment office consents for forestry

Greenwood Roche has assisted Corisol New Zealand Limited with acquisitions and overseas...

Recent Projects


Overseas investment office consents for forestry

Greenwood Roche has assisted Corisol New Zealand Limited with acquisitions and overseas investment applications for forestry.


Our work involved negotiating and documenting agreements for sale and purchase for various land blocks, due diligence, overseas investment office applications and various ancillary documentation.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Christchurch hospital car parking

Greenwood Roche assisted Ōtākaro Limited to negotiate a long awaited car park...

Recent Projects


Christchurch hospital car parking

Greenwood Roche assisted Ōtākaro Limited to negotiate a long awaited car park building solution for Christchurch Hospital.


Our work involved negotiating and documenting an agreement with a number of other parties including CDHB, LINZ and Ngāi Tahu.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Joint venture developing pet food factory

Greenwood Roche is acting for Hāpai Ahuriri Limited Partnership on the acquisition...

Recent Projects


Joint venture developing pet food factory

Greenwood Roche is acting for Hāpai Ahuriri Limited Partnership on the acquisition of land and the development and lease of a pet food factory in Hawke’s Bay. 


Our work involved documenting and registering the limited partnership (a joint venture between two other limited partnerships including our existing client Hāpai Commercial Property Limited Partnership made up of a number of different iwi), due diligence, drafting the agreement for sale and purchase, settling the acquisition and negotiating and drafting the construction contract.  We continue to advise on financing aspects and the lease.


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Film Studios – Section 71 Proposal

On 16 September 2020 the Associate Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration...

Recent Projects


Film Studios – Section 71 Proposal

On 16 September 2020 the Associate Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration approved Regenerate Christchurch’s proposal to amend the Christchurch District Plan and the Canterbury Regional Policy Statement to provide for the development and operation of commercial film and video production facilities in Christchurch.


The Minister approved the proposal developed by Regenerate Christchurch, with assistance from Greenwood Roche, and exercised powers under section 71 of the Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016 for the final time before the section was repealed.

The amendments will come into force on 13 October 2020, and result in a planning framework enabling commercial film or video production activities to locate in specific areas in Christchurch.
Demand from local and international film companies for production facilities in New Zealand is high, but there are no major production facilities in the South Island. The establishment of such facilities in Christchurch, made easier through the amendments, presents an exciting prospect for the city’s creative identity and industry and for the economic and employment opportunities that these facilities would provide.

This proposal is also significant as the last regeneration initiative performed by Regenerate Christchurch. It has been a privilege for Greenwood Roche to provide legal support to this now-disestablished organisation since 2016, and this outcome is a fitting end considering the hard work and dedication of the Regenerate team over the last four years.

The Minister’s decision can be viewed at the following link:

https://dpmc.govt.nz/publications/public-notice-film-studios-proposal-approved;
 


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Similar projects
Hagley Oval - Section 71 Proposal

Recent Projects

Hagley Oval - Section 71 Proposal

Hagley Oval - Section 71 Proposal

On 23rd December 2018 Hon Poto Williams, the Associate Minister for Greater Christchurch Regeneration approved a proposal to amend the Christchurch District Plan provisions for Hagley Oval to enable it to host large international fixtures and meet modern day broadcasting requirements.


Greenwood Roche assisted Regenerate Christchurch in developing the proposal on behalf of the Canterbury Cricket Trust.

The proposal approved by the Minister amends the Christchurch District Plan through section 71 of the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Act 2016 (GCR Act). The approved proposal incorporates the current resource consent conditions into the Plan and amends certain aspects of those conditions, including:

  • Amending the current condition to increase the four, retractable light towers to allow six permanent light towers to meet international broadcast standards.
  • Allow more lenient pack in and out timeframes for temporary facilities associated with hosting cricket matches to improve health and safety and limit damage to the Oval grounds.
  • Increasing the number of fixtures allowed per season, including an allowance for hosting International Cricket Council events on years that they occur.

These changes will mean that Hagley Oval will be able to host day-night matches that are now required by top-tier teams, allowing Hagley Oval to be more competitive when bidding for games compared to its rival cricket grounds.  With the Women’s Cricket World Cup approaching in 2021, the changes will allow Christchurch City to bid for and host games in this tournament.

Through the public participation stage of the process, 1,253 written comments were received, of which 83 percent were in favour of the proposal.

The Minister’s decision can be viewed at the following link: https://dpmc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2019-12/Hagley Oval - Section 71 Proposal - Signed Decision Paper_1.pdf


Specialist expertise

Key lawyers involved

Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Download as a PDF
Close window
x

See more projects
img_homepage_column2.jpg

News & Insights

Insights

“No access in emergency” clauses: interaction with right to issue PLA notice of cancellation

New Zealand’s COVID-19 alert level restrictions have placed under scrutiny "no...

News & Insights

“No access in emergency” clauses: interaction with right to issue PLA notice of cancellation

New Zealand’s COVID-19 alert level restrictions have placed under scrutiny "no access in emergency" provisions in leases. These provisions generally require an abatement of rent and outgoings when a tenant is unable to fully access the leased premises to carry out its business due to an emergency. In most cases, these clauses will apply during Covid-related lockdowns.  In this article we examine recent case law on their interaction with the statutory right to cancel for breach.


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


Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Additional COVID Exposure for Landlords and Tenants: The COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill

The New Zealand Government has introduced the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures)...

News & Insights

Additional COVID Exposure for Landlords and Tenants: The COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill

The New Zealand Government has introduced the COVID-19 Response (Management Measures) Legislation Bill (Covid Bill), which passed its first reading on 29 September 2021 before going to the Finance and Expenditure Select Committee. Submissions to the Committee are due by 5 October 2021, with the Committee to report to the House on 14 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


Download as a PDF
Close window
x

The Construction Verdict - August 2021

Construction Verdict highlights some of the most important legal developments during...

News & Insights

The Construction Verdict - August 2021

Construction Verdict highlights some of the most important legal developments during the last few months relating to the building and construction sectors.


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.
The Bill is currently with the Select Committee, their report being due 11 November 2021.

New legislation addresses inefficiencies in modular consenting

The current consenting process as it relates to modular construction requires a separate consent for each component produced. If a component is produced in a different council region to where it is delivered for assembly, then consent is required from both councils.

The Building (Building Products and Methods, Modular Components, and Other Matters) Amendment Act 2021 (Act), aside from having a catchy name, recently received royal assent and seeks to address these issues.

The Act establishes a new scheme for certification, registration and monitoring of modular component manufacturers (MCMs). MCMs will be able to obtain certification to manufacture a modular component from a registered certification board. Certification then enables that MCM to produce the modular component without the need for inspection each time a component is produced.

Under the Act, building consents will only be required for the installation phase, with processing times reducing to 10 working days (down from 20 working days).

The Act is effectively a framework and MBIE is currently consulting with the industry regarding necessary regulations to support and implement the Act.  The Act and the supporting regulations will come into effect no later than 15 months from the date of royal assent of the Act (so September 2022).

The hope and expectation is that this removes a barrier preventing the uptake of modular construction in New Zealand and that housing supply can be speed up as a result.

Proposed regulation of the engineering profession

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) recently opened consultation on options to increase regulation on engineers in light of reports following the CTV building collapse and contamination of Havelock North’s drinking water.

The broad concern is that membership of CPEng and Engineering New Zealand is currently voluntary and any engineer wanting to avoid competence checks or disciplinary processes can simply opt out from these private entities. This places the burden on consumers to determine engineers’ competence.

MBIE have developed three proposals:
  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.
Submissions have now closed and a cabinet paper has been submitted to the Cabinet Economic Development Committee for discussion.

Case Law

Contract interpretation: Bathurst Resource Ltd v L&M Coal Holdings Ltd [2021] NZSC 85

The Supreme Court has unanimously confirmed that, in principle, both pre-contractual negotiations and subsequent conduct can be admissible evidence when interpreting a contract.

As a check on this, the Court clarified that relevance and probative value are yardsticks for the admissibility of such evidence, which must be examined in accordance with the Evidence Act 2006.

Primacy remains in the written words when interpreting a contract, however ancillary conduct may assist courts in determining a contract’s objective meaning to a reasonable person having all background knowledge available to the parties. For prior negotiations, the conduct must be mutual; one party’s subjective belief as to the meaning of the words which isn’t communicated to the other party is inadmissible. Conversely, subsequent conduct need not necessarily be mutual, however it must demonstrate evidence of the parties’ objective intention as to the meaning of the contract at execution.

Contract, set-off: Asphalt Supply Company Limited v Cole John Limited [2021] NZHC 1257

Cole John (Principal) engaged Complete Limited (Contractor) to undertake construction work on the Principal’s property. The Contractor subcontracted the asphalt works to Asphalt Supply (Subcontractor) who provided the Contractor with a written warranty in favour of the Principal upon completion.

The Contractor said that the asphalt work was defective and withheld payment to the Subcontractor totalling $80,040 (Balance). The Subcontractor sued the Principal for the Balance, the Contractor having gone into liquidation. The Principal counterclaimed for breach of warranty. 

The Subcontractor, acknowledging it had no contract with the Principal, discontinued its claim. The Principal’s counterclaim went to trial in the district court. One of the key issues was whether the Subcontractor could set off Balance against the Principal’s counterclaim for damages (under s 18(2) of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA)).

The District Court held that the Subcontractor was not entitled to set off the Balance against the Principal’s counterclaim for damages (on the basis that the Balance was due on completion and that the Subcontractor had not completed the works).

On appeal Campbell J allowed the Subcontractor to set-off the Balance for breach of warranty against the claim for damages, overturning the District Court Judge’s ruling that the Balance was only due on completion, and the Subcontractor had not completed the works. 

The basis for the decision was that s 18 (2) of CCLA enables a party in the Subcontractor’s position (i.e. conferring rights in respect of a contract to a third party) to set-off (amongst other defences) any claim it has against the party to the underlying contract against any claim brought by the third party beneficiary (i.e. the Principal). 

The High Court held that the normal measure of damages available to a Principal for incomplete or defective work under a construction contract is the cost of completing the work or remedying the defects, less any sum that would have been payable to the contractor had the work been properly carried out.

Accordingly, they allowed the Subcontractor to set off the Balance to reduce the damages award payable.

Please contact our Construction team for more information.

August 2021


Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Electricity lines 1, trees 0

On seven occasions during an eight year period, pine trees growing in a commercial forest...

Electricity lines 1, trees 0

News & Insights

Electricity lines 1, trees 0

On seven occasions during an eight year period, pine trees growing in a commercial forest fell onto an electricity line running through the forest causing damage to the line. In a recent judgment, the Court of Appeal held that the owner of the trees was liable to the owner of the line for the damage caused.



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


Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Retentions Regime to be Strengthened

The Government recently proposed to introduce changes to the Construction Contracts Act...

News & Insights

Retentions Regime to be Strengthened

The Government recently proposed to introduce changes to the Construction Contracts Act (CCA) seeking to strengthen the retentions regime. The Construction Contracts (Retention Money) Amendment Bill (Bill) proposes a number of clarifications and requirements on the retention regime under the CCA.  We run through the main elements of the changes.


What are retentions?
 
Retentions secure performance obligations under a construction contract. A retention is used as a form of security for a party such as a Principal to ensure that the other party (Contractor) performs its obligations under the construction contract. Retentions are generally held until final completion or until the end of the defects liability period.
 
Issues have arisen where the party holding a retention (Party A) has become insolvent, and the party whose funds are being held (Party B) is left unable to access those funds due to the being comingled with the holding party’s other funds.
 
The Bill purports to deal with these types of scenarios.
 
Key Proposed Changes
 
If the Bill passes in its current form, it would mean any party holding a retention, Party A, must hold that retention:

  • as soon as possible, either:
    • in a separate bank account or accounts at a registered bank in New Zealand; or
    • in the form of a complying instrument (such as a guarantee or insurance policy) that requires an insurance company or a bank to pay to Party B an amount equal to the retention money if Party A does not pay the retention money to Party B when required by the construction contract;
  • on trust (thereby placing fiduciary obligations on Party A as a trustee);
  • with adequate recording measures; and
  • along with updates to Party B on the status of the retention every three months after first advised.
The aim of this change is to ring-fence the funds ultimately due to Party B after final completion so that they cannot be used by Party A for daily business.
 
The Bill reiterates that all common law rules and equity doctrines apply to the fiduciary relationship between the parties. Party A must act in the best interests of Party B, and Party A cannot use retention funds for any purpose other than to remedy any defects in Party B’s performance or payment obligations.
 
Importantly, as retentions will be subject to a trust, they cannot be used by a liquidator or receiver to meet Party A’s other debts, thereby protecting Party B from Party A’s creditors. If Party A becomes insolvent, the liquidator or receiver becomes the trustee of the retention. 
 
Party A must keep all of Party B’s retention money under a particular contract in the same account. While there can be other retention money in that account, the bank account cannot be used for any other purpose. If a single account is used for multiple parties’ retention funds, Party A must keep proper accounting records showing to which party and which contract each payment into or out of the account was made. If Party A becomes insolvent, the liquidator or receiver must continue to collect, manage, and disburse the retention as if they were Party A.
 
Consequences of non-compliance
 
There are severe consequences if the above process is not followed. Failure to comply is an offence, with a maximum penalty of up to $200,000 for the company and $50,000 for each director. It will be a defence to prove that: (a) Party A took all reasonable steps to ensure that it complied with its obligations, or (b) if the defendant is a director, they took all reasonable steps to ensure that Party A complied with its obligations.
 
What next?
 
If implemented, the legislation will provide construction companies with strict but clear guidelines on how they need to treat retentions while providing reassurance to contractors that the funds will not be misused – or at least that sanctions exist if they are. From there, it is up to the contracting parties to decide whether this is the best form of security and incentive for the applicable contract works, taking into account the cost of administration and risk.

June 2021


Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Overseas Investment in New Zealand

Replacement of Temporary Emergency Notification Regime with new National Security and...

Overseas Investment in New Zealand

News & Insights

Overseas Investment in New Zealand

Replacement of Temporary Emergency Notification Regime with new National Security and Public Order Regime
On 25 May 2021 the Government announced the emergency notification regime (ENR) would end, at least until further notice. The ENR was part of the Government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic and came into force in June 2020 under the Overseas Investment (Urgent Measures) Amendment Act 2020. The ENR was required to be reviewed every 90 days thereafter with Ministers required to assess whether the effects of the pandemic justified the ENR remaining in place. 


Associate Finance Minister David Parker said in a statement on 25 May 2021, that “our successful management of the health impacts of the pandemic and the recovery of the economy, with lower unemployment and stronger growth than forecast last year, mean we can remove the temporary protection.”

Transactions entered into from 7 June 2021 will not be subject to the ENR, although transactions entered into prior to this date will still be subject to the notification requirement. Further changes coming into force shortly under the Overseas Investment Amendment Act 2021 mean that the ENR may be reinstated where there is an emergency justifying such reinstatement.

National Security and Public Order Notification regime

The ENR will be replaced by a call-in power – known as the national security and public order notification regime (NSPO).  This regime will apply to transactions entered into on or after 7 June 2021. 

The NSPO regime will apply to investments in strategically important businesses (SIB) that would not ordinarily require consent under the Overseas Investment Act 2005 (Act). The NSPO regime will allow the Government to “call-in” certain transactions and consider whether such investments pose a risk to national security and public order, and gives the Government power to impose conditions on these investments (or if required, to block or unwind the transactions) when it is considered they give rise to significant national security or public order risks. It is intended that the call-in power will be used as a backstop power only and interventions will be rare and only used where necessary. 

Strategically Important Business

A SIB includes a business:

  • that researches, develops, produces or maintains military or dual-use technology;
  • that is a critical direct supplier to New Zealand’s intelligence and security agencies (refer to LINZ’s website for the list of published critical direct suppliers, but please note that some suppliers will be unpublished);
  • involved in electricity generation (with a total capacity exceeding 250 MW), distribution, metering or aggregation;
  • involved in drinking water, wastewater or stormwater infrastructure;
  • involved in telecommunications infrastructure or services;
  • that is a financial institution or involved with financial market infrastructure;
  • that is a media business with significant impact; or
  • that develops, produces, maintains or otherwise has access to sensitive information (being genetic, biometric, health or financial information) of certain agencies or relating to 30,000 or more individuals.
In most cases the threshold is $0 and 0% ownership for an investment in a SIB, however there are exceptions to this, being investments in media businesses with significant impact, where the threshold is more than a 25% ownership or control interest, and investments in a listed issuer, where the threshold is 10% or more.

Notification to the Overseas Investment Office

Mandatory Notification:

Where there is an overseas investment in a SIB involved in the research, development, production or maintenance military or dual-use technology, or is a critical direct supplier, notification of the transaction is mandatory and notification must be made to the Overseas Investment Office (Office) before a transaction is given effect to. 

Voluntary Notification:

For all other transactions not subject to mandatory notification, notification to the Office can be made on a voluntary basis, and this can be done either before or after the transaction is given effect to. Provided there are no national security and public order concerns, prior notification means investors have the benefit of knowing the transaction would not be called-in at a later date for review. Transactions that are not notified can be called-in for review at any time.

Review by the Overseas Investment Office:

The Office has indicated that it will complete an initial assessment within 15 working days of notification, and where it determines there may be a national security or public order risk, the transaction will be considered by the Minister of Finance, which may take up to 40 working days, (together with a further period of 30 working days, if required).

There is therefore clear benefit in a prior notification, even if voluntarily, though plainly there will be circumstances where a judgment call can be made as to whether the business really is of any strategic importance. We would tend to err on the side of caution here.

Following the initial assessment, and provided the transaction does not pose a risk to New Zealand’s national security or public order, a direction order will be issued. Each direction order will be issued with an automatic condition that the investor must not, in relation to the SIB, act or omit to act with a purpose or an intention of adversely affecting national security or public order. Further conditions may also be imposed by the Office.

If you would like further advice on these or changes, please contact any lawyer in our real estate or commercial teams.
 
June 2021


Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Greenwood Roche becomes a Keystone Trust sponsor

Greenwood Roche has recently had the privilege of joining the Keystone Trust whanau as...

News & Insights

Greenwood Roche becomes a Keystone Trust sponsor

Greenwood Roche has recently had the privilege of joining the Keystone Trust whanau as a proud sponsor.


Keystone Trust’s fundamental goal is to support and enable students who have financial need or have been affected by adverse circumstances to take up tertiary studies in the property sector.

The Trust believe that this can only be achieved by working with others with the same value, vision and integrity – from students to sponsors, friends and supporters. 

Being able to contribute to the future capability and capacity of the property and construction sector through the Trust gives us the opportunity to ‘pay it forward’. Standing alongside a young person as they grow and develop into their potential is an enormously fulfilling experience and one we look forward to doing with Keystone.


Download as a PDF
Close window
x

Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act 2020: A New Approach to Infrastructure Funding

The Government has recently developed a number of initiatives, including the Urban Development...

Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act 2020: A New Approach to Infrastructure Funding

News & Insights

Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act 2020: A New Approach to Infrastructure Funding

The Government has recently developed a number of initiatives, including the Urban Development Act 2020 (UDA), the National Policy Statement on Urban Development (NPS-UD) and the COVID-19 Recovery (Fast-track Consenting) Act 2020, designed to support the functioning of urban environments and eliminate barriers to their creation throughout  New Zealand.


As part of this package of initiatives, the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Act 2020 (“Act”) passed its final reading on 22 July 2020 and received royal assent on 6 August 2020. The Act looks to ensure that a lack of funding at local government level does not continue to constrain development. Using the Act, developers can now access a new funding structure that will allow them to raise the funds and finance necessary for large-scale projects themselves (rather than rely on local government), with repayments made by future owners through rates on the developed land.

As noted by Auckland Mayor Phil Goff, “Traditional approaches to infrastructure funding and financing are not working. Constraints on council debt levels means viable infrastructure projects are postponed for years, despite the pressing need for more housing in these high-growth areas.”

The new funding model provides an alternative funding mechanism in a bid to accelerate the development of housing in particular. The Act received cross party support and is designed to complement existing funding tools available to local government.

Milldale Model

The financing structure set out in the Act is modelled on the structure utilised in the Milldale development in North Auckland. For Milldale, a special purpose vehicle (SPV) was set up to oversee a residential development project. The SPV raised initial capital from investors, proposing to pay them back by an annual ‘infrastructure payment’ added to the rates bill. Payments will initially be made by the developer and, in time, by the section owners.

The infrastructure payment obligations are secured by an encumbrance on each title, meaning the obligation to meet the payment runs with the land and binds any subsequent owners. In the Milldale example the payments are $650 + 2.5% interest per annum for apartments and $1000 + 2.5% interest per annum for homes and will last for 30 years.

While the Milldale development is still in the construction phase it is already clear that the model has enabled acceleration of the project and therefore faster delivery of affordable housing in Auckland.

How will The Act Work?

The Act adopts a very similar model to the Milldale model, by allowing the use of multi-year levies in large scale development that place the cost of infrastructure on those who will benefit directly from it. Levies will be able to be proposed for the provision or improvement of the following:
 

  • new water services infrastructure;
  • transport infrastructure;
  • community infrastructure or community facilities; or
  • environmental resilience infrastructure.
The process for creating an SPV and initiating levies will broadly involve the following:
 
  • The making of a detailed levy proposal to the government;
  • The proposal must include, among other matters, details of the SPV proposed, the financing structure and who will be responsible for construction;
  • The Minister for Housing and Urban Development as “recommender” will consider the levy proposal with reference to a number of factors and in consultation with the relevant local authorities and make a report to the responsible Minister (a Minister to be confirmed by the Prime Minister);
  • The report will include an assessment of the proposal, a recommendation and endorsement from the relevant levy authority;
  • The Responsible Minister may then recommend the Governor-General accept the levy (but may not amend the terms of the proposal).
Once a levy order has been made, the SPV will borrow funds to finance the infrastructure and set an annual levy that will be collected by the relevant local authorities on behalf of the SPV to pay back the borrowing. Vesting agreements will ensure that the conditions of any transfer of ownership of the infrastructure are clear. An encumbrance will secure payment of the levy by all future owners of the properties to benefit.

Commentary

Support for the Act has been reasonably wide as it is generally agreed that addressing infrastructure funding issues will enable faster provision of housing in areas where demand has been eclipsing provision. All major parties supported the Act, which then Infrastructure New Zealand CEO Paul Blair commented would “enable a bolder, more streamlined way of delivering new infrastructure for the benefit all New Zealanders”.

The Act will work with the direction in the NPS-UD that local authorities must have particular regard to plan changes for “out of sequence” (ie not zoned) development in some circumstances. In most cases “out of sequence” development will not be serviced by infrastructure, nor will the funding for requisite infrastructure be part of the local authority’s short to medium term plans. The combination of the NPS-UD and the Act will provide an avenue for development to take place in response to the ever-rising demand for housing outside of that already anticipated.

As summarised by the Minister for Urban Development:

“We need to remove restrictive planning rules that stop our city expanding on the fringes, which creates an artificial scarcity of land and drives house prices up, and remove height and density rules that stop the city growing up, which, effectively, rations floor space. Local authorities need to plan ahead and make room for growth.………

This bill is part of our Government's policy response to that public policy failure. It's one step towards fixing a broken funding and financing system to support more and better urban development. It’s complemented by the National Policy Statement on Urban Development gazetted this week, joint spatial planning work with local government in our six high-growth metro cities, and the Hon David Parker's review of the Resource Management Act.”
 
For any questions on the Act please don’t hesitate to contact Lauren Semple or Francelle Lupis for further information on the Urban Development Act, the NPSUD and the COVID-19 (Fast-Track Consenting) Act 2020, see here.


September 2020


Download as a PDF
Close window
x

See more news & insights
img_homepage_column3.jpg

People

Barry Walker – Partner

Barry has specialist expertise in a wide range of construction & engineering, infrastructure...

Barry Walker

Jeannie Warnock – Partner

Jeannie specialises in commercial property.  She is recognised as pre-eminent adviser...

Jeannie Warnock

Kelly Johnson – Principal

Kelly is an experienced lawyer specialising in commercial property with particular experience...

Kelly Johnson

Jane McDiarmid – Principal

Jane is a senior lawyer with over 20 years’ experience in commercial transactions and...

Jane McDiarmid

Rob Harris – Senior Associate

Rob has a wide range of experience in property and construction projects, in particular in...

Rob Harris

Rachel Murdoch – Senior Associate

Rachel joined Greenwood Roche in November 2014 after completing her law degree at the University...

Rachel Murdoch

Jordan Ropati – Senior Associate

Jordan is a specialist construction lawyer with substantial experience across a wide range...

Jordan Ropati

Michael Bennett – Associate

Michael joined Greenwood Roche in 2019 after gaining a range of experience in full service...

Michael Bennett

See more people
img_homepage_column4.jpg

Contact Us

Full details are provided on the Contact us page.

Auckland

Phone: +64 9 306 0490

Fax: +64 4 494 8501

Email: Email Us

Email: Email Us

Physical: Level 12
2 Commerce Street
Auckland 1010

Mail: PO Box 106006
Auckland 1143

Map: Open a Google map

Auckland

Map
x

Wellington

Phone: +64 4 494 8500

Fax: +64 4 494 8501

Email: Email Us

Email: Email Us

Physical: Level 13
36 Customhouse Quay
Wellington 6011

Mail: PO Box 25501
Wellington 6140

Map: Open a Google map

Wellington

Map
x

Christchurch

Phone: +64 3 353 0570

Fax: +64 4 494 8501

Email: Email Us

Email: Email Us

Physical: Level 3, 1 Kettlewell Lane
680-690 Colombo Street
Christchurch 8011

Mail: PO Box 139
Christchurch 8140

Map: Open a Google map

Christchurch

Map
x
Return to top

There is a marked difference

in the way Greenwood Roche operates. From the outset we have focused on clearly defined specialist areas, retaining highly respected legal experts in each field. We then take that further; ensuring clients have direct and regular access to the most senior partners and lawyers, in a cost efficient manner.

Close contact with experts and clear cost advantages

We advise on a range of significant public and private sector projects. To ensure our specialists are always where they’re needed, we operate as one office with hubs in Auckland, Wellington & Christchurch.