The brightline property rule applies
to properties purchased after 1 October 2015. It looks into what period the
property was acquired and when it is being sold. If the property is sold after
owning it for less than ten years, you may be obliged to pay income tax.
The date that the land of the purchased property is transferred to you is the
date the brightline period begins, and this date determines whether the 2, 5
or 10 year brightline period applies, which subsequently determines which
rules you are subject to. The brightline period ends the day you enter into a
binding sale and purchase agreement to sell the property.
The exclusions to this rule are property considered to be your main home,
inherited property or if you are the executor or administrator of a deceased
Roll over relief is applicable to relationship property settlements and
amalgamations, with full relief for transfers on death. The recently enforced
rollover relief allows for the owners of a property to change how the property
is held, without triggering the brightline property rule.
This also applies to certain transfers to family trusts and transfers to or
from look-through companies and partnerships, M?ori authorities and as part of
a settlement claim under the Treaty of Waitangi.
Rollover relief will only apply if the amount received on transfer equates to
or is less than the original acquisition cost to the owner. Where a larger
amount is received, no relief will be awarded, however the original owner will
be taxed based on this amount if this differs to the market value of the
Inside this edition
Rollover relief to the brightline rule
Overview of the Official Information Act 1982
Guarantees - Discussing anti-discharge clauses
A review of cross-lease issues
Climate change litigation - a visable legal remedy
Power of attorney medical certificates
124 Queen Street, Hastings
126 Queen Street, Hastings
The rollover relief rules apply to property that is sold on or after 1 April
2022, regardless of whether the original date of the property being acquired
was before the introduction of the brightline property rule.
It is important to note that the rollover relief does not provide an exemption
to the brightline property rule. Essentially it is relief of income tax when a
property is transferred, as it is ignored. In this instance, taxation is
deferred until later disposal. Once the property is sold or disposed of later
on, the date that the original owner acquired the property will be used as the
beginning date for the brightline period, which will help determine which
brightline period to apply.
Rollover relief is now in action as of 1 April 2022.
Information Act ("the Act") came into effect in 1982 in order to repeal the
1951 Official Secrets Act, with the purpose being to increase the availability
of official information.
Information that is governed by this Act is specified as information held by a
department, a Minister of the Crown or an organization, as per s 2. The Act
provides access to information relating to the public that is held by local
authorities, whilst being aware of public interest and mindful to the
preservation of personal privacy.
In order to access this information, you must be either a New Zealand citizen,
a permanent resident of New Zealand, a person who is in New Zealand, body
corporate that is incorporated in New Zealand or body corporate that is
incorporated outside of New Zealand but has a place of business in New
Zealand. When accessing information, the agency providing it must give
reasonable assistance in doing so.
Section 5 mandates that official information must be made available unless
there is a good reason for withholding it, while s 6 outlines these reasons as
being if the information is likely to:
* prejudice the security or defence of the Government of New Zealand; or
* prejudice the entrusting of information to the Government of New Zealand; or
* prejudice the maintenance of the law; or
* endanger the safety of any person; or
* damage seriously the economy of New Zealand.
The Law Commission in its 2010 review of the Act explained that information
requests are usually rather vague and end up seeking large amounts of
To combat this, the Commission suggested that when information is requested,
the agency which it is requested through should offer consultation into the
amount of information that is being requested and the amount of information
that is actually required. In doing so, this assists in clarifying the nature
of requests to ensure that it can be obtained efficiently, thus reducing time
In terms of timeframes, any agency that receives a request for information is
required to take no longer than 20 working days to decide if the request
fulfils the criteria mentioned above and can be granted, and to notify the
person who lodged the request of this decision.
There are certain limitations to the scope of rights the public can exercise
regarding official information. They cannot ask for an agency's opinion on any
issue as this would be interpreted as a request to create information, which
is not permitted under the Act.
It is also not permitted that an individual requests information about
themselves. If an individual does wish to obtain information on themselves,
this falls under the jurisdiction of the Privacy Act 1993, and is obtained by
a different process.
If you are wanting to make an official information request, the easiest way to
do so is via FYI.org.nz. This online tool ensures that your request is made
public and anyone can see your request and how this has been responded to.
Other ways to request information is to contact the agency via email, phone or
Most guarantees have an "anti-discharge" clause, these clauses are designed to
prevent a guarantor from being discharged from liability and allows the
creditor to vary the underlying contract without the guarantor being
discharged from their obligations.
One of the most referred to authorities is the case of Holme v Brunskill. In
Holme v Brunskill, the case involved the renting of a farm. The farm had sheep
on it and a bond was given in relation to the number and condition of the
sheep on the farm. A dispute
eventuated between the farm owner and the tenant.
The dispute was resolved by the tenant giving up half of the leased land and a
reduction of the rent payable, this was done without the knowledge of Mr
Brunskill who was the guarantor. Mr Brunskill argued that the reduction of the
land and rent was a variation of the underlying contract that discharged him.
The guarantee in this case was given for a certain number of sheep in a
certain condition from the farm as it was then rented to the tenant. The
actions of the owner and the tenant altered that commitment without the
consent of the guarantor and the outcome of the case shows that it does not
take a major alteration to discharge a guarantor but that it just has to be
more than substantial.
An example of an anti-discharge clause is from the case of Dunlop New Zealand
Limited v Dumbleton, it reads:
"In order to give full effect to the provision of this guarantee we hereby
declare that you shall be at liberty to act as though we were the principal
debtors and we hereby waive all and any of our rights as sureties (legal
equitable statutory or otherwise) which may at any time be inconsistent with
any of the above provisions."This provision
ultimately waived the rights of the guarantor to be discharged. However, the
ruling of Brunskill was applied and it was held that a variation of the
underlying contract automatically discharged the guarantors and therefore the
anti-discharge clause did not apply.
The Courts have since confirmed in further case law that the general
principles of contractual construction apply to guarantees and that a
variation of the underlying contract has the effect of discharging a guarantee
unless it is patently obvious that the guarantor has not been prejudiced.
What solutions are available and how might anti-discharge clauses work? There
are suggestions that notifying guarantors and obtaining written consent to
proposed amendments that are to be made might help avoid disputes arising,
even where the amendments appear to fall within the ambit of the
It is evident through case law that the drafting of principal debtor clauses
has given the Court some latitude to construe them in favour of the guarantor.
Therefore, in order to make an anti-discharge clause work, the drafting of
these clauses is likely to become more sophisticated and comprehensive over
GeIt is said that
a cross-lease is one of the most complicated forms of property ownership. A
cross-lease title creates two or more legal estates having multiple owners who
all have a separate lease for the house or flat with an undivided share in
ownership of the entire land/site.
The lease of the property can also include and specify exclusive use areas for
each house or flat, and with 216,000 cross-leases in New Zealand, owners,
prospective buyers and lawyers are most commonly facing the issue of consent.
When making alternations and/or additions to a property, unlike most property
ownerships where resource and council consent is all that is required,
cross-leases have historically required that all other cross-lease owners must
consent to such works.
In more recent times, alteration and/or addition clauses usually only require
that consent is to be obtained by the other cross-lease property owners when
the works are deemed to be structural.
What is a structural alteration or addition? Whilst this is unclear, you
should always have consideration to what affect your alteration or addition
will have on your cross-lease neighbour and how your proposed structural
alteration may affect their enjoyment of their property.
In the case of Ferguson v Walsh, the Court set out a list of different types
of alterations and advised whether they would require consent or not. It was
held that cosmetic changes do not require consent.
Other alterations such as loadbearing walls that impact the strength and
support of the building, or changes affecting the exterior shape or structure,
or that impact the use and enjoyment of the neighbouring cross-lease
properties, require consent.
The lease agreement wording will ultimately determine whether or not consent
is required. Where consent is required, section 224 of the Property Law
Act states that consent cannot be unreasonably withheld, however, it is noted
that where a neighbouring cross-lease owner is potentially negatively
impacted, they may have grounds to notify that consent is withheld.
Where consent has not been obtained, injunctions can be sought to put a stop
to the alterations/additions to the property.
If works have been taken out on the property and alterations/additions have
been made to the external dimensions at the property that are not shown on the
flat plan, this then creates a "defect" in the title which can be expensive to
To avoid issues arising from cross-lease property ownership, it is important
to seek legal advice and have the flat plan and lease agreement reviewed to
ensure that all rights and obligations as cross-lease property owner are
Understanding what obligations and restrictions are in place in accordance
with the lease agreement will minimize the risk of disputes.
However, where disputes do arise, clause 26 of the ADLS Memorandum 2018/4343
requires that disputes are to be referred to an arbitrator.
It is not new information that climate change poses as one of
the biggest threats to the planet. We are seeing unprecedented changes to our
environment. New Zealand became one of 33 countries to declare a climate
emergency in 2020. Although we are a smaller nation, New Zealand has made
consistent attempts to help combat climate change, such as banning plastic
bags and enforcing and upkeeping the decision to be nuclear free. However, the
real power for change lies in legislation, litigation and the unity of
Climate change litigation needs to be substantial in order to make a
difference. New Zealand currently holds responsibility regarding climate
change under the United Nations ("UN") Framework Convention on Climate Change,
the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. The UN Framework Convention
allowed political pressure to be put on developed countries, as their actions
have had the biggest impact on our environments state via greenhouse gasses.
Although united with other nations New Zealand is in a strong position to
fight climate change, our individual efforts lay in the Climate Change
Response Act 2002, our overarching legislation addressing this issue. There is
a large scope of climate change litigation in New Zealand courts, which could
suggest that it is a viable legal remedy. The world is currently in its worst
state to date in regards to the environment and the threat to humankind.
Consequently, the problems at hand are sometimes going to be too large for
litigation to fully remedy.
In these instances, courts can compromise by awarding damages.
With the three branches of government providing parameters over the courts
power and ability to award these damages, and climate change being a very
polarising topic that sees damages sometimes effecting the economic status of
businesses, Judges have reserved making large calls regarding the climate and
have left this down to politicians and world leaders. It was recently
discussed whether or not these Judges should become more involved in
traditionally government-made decisions. Although climate change litigation
cannot always fully remedy matters, it is nonetheless a powerful tool that can
be used in presenting ideas that challenge current standing legislation and
political ways of thinking.
Climate change is a huge issue that does not hold one solution, but legal
tools can be used in conjunction with one another to attempt to offer a viable
legal remedy. The climate cases that come before the courts today allow for
new ideas to be presented which can subsequently facilitate change and shift
Although legislation provides a framework and targets have allowed for hopeful
results, it is the power of litigation that is our most viable weapon in the
fight against climate change. It is our individual and intentional combined
effort that will see the most positive change take place. With the cooperation
of citizens, the incorporation of international treaties and the broad scope
of litigation we witness in our courts, we have started to see more positive
change and enthusiasm than ever before.
Power of attorney
In recent years the medical
condition of a donor under a power of attorney has become increasingly
important and therefore documented.
Medical certifications as to mental capability are of particular importance
both for property attorneys and personal care and welfare ones.
A certificate around mental capacity triggers the use of both enduring powers
of attorneys which have been either put in place in a timely manner, or
ordered by a court through the process covering the absence of such relevant
Doctors are most particular, as you would expect, when they put their
assessments of the donors in writing. They know that there will be a loss of
independence for their patient should the mental capabilities become impaired.
The grey area for all the professionals involved is the earlier stages of the
mental incapacity for any reason. The family begin to notice the changes, but
it does take some time before the power of attorney document can be
unconditionally used by the appointed attorneys.
It is important to check with your donor's
lawyer as to whether the medical certificates enable the attorney to commence
To obtain clarity, the wording of the medical certificates should be reviewed
carefully to ensure the full parameters of the legislation are complied with
while confirming inequivalently.
124 Queen Street East, Hastings
124 Queen Street, Hastings the top floor has been converted to a
self-contained apartment which is now available on Airbnb for inner city
Airbnb link to 124 Queen Street
Land Information New Zealand ("LINZ")
controls the holding of certificates of title in respect of each piece of land
in New Zealand.
There are additional rights and privileges that may be registered in document
form against any individual title and these must be cleared with LINZ when
they confirm the terms and conditions allowable by the registered proprietors
on such titles.
In many instances rights over the titles by other parties are either lodged by
councils whose services are to be secured or adjoining owners who are entitled
to rights in certain circumstances over the land.
These documents recording such additional rights are called encumbrances. One
of the best-known encumbrances is the
of way easement'.
A new offshoot is the
This option does not have a general range of terms and conditions, but grants
more limited and focused specific rights that may be reasonably sought to
enable adjoining properties to link more appropriately for both the adjoining
An example of how this document might work is if two properties needed a
structure between them, like a mirror to enable safe traffic flows. A very
specific helpful maintenance easement is able to be locked in for the benefit
of each piece of land. Your lawyer can help frame these documents while
checking their suitability.
126 Queen Street
Massive Music School's tutors are the best in Hawke's Bay. Providing a great
service at a great location with an incredibly easy to use booking system
Link to .massivemusic.school
If you have any questions about the newsletter items, please
contact me, I am here to help.
Scannell & Co - 122
Queen Street East, Hastings
(06) 876 6699 Mobile: (021) 439 567 Email:
information in this newsletter is to the best of the authors' knowledge true
and accurate. No
liability is assumed by the authors, or publishers, for any losses suffered
by any person relying directly or indirectly upon this newsletter. It
is recommended that clients should consult S J Scannell & Co before
acting upon this information.
Click here to subscribe to this newsletter