NEW ZEALAND Trends and Developments Contributed by: Alex Neal, Violet Yu, Sandy Chen and Jonathon Russell, Cone Marshall Limited
Active Investor Plus (AIP) Visa The Active Investor Plus (AIP) visa allowed applicants to live, work and invest in New Zealand indefinitely and two investment categories were introduced under this visa route, namely growth category and balanced category. From 1 June 2026, there are changes to the growth category that will enable applicants to invest in phi - lanthropy which is capped at 20% of the total invest - ment made in New Zealand. Previously, investment was required to be for an amount of NZD5 million over three years focusing on higher risk direct investments, managed funds and venture capital. While the law change allows AIP visa holders to invest in residential property with a value of at least NZD5 million subject to the property meeting qualifying requirements, the visa holder should be careful with potential tax implications when acquiring a home in New Zealand and being present for more than 183 days over a 12-month period. This is because of the potential trigger of tax residency in New Zealand. Therefore, AIP visa holders should seek New Zealand- based tax advice before acquiring a residential prop - erty in New Zealand. Trusts Act 2019 and Alternative Dispute Resolution When the Trusts Act 2019 was enacted in New Zea - land, it introduced the application of alternative dis - pute resolution procedures. The Trusts Act 2019 is no longer new, given it was enacted in the previous decade. However, it is still often referred to as “new” because many provisions have yet to be tested and applied in court. Section 145 of the Trusts Act 2019 is one such provi - sion. Pursuant to Section 145, New Zealand courts are empowered to submit a trust dispute to an alter - native dispute resolution (ADR) process even though the parties have not subjected themselves to ADR by agreement. The terms of the trust deed may contract out of Section 145 by expressing a contrary intention. The application of the ADR process for trust disputes was tested in the case of Gatfield v Hinton [2026] NZSC 60. The dispute in this case related to an estate in which the sole executor of the estate was one of the
beneficiaries; she was in dispute with her two other siblings in relation to one of the estate properties, a lakeside bach. The three beneficiaries disagreed as to whether the bach should be sold; there was also the context of agreements between the executor and the other two beneficiaries on selling the executor’s interest in the property based on the two beneficiaries’ agreement to sell the bach. The executor applied for the dispute to be submitted to an ADR process. The court considered its power under Section 145 to do so and whether the dispute related to “internal matters only” pursuant to Section 145 (3). There were argu - ments against the dispute being an internal matter, given that there were already pending proceedings in relation to the estate. However, the Supreme Court ordered the dispute to go through the ADR process, given that it was an internal family matter, which satis - fied the requirement for the order to be made under Section 145. This case is a significant development in relation to the application of the ADR process under the Trusts Act 2019 where the courts have the power to subject parties to a trust dispute to mediation or arbitration for internal matters. Trusts and Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015, a per - son conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) has a duty to, so far as is reasonably practicable, look after the health and safety of all its workers and any other workers it influences or directs, by maintaining a work environment minimising health and safety risks. This includes being responsible for people who are customers, visitors, children and the general public coming into the workplace or the facility. WorkSafe is a government regulator for workplace health and safety which enforces the legislation. The issue in the case, RH and JY Trust v WorkSafe New Zealand [2026] NZCA 12 is whether a trust can be considered a “person” and hence a PCBU liable under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. In this case a young child was tragically killed on a farm, by being caught in machinery. The farm, considered a workplace, was owned by the trustees of a trust. WorkSafe accordingly laid charges against various
502 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook