We have all come across disclaimers of some sort. Whether a ‘use at own risk’, ‘don’t try this at home’ or ‘check with your doctor/lawyer before acting upon this information’, the concept isn’t new to us. Yet how much can we really rely on these? At what point can people disclaim their own liability, and when do they have to take responsibility for their actions and advice?

 

 

Where do you start?

A core starting point begins with section 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 which disallows anyone in trade, from engaging in conduct which is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive. If someone can show that they merely passed on the information, with no reason to believe that it was misleading or deceptive, then such a disclaimer may be relied upon.

 

What are some examples?

In the case of Goldsboro v Walker, Mr Oborn wished to buy a motel. He was initially declined but he tried again, but named his mother-in-law as the purchaser, and forged her signature. His solicitor, Mr Fleming, sent the agreement to the solicitors, but Mr Oborn never completed the purchase. In the Court of Appeal, Mr Oborn was found to be in breach of section 9 as he was not merely passing on the information, but represented that he was acting for the mother-in-law. It did not matter that he thought the assertion to be true.

 

What if you just “convey” information?

This is where the concept of passing over information comes into play. The case law suggests that if someone clearly communicates that the information they are giving has not been assessed by them, but is merely passed on, they can exclude their liability.

The Supreme Court in Red Eagle Corporation Ltd has emphasised that unless it is clear that the information has been passed on from another source, the conveyor takes the risk that the information will be understood to be personal knowledge. Informing the recipient gives them the opportunity to seek further advice and information.

Conveyors should be careful not to get involved in the information if they wish to keep the safety of the disclaimer. In Watson v Gilbert, despite putting a disclaimer in the financial information, the defendant was held to be more than a mere provider of information as he introduced the plaintiff to the investment programme and encouraged the investment.

 

What does that mean for us?

If you are receiving information that comes with a disclaimer, you will generally have to accept that they have distanced themselves from liability. It will be your responsibility to do further research. However if they haven’t clearly explained that the information they are giving to you has been sourced from elsewhere, and that they haven’t been involved with it i.e. edited/added to the words, included the words in their own pamphlets etc., then you may be able to consider it as personal knowledge. If the information turns out to be incorrect, then you may be able to make a claim against them.

It is also worth keeping in mind that there may be specific rules that apply to you based on the type of industry you are in.  For example, Real Estate Agents are subject to rules around their conduct and it is difficult for them exclude those professional duties.  If you are uncertain about what applies and what you can exclude by way of a disclaimer then we would be happy to discuss with you to clarify.

 

This article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should talk to a lawyer about your specific situation. Please contact Steven Moe at Parry Field Lawyers (348-8480) stevenmoe@parryfield.com

What is Copyright?

Copyright is the set of legal rights given to the creator/owner of an original work. It prevents other people from doing certain restricted acts in relation to a copyright work without the permission of the copyright  owner. These restricted acts include (among others) the right to:

• Copy the work;
• Issue copies of the work to the public by sale or otherwise;
• Perform, play or show the work in public;
• Communicate the work to the public;
• Adapt the work; and
• Do any of the above in relation to any adaptation of the work.

There is no requirement to assert or register copyright in New Zealand. Copyright recognition in New Zealand arises automatically in various kinds of works if:

• The work is original; and
• The author is domiciled in New Zealand or in a prescribed foreign country or is a citizen or resident of New Zealand or of a prescribed foreign country

Who Owns Copyright?

The Crown is the first owner of any copyright in work made by a person employed or engaged by the Crown under a contract of service, a contract of apprenticeship, or a contract for services.
Subject to Crown ownership, and unless otherwise agreed, in most cases the author is the first owner of the copyright in a literary work.

However, unless otherwise agreed:

• if an employee makes a literary or artistic work  in the course of employment, the employer owns the copyright; and
• if a person commissions and pays or agrees to pay for the taking of a photograph or the making of a computer program, painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart, plan, engraving, model, sculpture, film, or sound recording, and the work is made in pursuance of that commission, the commissioning person owns the copyright.

Attribution

The author of a literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work that is a copyright work has the right to be identified as the author of the work whenever the work is published or communicated to the public (section 94).  The right to be identified as the author is not infringed unless the author has asserted the right be identified as author (section 96).

 

Use of Third Party Content

Where a third party owns copyright in content, you will not be entitled to copy or adapt that content or a substantial part of it without the permission of the copyright owner or unless the copying or adaptation can be justified under an exception.

What is a Substantial Part?

What constitutes a substantial part of a copyright work is a question of ‘fact and degree’. The quality or importance of what has been taken is much more significant than the quantity. Copying a part of a copyright work that by itself has no originality will not normally be copying a substantial part of the copyright work.
Copyright protection is not focused on originality of ideas but on originality of expression. The importance of the copied part to the original copyright work as a whole is assessed to determine whether it forms a substantial part of the original copyright work.
Originality tends to lie in the detail with which the basic idea is presented. The greater the originality, the greater the protection that copyright law will afford it.

Objective Similarity

Even if another copyright work has been copied, the copyright won’t necessarily have been infringed unless the copy is objectively similar to the original. It is possible to take underlying ideas and concepts that are expressed in a copyright work and express those ideas in a significantly different way which therefore does not infringe copyright.

There is limited clear case law, though, on what counts as objective similarity. In one case, the Judge said ‘a copy is a copy if it looks like a copy’.

Causal Connection

It is also necessary to show that the infringing work was actually copied directly or indirectly from the original copyright work.

Altered Copying

Taking the ideas expressed in a copyright work and expressing those ideas in a different words and in a different format may produce new content that is not causally connected with or objectively similar to the original work.
However, copyright will still be infringed if the altered copy has ‘incorporated a substantial part of the independent skill, labour etc. contributed by the original author in creating the copyright work’.

Fair Use Exceptions

There are a number  of fair dealing and other exceptions under New Zealand’s Copyright Act 1994.

 

 

Every situation is unique so please discuss your situation with a professional advisor who can provide tailored solutions to you.

 

Kris Morrison – krismorrison@parryfield.com

Clean Water Package Controversy

The government recently announced its Clean Water Package. The release has caused considerable controversy, largely around the proposed target of 90% of rivers and lakes being ‘swimmable’ by 2040 and, in particular, the E.coli guidelines for swimmable rivers being 540 E.coli per 100mls.

The Green Party and Labour Party were vociferous in their criticism of the government’s announcement largely because the amount of E.coli that can be present in swimmable water has doubled.As well, Forest and Bird advised the Minister for the Environment, Dr Nick Smith and the Minister for Primary Industries, Nathan Guy that it was withdrawing from the Land and Water Forum. Forest and Bird is a very influential pressure group in this arena; it took legal action in relation to the proposed Ruataniwha Dam and that matter is still being litigated.

The Land and Water Forum brings together groups of stakeholders such as industry groups, electricity generators, environmental and recreational bodies, iwi, scientists and other organisations with a stake in fresh water and land management. The purpose of the forum is to try to develop a common direction for fresh water management and provide advice to the government on this issue. There are 67 non-government participants, and 13 central and local government partners that include local authorities and various government departments.
The issue of fresh water standards for waterways is highly political and is likely to remain this way in the foreseeable future.

Where to from here for farmers?

Where does this government announcement leave farmers? Is their position any different from that set out in our article in the Autumn 2016 issue of Rural eSpeaking which covered the Resource Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 which, when (or if), enacted will give the government power to prescribe regulations to fence waterways?
In answer to the questions posed above, the release of the Clean Water Package doesn’t change the position of farmers at all. Sheep and cattle have been identified as major contributors to the level of E.coli in rivers and streams, and any attempt to control levels of that bacteria will involve keeping animals out of those waterways as far as possible.

The government’s tinkering with the definition of ‘swimmable’ will have little effect on the need to keep animals as far as possible away from our streams and rivers.
As much as anything, the current furore over the government’s package shows that the issue remains highly political – particularly with 2017 being an election year. There are well-funded and high-powered pressure groups involved; farmers cannot expect any relaxation in the fencing proposals that are currently on the table.
Interestingly enough shortly after the Clean Water Package was announced, the Environmental Defence Society released a report entitled ‘Last Line of Defence: Compliance, monitoring and enforcement of New Zealand’s environmental law.’

Local authority compliance

One of the areas that the report examined was resourcing, as well as the technical capacity, for local authorities’ compliance functions. While the report noted that regional authorities have been demonstrating increasing technical capacity for their compliance function, there is still a concern that there is political influence on decision-making, including the allocation of resources.
Clearly, monitoring compliance with the fencing of rivers and streams is going to impose a considerable burden upon our regional and unitary authorities.
In the meantime, however, we will keep you informed on the debate around the Clean Water Package.

 

Copyright of NZ Law Limited, 2017

This article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should talk to a lawyer about your specific situation. Please contact Paul Owens at Parry Field Lawyers (348-8480) paulowens@parryfield.com

 

New Zealand has a similar takeovers regime to that in other Commonwealth jurisdictions like Australia and England.  There are specific rules which govern when a takeover offer will need to be made and the process around doing so.  This article sets out the key thresholds involved and points to be aware of if an acquisition in New Zealand is being considered.

 

Where are the rules set out?

Takeovers are governed by the Takeovers Code which became law 15 years ago.  The purpose is to make sure that the acquirer of shares in a company complies with certain rules when certain thresholds are met.  This means that shareholders are informed where there is a potential change of control of the company they own shares in.

Which companies do the rules apply to?

The rules only apply to certain “Code Companies” which are only New Zealand registered companies that:

• have (or recently have had) listed shares that trade on the NZX; or
• have 50 or more shareholders who hold voting rights as well as 50 or more share parcels.

What are the key thresholds?

The fundamental threshold is 20% because acquisitions of shares which will take a shareholding above 20% are caught by the Takeovers Code.  In measuring this the percentage held by associates is also examined.  Such acquisitions must be done in compliance with the rules.

A takeover offer can either be a partial or full takeover offer.  Full takeover offers mean the offeror has to receive a minimum level of acceptance of the offer.  So if the offeror does not reach more than 50% then the entire takeover fails.

This is in contrast to a partial takeover offer where the offeror makes an offer for only some of the shares.  Whether it is successful will depend on the level that is sought – if for more than 50% then the acceptances need to be above that level.  If for less than 50% then shareholders vote for or against the offer – so the offer needs to get to the percentage specified and also be approved by a majority of the shareholders.  As this indicates, these rules are more complex than a full takeover.

The following are also important percentages to be aware of:

• 50% shareholding: As mentioned above, this is important in the context of a takeover to determine what rules apply;
• 5% creep: is permitted each year over a 12 month period for Shareholders who already own more than 50%; and
• 90% threshold: compulsory acquisition of shares is permitted above this level because they have become a dominant owner.

Conclusion

This short summary of some of the key points regarding takeovers in New Zealand is brief and the specific circumstances of any situation will need to be examined.  If you have a target in mind then it would pay to discuss the context of that particular proposal with your advisers to obtain input on the best approach to adopt as one size will not fit every situation.

 

This article is not a substitute for legal advice and you should talk to a lawyer about your specific situation. Should you need any assistance, please contact Kris Morrison at Parry Field Lawyers (348-8480) krismorrison@parryfield.com