Client Update: February 2021

COVID-19 updates

No Jab – No Job?

One of Aotearoa’s largest retirement village providers recently stated that anyone hired to work at its facilities would need to consent to receiving the COVID-19 vaccination.  It also stated that if an existing employee objects to receiving the jab, then it will look to manage the risk through personal protective equipment (PPE), particularly when borders open and the risk of a COVID-19 outbreak may increase.

So, can employers actually require job applicants, or existing employees, to show they have received the COVID-19 vaccination to be offered, or keep, their employment? 

The starting point here is that there can be no blanket, or even a ‘one size fits most’, rule.  Instead, a case-by-case approach will be required, and risk assessments will need to remain dynamic as the circumstances change. 

Requiring confirmation of vaccination pre-employment, or requiring existing employees to be vaccinated, could be considered a breach of the Human Rights Act 1993.  Relevant prohibited grounds of discrimination under that Act include religious belief, ethical belief or disability.  There are some exceptions based on avoidance of risk.  The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 also states that a person is entitled to refuse medical treatment, which will include being vaccinated.

Balanced against the rights and protections in those Acts, employers are also required under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 to take all reasonably practicable steps to ensure employees’ (and others’) health and safety.  That Act requires an assessment of the type of work being performed, the worker’s own circumstances, and, as part of both, considering the available steps to avoid or mitigate risks (such as risk of contracting or spreading COVID-19).

The availability (or otherwise) of a vaccine would also clearly affect all of this.

The extent of any community transmission, and so of risk of infection, would also be relevant.  

We suggest that if you are looking at how to approach the ongoing risks of COVID-19 for your business, you contact us for tailored advice about what measures you can put in place.

Financial assistance

There are several kinds of financial support available for businesses and workers.  Some of the new subsidies available include:

• Resurgence Support Payment: this helps businesses affected when there is a change from Alert Level 1 to higher Alert Levels for a week or more. The payment will help cover wages and fixed costs.  There is a standard payment available for each eligible business, with an additional payment for each employee, up to a total of 50 full time equivalent employees.  Eligibility criteria includes a 30% drop in revenue or capital raising ability over a 7-day period following the increased Alert Level. Other criteria also apply;

• Short-Term Absence Payment (STAP): this is a one-off payment of $350 for each eligible worker who needs to miss work while they (or a dependent or close contact) waits for a COVID-19 test result, in accordance with public health guidelines.  An employer can apply once for each eligible employee in any 30-day period, or more frequently if the employee has been told by a health official or doctor to get another test;

• Leave Support scheme: this is a lump sum payment to cover 2 weeks’ wages for employees who are required to self-isolate and cannot work from home;

• : the Government has announced wage subsidies will be available again if we move to Alert Levels 3 and 4 anywhere in New Zealand for 7 days or more.  The support would be provided in two weekly payments for the duration of the Alert Level period.

More information on these, including criteria, can be found at www.covid19.govt.nz.  We are also happy to assist.

In other COVID-19 related news:

• COVID-19 vaccinations for border workers started last week.

• The first Employment Court judgment on COVID-19 lockdown wages was released just before Christmas 2020: Gate Gourmet New Zealand Ltd v Sandhu.    

Employees were paid at 80% of their wages during lockdown, with the option of using annual holiday entitlements to top up to 100%.  The minimum wage rate increased during lockdown, and an issue arose about whether that increase had to be applied to the payments made.  The majority of the full Employment Court held the Minimum Wage Act 1983 applies only to hours actually worked.  That means there is no statutory minimum wage entitlement for times when employees are not working.  There may be other basis for payment (e.g. contractual) but this was not addressed in the case. 

More Employment Court judgments addressing obligations and entitlements during lockdown are expected soon.  Watch this space.

Other employment law changes

• A Bill has been introduced to increase minimum sick leave entitlements from 5 days per year to 10 days per year.
• The Government has announced a new public holiday – the first in almost 50 years.  The new Matariki public holiday will be first observed next year, on 24 June 2022.  The date will change each year, and will usually occur at the end of June and the beginning of July.
• Minimum wages rates will increase from 1 April 2021.
• The Government has also accepted all the recommendations made by the Holidays Act Taskforce, and new Holidays legislation is expected to be introduced in early 2022.

For any advice from our employment law specialists, either call us on 04 801 5427, or contact us via email:

Paul McBride (Partner) – paul@mdjlaw.co.nz

Guido Ballara (Partner) – guido@mdjlaw.co.nz

Frances Lear (Senior Associate) – frances@mdjlaw.co.nz

Saadi Radcliffe (Solicitor) – saadi@mdjlaw.co.nz

Emma Rose Luxton (Solicitor) – emmarose@mdjlaw.co.nz

Disclaimer – this newsletter is necessarily brief and general in nature.  You should therefore seek professional legal advice before taking any action in relation to any matter addressed above.  © McBride Davenport James

Over the past few weeks there have been a number of significant developments affecting employers, including introduction of new privacy and employment legislation, and the first (of likely many) cases dealing with employers reducing wages to 80% without consent during lockdown.  Information about these are set out below.

New privacy legislation

New privacy legislation was passed by Parliament in late June.  There are a number of new obligations on businesses, including:

• A legal obligation to notify both the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, and affected individuals, of any breach of privacy if that breach poses a risk of serious harm.  Penalties can be awarded for a failure to notify;

• The Privacy Commissioner will now have the power to demand release of personal information (before it could only make recommendations);

• The Privacy Commissioner will be able to issue compliance notices: failure to comply may result in fines of up to $10,000.  New criminal offences are also introduced;

• The new legislation governs cross-border disclosures, with controls on disclosing New Zealanders’ personal information overseas; and

• Application of the new law to businesses dealing with New Zealanders’ personal information, whether they have a legal or physical presence in New Zealand or not.

This new law comes into force on 1 December 2020.  Please let us know if you require any advice on this.

Triangular Employment Relationships

A new law came into force on 27 June 2020 allowing employees to raise a personal grievance against not only their employer, but also any “controlling third party” who has control or direction over the employee’s work.  Employers can also apply to add a “controlling third party” to personal grievance claims brought by their employees.

A triangular employment relationship is where a worker is employed by one employer, but works under the control or direction of another.  Secondment arrangements may be impacted, as well as organisations who engage temporary workers/contractors from labour hire or personnel/recruitment companies (as well as the labour hire or personnel/recruitment company itself).

The criteria for adding a controlling third party to a grievance claim include that there is an arguable case the third party’s actions caused or contributed to the grievance, and notification timeframes were complied with.   Different 90-day timeframes apply for notification to the controlling third party by either the employer or employee:

• By the employee: 90-days beginning with the date on which the action alleged to amount to a personal grievance occurred or came to the notice of the employee (the standard timeframe);
• By the employer: within 90-days of the personal grievance being raised with the employer (this is new).

This means that a “controlling third party”, previously shielded by contractual arrangements being between the worker and labour hire agency (or other employer), now has legal exposure to any grievances that an employee may raise.  Assuming the employee is successful on their claims, and that the actions of the controlling third party caused or contributed to the grievance, the controlling third party may be ordered to pay reimbursement of wages and/or compensation.  The extent to which the actions of both the employer and the third party contributed to the situation must be taken into account in determining what remedies are payable by each.

That means that where the controlling third party no longer has work for the person to do, it might not be as simple as notifying the original employer/labour hire company.   As usual, the best defence for any personal grievance is by acting justifiably, including by being as fair and reasonable as possible in the circumstances. This could involve the third-party consulting with employees hired on contract if a situation that will affect them arises.

If you are a labour hire or recruitment company, your legal position is not necessarily altered, but we suggest that it is best practice for you to keep communication lines open with your employees and clients, addressing any problems before they arise. If a personal grievance is raised, you and your client might both need to respond to the employee.

Covid-19 updates

Recent cases

Recent Employment Relations Authority determinations consider whether an employer’s decision to pay staff 80% of their wages during lockdown, without the consent of those employees, constituted an unlawful deduction under the Wages Protection Act 1983 and/or their employment agreements.  The result in both cases was the same: reduction of wages to 80% of usual salary or wages, without the consent of employees, was unlawful.

In one case, Sandhu and others v Gate Gourmet New Zealand Limited [2020] NZERA 259, reduction of wages to 80% resulted in employees being paid less than their minimum wage entitlements, which was unlawful under the Minimum Wage Act 1983.  The employer argued that no money was owing as the employees were not working.  The Authority disagreed. 

Gate Gourmet provides inflight catering services at Auckland airport.  Although it is considered an essential service, there was very little work to do and it had to partially shut down operations.  Employees were entitled under their employment agreement to be paid minimum wage for full time employment (minimum 40 hours a week).   Employees were offered three options: (a) take all of their entitled annual leave, (b) be paid 80% of their normal pay, or (c) be paid 80% of their normal pay and use their annual leave entitlements to supplement their income to receive 100% of their normal pay.  Although there was initially some agreement, the union later objected on the basis Gate was not entitled to reduce the pay of any employee below the minimum wage of $756 per week for a full-time employee. 

The Authority found that the parties cannot contract out of the Minimum Wage Act 1983, so the agreement or otherwise of the parties to the proposal was irrelevant. If the employees were ready, willing and able to carry out their function in an essential industry, then Gate was required to pay at least the minimum wage regardless of any agreement they may have made to the contrary.  The employees were entitled to be reimbursed the shortfall in wages.  No penalty was awarded however because of the difficult and complex situation the parties found themselves in as a result of the pandemic.

In the second case (Raggett and others v Eastern Bay Hospice Trust t/a Dove Hospice [2020] NZERA 266), after Dove Hospice’s retail stores were closed, employees were paid 80% of their wages and then made redundant.  The employer extended the notice period to provide employees with additional financial support during lockdown, with the first half of the notice period to be paid at 80%, and the second half at the wage subsidy rate.  This was also considered to be unlawful:

• None of the grounds for deducting money from wages set out in the employment agreement covered the circumstances caused by Covid-19 restrictions;
• The workers were ready and willing to work.  They would have been able to fulfil their obligations under their employment agreements had it not been for the Covid-19 restrictions and Dove Hospice’s decision to not require them to work;
• There was a contractual obligation to pay, and no consent to deduct from, full wages;
• Where Dove Hospice extended the contractual notice period, it could not then set a different remuneration rate for that.  The extended notice period at a new rate would have been allowed had employees agreed to that – here it was imposed on them.  

The Authority ordered Dove Hospice to pay the shortfall in wages.  The question of whether a penalty should be ordered has been left open, until the second part of the claim dealing with the dismissal on grounds of redundancy has been heard. 

These are early cases and the approach taken by the Authority cannot be taken as the last word on the subject.

The Employment Court also dealt with an application from a former employee to freeze the assets of the employer on an interim basis, which was granted. The employee’s claim includes that she was only paid the wage subsidy during lockdown, instead of her usual wages, and was eventually dismissed.   The Court has not yet considered this claim, or issued a decision on reduction of wages during lockdown – watch this space.

In the meantime, several recent cases have dealt with the more general issue of remote participation in the Covid-19 environment. The Employment Court has shown a willingness to progress matters by allowing the hearing of evidence by audio-visual link. The Court has also granted applications to serve documents on defendants living outside of New Zealand. It is assumed there will be no opportunity to attend a hearing from overseas (at least in the near future) and so those cases are likely to proceed by AVL also.

Wage Subsidy Extension

In other Covid-19 related news, the Wage Subsidy scheme has ended.   The Wage Subsidy Extension scheme is currently available.  Applications are open from 10 June to 1 September 2020.  Employers can apply to cover the wages of their employees for an 8-week period.

There have been some changes to the criteria for accessing this support.  To qualify, employers must have experienced at least 40% decline in revenue for a continuous 30-day period, as compared to the closest period in 2019.  The relevant 30-day period must be in the 40 days before an employer applies for the Wage Subsidy Extension.  The decline must be Covid-19 related.   The business must also have taken active steps to mitigate their loss. 

The employees named in the application for the Wage Subsidy Extension must be retained for the duration of the subsidy extension.  If an employee has been made redundant, a Wage Subsidy Extension application cannot be made for that employee, unless the redundancy notice is cancelled and the employee is re-hired.

Employers must try their hardest to pay employees at least 80% of their usual wages.  There is no criterion about what ‘trying their hardest’ looks like.    If that is not possible, then at least the wage subsidy extension rate must be paid.   Consent issues will arise.

The Government has confirmed there will be no further wage subsidy support available after 1 September, though other support remains available, including income relief for people who have lost their jobs as a result of Covid-19 and small business loans.

For advice from our employment law specialists, either call us on 04 801 5427, or contact us via email:

Paul McBride (Partner) – paul@mdjlaw.co.nz

Guido Ballara (Partner) – guido@mdjlaw.co.nz

Frances Lear (Senior Associate) – frances@mdjlaw.co.nz

Saadi Radcliffe (Solicitor) – saadi@mdjlaw.co.nz

Emma Rose Luxton (Solicitor) – emmarose@mdjlaw.co.nz

Disclaimer – this newsletter is necessarily brief and general in nature.  You should therefore seek professional legal advice before taking any action in relation to any matter addressed above.  © McBride Davenport James

COVID-19 Newsletter #4 – Moving to Level 3 – What you need to know

New Zealand is (currently) moving to Level 3 at 11.59pm on Monday 27 April. The guidance from the Government on this Level indicates that there are some businesses that may reopen if they can operate safely.

The Government has also indicated that some preparation to reopen at Level 3 can occur during Level 4, but only if that preparation occurs in accordance with the requirements of Level 4.

We provide further guidance on what this may mean for you below, and keep in mind that the situation (and industry guidance) is constantly evolving.

Can I reopen under Level 3, and how?

Whether you can reopen depends on the risk of spreading the virus associated with your business. WorkSafe has released guidance to assist you in conducting your own risk self-assessment, which requires you to consider how you can:

• address the risks associated with COVID-19, as well as risks that may arise due to a return to operations; and
• understand the practicalities of changing work arrangements; and
• be confident that new health and safety practices will enable your staff and their families to remain well.

A quick guide on the kind of self-assessment you need to undertake can be found here: file:///C:/Users/emmarose/Downloads/839WKS-5-HSWA-identifying-assessing-managing-work-risks.pdf

If you’re planning on reopening, you will need to complete a written safety plan. More information about that can be found here: https://worksafe.govt.nz/managing-health-and-safety/novel-coronavirus-covid-19/your-covid-19-safety-plan/

The Government has released some general guidance for specific industries and has indicated there is more to come. Industry organisations may also release specific guidance for certain sectors and kinds of workplaces. We have collated some general guidance in the table below.

Note that if you reopen or are open, regardless of your industry, you must record who is working together, limit interaction between groups of workers, disinfect surfaces, ensure that staff keep at least one metre away from each other, and maintain high hygiene standards. Most workers will not require PPE to stay safe at work (if you haven’t already had to use PPE): this especially applies to retailers, manufacturers and the service industries.

Can I undertake some preparation to reopen, and how?

If you need to, for instance, prepare for reopening by unpacking and preparing stock, you may undertake this kind of work but only if you observe the current rules for Level 4.

The requirements for operating under Level 4 can be found here, and can be understood as strict social distancing and stringent hygiene measures: https://covid19.govt.nz/alert-system/current-covid-19-alert-level/

Does this affect the wage subsidy?

No, if you have applied for and received the wage subsidy your obligations to your employees remain the same, regardless of whether you are open, reopening, or neither.  

Is there anything else I need to know?

If you are unable to open under Level 3, you may be able to reopen under Level 2. The Government has indicated that at Levels 1 and 2, for instance, retail and hospitality may open for customers to come into the physical store, subject to the public health measures required at those alert levels. Restrictions on gatherings will also apply.

We recommend that if you’re unsure about what operating safely under Level 3 will look like for you, you keep an eye out for Government guidance in the following days, contact any industry organisations who may have more specific guidance, or reach out to us with your questions.

The advice provided here is general and may not apply to your own situation. For specific advice, we recommend you talk to one of our experts (all currently working from home). You can call us on our mobile numbers listed below, or contact us via email, and please stay safe:

Paul McBride (Partner) – paul@mdjlaw.co.nz or 021 614 215

Guido Ballara (Partner) – guido@mdjlaw.co.nz or 021 782 891

Frances Lear (Senior Associate) – frances@mdjlaw.co.nz or 021 237 7811

Saadi Radcliffe (Solicitor) – saadi@mdjlaw.co.nz or 021 557 236

Emma Rose Luxton (Solicitor) – emmarose@mdjlaw.co.nz or 021 751 247

Disclaimer – this newsletter is necessarily brief and general in nature.  You should therefore seek professional legal advice before taking any action in relation to any matter addressed above.  © McBride Davenport James

NEWSLETTER #2 – EMPLOYMENT IN the COVID-19 ERA

Changes to COVID-19 Subsidies – What you need to know

The Government’s COVID-19 response has evolved since our last newsletter on this topic dated 18 March 2020. We’ve put together some FAQs to guide you through the changing landscape.   This is correct as at time of issue, however in a fast moving environment, with regular changes, the position on each point should be checked:

Can we dismiss an employee for misconduct during the subsidy period?

There are no apparent changes to established employment law regarding dismissal (including dismissal for misconduct/serious misconduct). That means a dismissal must still be justified as a course of action open to a fair and reasonable employer in all of the circumstances at the time, including the process followed in making the dismissal. One applicable ‘circumstance will be the current lockdown.   Another consideration might be practical inability to recruit/replace.  ‘We also note the possibility that the Government may reclaim a portion of any wage subsidy paid out relating to a dismissed employee.

What do we do with subsidy funds if the employee employment is terminated within the 12 weeks?

WINZ has emphasised that, where wage subsidy applications have been made after 4pm on 27 March 2020, employers will be in breach of their obligations under the subsidy if they do not retain those employees over the 12-week subsidy period.

In receiving the subsidy, employers also agree to repay the subsidy or any part of the subsidy paid if they fail to meet any of the obligations about how they must use the subsidy. It is not crystal clear whether repayment is required in cases of termination for misconduct (see above) but funds received for employees who are made redundant inside the 12 weeks are, in our view, likely to be reclaimed by the Government. The safest view is that while the subsidy is payable to the employer, it is ultimately for the benefit its employees, and so not for the employer to distribute or withhold in any manner it otherwise considers appropriate.  The sole exception to that seems to be where the subsidy received exceeds the usual wages of the employee (in which case the excess can be used for other wage costs).

Can we submit another claim if we find we have not claimed correctly or the rules have been subsequently modified?

Yes, additional applications can be made for employees not already covered by previous applications. (You cannot however apply for the same employee more than once).

What if staff refuse to work based on a fear of contracting COVID-19?

Only ‘essential’ staff may work at all during the level 4 lockdown (other than remotely), so we confine our answer to that. You can check if your business is essential here:  https://covid19.govt.nz/government-actions/covid-19-alert-level/essential-businesses/

Staff may refuse to work under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 if they believe, on reasonable grounds, that carrying out the work would expose them (or any other person) to a serious risk to their or the other person’s health or safety arising from an immediate or imminent exposure to a hazard.

Staff can also refuse to work by way of a (lawful) strike under the Employment Relations Act 2000 if they have reasonable grounds to believe such action is justified on grounds of health and safety. The assessment of risk made by staff must be “real and not far-fetched,” and must be sufficiently serious as to justify participation in such a strike.

These are high thresholds for staff members to satisfy. Given this, a staff member’s subjective, generalised fear is not likely to satisfy the high threshold required.

That situation may change.  For example, if the rate of the virus’ spread within New Zealand increases, there is widespread non-compliance with the lockdown, or should the circumstances change at any workplace (any staff member at that workplace contracting COVID-19, for example). Changes by Government could also impact.

For you this means that, if the risk remains generally low in New Zealand, and specifically low in your workplace, our view is that you are not required to pay essential staff who refuse, on a generalised basis, to work and have not agreed to use any of their leave entitlements to cover their absence (notwithstanding the requirements of the wage subsidy, see the FAQ below).

There are however reasonably practicable steps that you can and should investigate taking to lower the risk (such as PPE, hygiene procedures, and arranging shifts to limit any spread).  We note also that an employee’s refusal to work where a specific issue is raised but not addressed, could very well mean payment was still required.  Worksafe’s general guidance on potential steps can be found here: https://worksafe.govt.nz/managing-health-and-safety/novel-coronavirus-covid-19/workplace-preparedness-for-novel-coronavirus

We also recommend that before taking any steps not to pay essential staff, you discuss this further with them, with a view to their understanding what steps you have taken, and the consequences of refusing to work (in terms of payment).   Ultimately there are very real practical  issues: what can you realistically do in this environment if staff maintain refusal?  Legal action or disciplinary action (even if possible) are unlikely to achieve a motivated / committed workforce.  Discussion and seeking to accommodate any real issues is more likely to maintain staffing.

Can we claim the Wage Subsidy for all full-time workers regardless of their sector worked in? i.e. can we claim for staff being paid in full who are still working in essential services?

Yes, you can apply, subject to the eligibility requirements.  The subsidy is based on the financial effect of the virus on the business overall, not on whether employees are still able to work.

How do we claim for, and pay, casuals or part-time employees who only work for a few hours per week? i.e. if a worker only works up to $100 worth of hours in a week, what do we pay them via the subsidy?

The wage subsidy is a flat rate, and for those working less than 20 hours per week, the subsidy is $350 per week (gross) (up to 12 weeks).

What to pay part-timers is now also relatively clear – you will need to pay any part-time worker the full subsidy or if their normal weekly wage is less than the subsidy, that lesser amount.  “Normal” may though create calculation problems, in which case WINZ currently suggests (if hours are “variable”) averaging the worker’s hours each week over the last 12 months (or if employed for less, over the period of employment).

Casuals WINZ currently says are to be approached in the same way, but the guidance indicates that to be eligible, the worker would have to have been ‘expected to work’ during the time you will receive the wage subsidy. If so, and if after averaging they qualify for the full-time subsidy rate (over 20 hours), you will then need to pay them accordingly.

Note though, for any worker, if their usual pay is less that the applicable wage subsidy rate, you just pay usual pay (and can retain the rest of that week’s subsidy in your ‘wage bucket’ for use towards other wages payable).

Leave Subsidy?

The Government has announced folding the Covid ‘leave’ payment into the wage subsidy scheme. You can no longer apply for this subsidy. Finance Minister Grant Robertson has said: “We are working on arrangements for those in essential work who require sick leave due to COVID-19.” We recommend that you check for updates on how this may be addressed. 

Issues also arise for non wage subsidy qualifying employers, who had previously been able to rely on leave payments.   Government is considering these issues.

We have applied for the wage subsidy. Can we pay an employee only 80% of their normal pay if they are not available to work due to the current ‘lock-down’?

You cannot make unilateral changes to your employee’s pay. The Government has confirmed that your usual legal obligations to staff remain unchanged by the lockdown. That means that any change from a staff member’s current entitlement requires an established legal basis. You cannot unilaterally reduce hours or pay; agreement is ordinarily required. This will be complicated if staff are part of a collective agreement, because you cannot agree anything inconsistent with a collective agreement.

Next, and ordinarily speaking, you are not required to pay staff who are not able to work (other than through fault by the employer) and not on some kind of leave.

However, the Government’s wage subsidy has changed that landscape. The stated intention of the wage subsidy is to keep staff paid and in employment during the lockdown, regardless of their specific scenario. That means you are required to use your best endeavours to pay your staff at least 80% of their usual pay, and only if you are unable to do this, the full value of their applicable subsidy (whether full or part-time, or lesser if usual pay is lesser). This is therefore essentially a new type of government subsidised leave. It does not affect any staff member’s entitlements to annual or sick leave.

We view this subsidy as an obligation to pay staff during the level 4 lockdown at least the value of the applicable wage subsidy (unless usual pay is less, in which case you can pay less), regardless of whether they are not able to work for personal reasons (such as childcare requirements, or they are in self-isolation), or cannot work because you are not operating. The Government has indicated that audits following the lockdown will address any employer non-compliance.

Changes to the Minimum Wage – What you need to know

Minimum Wage increase

The Minimum Wage increased with effect from 1 April 2020.  MBIE’s guiding on that (relative to COVID-19) can be found here.  https://www.employment.govt.nz/leave-and-holidays/other-types-of-leave/coronavirus-workplace/covid-19-minimum-wage/

The key point is that the minimum wage relates to hours actually “worked”; it does not relate to hours where no work can be done.   MBIE appears to adopt a similar view to our own of the (absence of) legal obligation to pay wages where no work can be done, however an obligation to pay the wage subsidy and 80% of usual as a part of that.

Where businesses are unable to process the increase due to the lockdown, they should communicate that openly and clearly to employees. Employers will need to backdate pay at a rate of $1.20 per hour worked since 1 April 2020.

The answers provided here are general and may not apply to your own situation. For specific advice, we recommend you talk to one of our experts (all currently working from home). You can call us on on our mobile numbers, or contact us via email, and please stay safe:

Paul McBride (Partner) – paul@mdjlaw.co.nz or 021 614 215

Guido Ballara (Partner) – guido@mdjlaw.co.nz or 021 782 891

Frances Lear (Senior Associate) – frances@mdjlaw.co.nz or 021 237 7811

Saadi Radcliffe (Solicitor) – saadi@mdjlaw.co.nz or 021 557 236

Emma Rose Luxton (Solicitor) – emmarose@mdjlaw.co.nz or 021 751 247

Disclaimer – this newsletter is necessarily brief and general in nature.  You should therefore seek professional legal advice before taking any action in relation to any matter addressed above.  © McBride Davenport James