{"id":508584,"date":"2026-07-03T22:27:09","date_gmt":"2026-07-03T22:27:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/508584\/"},"modified":"2026-07-03T22:27:09","modified_gmt":"2026-07-03T22:27:09","slug":"samnic-forest-management-directors-appeal-against-costs-rejected-by-high-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/508584\/","title":{"rendered":"Samnic Forest Management directors\u2019 appeal against costs rejected by High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

Hayes, Funnell, Fortune and Samnic appealed the order in Auckland\u2019s High Court on nine grounds, claiming the court had erred or wrongly applied various aspects of the Resource Management Act, along with a separate appeal claiming there was no evidence of personal acts or omissions by the directors in their duties.<\/p>\n

Justice Andrew Becroft released his 44-page judgment this week.<\/p>\n

Lawyer Fletcher Pilditch, on behalf of Samnic and its directors, argued the failure to seek enforcement orders until 2025, more than two years after Samnic had left the forest, was unfairly prejudicial.<\/p>\n

Pilditch submitted current issues may be because of Woodlett\u2019s failure to maintain the site, not Samnic\u2019s fault.<\/p>\n

Becroft rejected this argument, referring to the Environment Court\u2019s finding the council had \u201cactively involved\u201d itself in trying to ensure compliance and noted the site had a history of compliance issues.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe application for enforcement orders did not come out of the blue. It came at the end of an escalating enforcement process that included a prosecution.”<\/a><\/p>\n

Pilditch argued it was unfair to impose enforcement orders against the three directors because they were part of a larger group of people involved in the venture and were paid \u201cvery limited\u201d directors\u2019 fees.<\/p>\n

He said they could lose their family homes to pay for the clean-up.<\/p>\n

Becroft acknowledged the \u201chuman dimension of this decision for them was palpable\u201d for the directors, but found they were responsible for ensuring the company complied with its consents and the RMA. As such, it was not unreasonable to impose personal liability on them.<\/p>\n

\u201cPresumably, the directors have the ability to mount a civil claim against those who were employed to do the front-line work. Equally, there may be a right to claim contributions (personally) from the other, as I understand it, 17 directors of the other blocks.\u201d<\/p>\n

Becroft dismissed Samnic and its directors\u2019 appeals.<\/p>\n

Woodlett submitted a cross-appeal, arguing the Environment Court should have apportioned liability between the parties based on their contributions to the compliance issues.<\/p>\n

It argued its culpability was less than Samnic\u2019s, as it did in the Environment Court.<\/p>\n

Justice Becroft was unconvinced, describing the submissions as \u201cquite plainly attempts to relitigate and recast the facts as found by the Environment Court\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe submissions focus on the points in Woodlett\u2019s favour, but notably ignore the more adverse findings made by the Court against Woodlett. The Environment Court\u2019s decision quite clearly sees Woodlett\u2019s faults as significant in causing the compliance issues at the forest.\u201d<\/p>\n

The court stated Woodlett should have been monitoring RMA compliance in the forest and noted Woodlett had not undertaken any substantive maintenance in the forest since 2022.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn my view, the court was aware of all the matters it needed to be in deciding not to apportion liability,\u201d Becroft wrote.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere was clearly some difficulty in assessing the respective culpability of the parties in a complex situation (where one party had failed to remedy issues prior to leaving the forest and the other had failed to undertake any of the required maintenance since).\u201d<\/p>\n

Samnic Forest Management, along with its forest manager Forest Management Solutions, pleaded guilty in 2024 to representative charges of contravening the Resource Management Act<\/a> for discharging contaminants to land where it may enter water, and carrying out unlawful earthworks at the site.<\/p>\n

The forest, which mostly lies within areas identified as the district\u2019s most erodible land in the Tair\u0101whiti Resource Management Plan, was harvested between 2015 and 2022.<\/p>\n

Woodlett owns the land and started replanting compartments of land in 2018. From late 2022, the company was solely in charge of the forest.<\/p>\n

Samnic managed the forest and had overall responsibility for the commercial harvesting of pine trees.<\/p>\n

The council issued abatement notices in 2017, 2018 and 2022, with concerns raised about the standard of certain infrastructure and harvesting practices.<\/p>\n

Prosecutions started towards the end of 2022.<\/p>\n

Hayes said the directors were disappointed with the outcome of the appeal.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe have not had time to seek advice as to the next steps.\u201d<\/p>\n

Environmental group Mana Taiao Tair\u0101whiti was a party to the court proceedings under section 274 of the Resource Management Act, representing the interests of the environment downstream from the site.<\/p>\n

Spokesman Manu Caddie said the decision should be \u201ccarefully read by every company director operating in New Zealand\u2019s forestry sector\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cDirectors cannot simply point to contractors, ownership structures or commercial agreements. If they oversee activities that damage the environment and fail to ensure legal compliance, they themselves may face enforcement action.\u201d<\/p>\n

Gisborne District Council said it could not comment on the case because it was still before the courts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Hayes, Funnell, Fortune and Samnic appealed the order in Auckland\u2019s High Court on nine grounds, claiming the court…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":508585,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[9092,6375,17094,682,138,3595,139257,1656,802,1349,6948,12513,3247,12506,305,2959,156070,1362,1044,111,139,69,26859,128308,89392,38606,253377],"class_list":["post-508584","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-business","tag-against","tag-appeal","tag-avoid","tag-being","tag-business","tag-by","tag-cleanup","tag-company","tag-costs","tag-court","tag-directors","tag-failed","tag-forest","tag-gisborne","tag-have","tag-high","tag-liable","tag-made","tag-management","tag-new-zealand","tag-newzealand","tag-nz","tag-operations","tag-personally","tag-prosecuted","tag-rejected","tag-samnic"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/508584","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=508584"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/508584\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/508585"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=508584"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=508584"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=508584"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}