Dan Broadhurst

Qualifications

LLB Victoria University of Wellington 2010
Admitted to the Bar in New Zealand 2011
BEd Canterbury University 1998
Dip Teach Christchurch College of Education 1998

Community Activity

Official for Whakatane Surf Life Saving Club
Eastern Bay of Plenty Chamber of Commerce
Coach Eastern Bay of Plenty Junior Football League
Business house tennis

Contact

DDI: +64 7 926 2280
M: +64 21 853 799
E: dan.broadhurst@hobec.co.nz

Dan works out of Holland Beckett’s Whakatāne office, servicing the wider Eastern Bay of Plenty area.

Previous to the law, Dan worked as a primary school teacher in Christchurch, Wellington and London. Following overseas travel, Dan switched careers and undertook a law degree at Victoria University.

Following study, Dan worked in Whakatāne as a staff solicitor for three years where he gained valuable general experience. Subsequently, Dan drew on his rural interests and worked for Rabobank Whakatāne as a rural bank manager where he gained further financial and commercial experience.

In 2014, Dan cemented his passion for the law and the Eastern Bay joining Holland Beckett Law’s Whakatāne team. Dan is an Associate who advises clients regarding the different aspects of property and commercial law including trusts, leasing, farm and orchard sales, shareholder agreements and company structuring documents.

Dan also retains a generalised focus including relationship property and estate planning matters. He has a wide and varied client base including Māori trusts, farming and kiwifruit clients as well as private clients.

Outside of work, Dan enjoys spending time with his three young children Beau, Billy and Rosabella. Dan also enjoys surfing, tennis and running. He is a regular participant in the grueling Toi’s challenge.

Dan Broadhurst's Expertise

Rural & Agribusiness

Trusts, Asset Protection & Estate Planning

Property Law

Commercial Law

Dan Broadhurst's News & Resources

The Emissions Trading Scheme review was scrapped – what’s happening with forestry?

Last year, the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) was brought under the spotlight after a High Court hearing and Labour government led review. We have previously explained the ETS here. The ETS is governed by the Climate Change Response Act 2002 (the Act), putting a price on carbon emissions which certain industries must participate in. Every tonne of carbon emissions costs a credit, called a New Zealand unit (NZU). Participants who are emitters need to buy and surrender NZUs to the government to account for their emissions. NZUs can be invested or traded on the NZ ETS market. In 2021, auctioning was introduced where the Government sells NZUs to successful bidders. Auctioning allows the government to control the supply of NZUs, and therefore the emissions of participants, to meet its emissions reductions plan. The plan outlines the strategies and policies intended to achieve the emissions budget for 2022-2025. Five year emissions budgets are mandated by the Act to assist New Zealand’s overall goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. The Climate Change Commission’s advice regarding Amendment Regulations to the Act in July 2022 recommended allowing NZU prices to increase, and to maintain consistency with the emissions reductions plan. The Labour government declined to follow this advice in the Climate Change (Auction, Limits, and Price Control for Units) Amendment Regulations 2022, instead depressing the market, by artificially reducing the price of NZUs in the emissions reduction plan, leading to plummeting NZU prices and a judicial review. On 13 July 2023, the High Court found that Minister for Climate Change James Shaw made an error with his recommendations concerning the unit level and price control settings for 2023-2027 adopted in the Amendment Regulations. The Minister admitted not complying with the relevant requirements. The settings favoured by Cabinet did not accord with the 2025 target, and did not accord with or justifiably deviate from the emissions budgets and New Zealand’s contribution under the Paris Agreement. The Minister was directed to reconsider the decision. Around this time, the Labour government launched a review of the ETS on 19 June 2023. A summary of that review can be found here. There was consideration given to forestry restrictions, to drive up the price of NZUs, creating uncertainty in the future of the forestry market. The Government failed to sell the 15 million NZUs it made available during the four ETS auctions in 2023, as the clearing price was not reached. The units were consequently removed from the market. The failure to clear was largely due to the significant excess of units currently in circulation. On 6 December 2023, the day of the final auction of 2023, the honourable Minister Simon Watts put out a press release. He said that the new coalition government is scrapping Labour’s ETS Review. They want a “strong and stable” ETS that gives “businesses certainty and confidence”. The Minister held these as the reasons of the NZU auction failure. There was no suggestion of another review. On 12 December 2023, the Minister put out a second press release. The Government is considering a report from the Climate Change Commission as they prepare a second emissions reduction plan and have started “work on doubling renewable energy production”. What does that mean for forestry? Our current Government’s focus on “certainty” and “business” implies no significant changes will be made to the ETS in relation to forestry for the foreseeable future (presumably, within the next three years at least). Renewable energy seems to be the new government’s vehicle on the path to solving issues with the ETS. Forestry investors, and relevant stakeholders, can put to rest any concerns related to Labour’s review. It appears as though forestry is not a key focus that the current Government has in relation to the ETS. For now, all obligations and legal implications around carbon credits and offsetting remain unchanged. If you have any questions around these obligations, please contact our expert team here.

Dream home up in flames

So, after successfully entering into an Agreement for Sale and Purchase for the property of your dreams and having completed your due diligence, you rightfully decide to enjoy a celebratory tipple of having reached unconditional status. The phone then rings, it’s the Real Estate agent advising you of the catastrophically bad news the property has burnt to the ground. As purchaser what are your options in this dreadful situation? Assuming the form of the Agreement for Sale and Purchase is the Auckland District Law Society Tenth Edition 2019(2), the relevant provision is clause 5.2. The first enquiry is whether the damage to the property renders it untenantable and that it shall remain so at settlement. Here the property has burnt to the ground, this requirement is met. Your options now become two fold. The first (“Option One”) enables you to complete the purchase with a reduction to the purchase price equal to any insurance monies received by the vendor. Note however, if the vendor’s insurance company decides to reinstate the property for the benefit of you as purchaser, there will be no reduction to the purchase price. On the other hand your second option (“Option Two”) provides that you may cancel the agreement by written notice and receive your deposit back. Whist Option One may sound appealing in that you will get a brand new house on that fabulous location, the practicalities of the waiting for confirmation that the vendor\'s insurance company will pay out, together with the inability to move into your property until the new dwelling is completed (especially now so with Covid impacts on the building industry). Option Two is undoubtedly a quicker and more certain road to resolution. Not ideal but at least you can move forward and find the second best house of your dreams. The above discussion helps to illustrate your options on a “clear cut” factual scenario. In reality if you are ever faced with the above scenario, there may be further legal and practical considerations to be taken into account. If, for example, the damage was not as extreme, then the dwelling may be tenantable and different rules would apply and you may be forced to settle with a discount to the purchase price as the right to cancel only applies if the property is untenantable. Please do not hesitate to contact us as to your options in these situations.