The NZ Port of Auckland decision is getting a lot of attention — but are officers drawing the right lessons from it?
POAL was decided in the context of an officer of a PCBU exercising due diligence in respect of that PCBU’s own business or undertaking (B&U) and duties owed to its workers.
Following that decision, officers may instinctively direct their business to take greater control over contractors and their safety arrangements, believing they have a duty to do so and that this will ensure legal compliance. But is this the best course of action — or can it lead to greater exposure and liability?
Applying the principles set out in the POAL matter to the B&U of another PCBU —for example, the B&U of contractors you hire —is a critical mistake— and one that undermines the best safety outcomes and unnecessarily exposes officers to greater legal risk.
It may seem straightforward, but we have seen many instances in which the exercise of due diligence extends beyond the boundaries of the PCBU whose B&U is the focus.
The questions are: What are officers’ obligations in respect of contractor safety management? How far do they extend? And what should officers actually be doing in this space?
Join Sam Dekker (Best Lawyers — One to Watch, Mills Oakley) and me as we unpack officer due diligence in a contractor-safety context — what it requires, what it doesn’t require, and where the boundaries lie.
📅 Wednesday 24 June 2026 | 🕑 2:00 PM
If you manage contractors, or advise those who do, this one’s for you.
Click here to register. ITS FREE!!!!