In December 2024, we reported on the District Court decision in Maritime New Zealand v Gibson, which marked the first time a chief executive of a major New Zealand company, namely Ports of Auckland was convicted for failing to comply with officer due diligence duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA). You can find our article, and the facts of the case, here: Maritime New Zealand v Gibson [2024] NZDC 27975 - Insurance law in New Zealand

Mr Gibson appealed against his conviction and sentence, and the High Court has recently dismissed his appeal. The High Court confirmed that the District Court had correctly identified and applied the statutory test for officer due diligence under section 44 of HSWA and accordingly upheld the District Court decision.

The High Court rejected Mr Gibson’s arguments that the trial Judge imposed an impermissibly high standard of responsibility on him, or that he was treated as a proxy for the Port of Auckland’s own breaches of HSWA. Rather, the High Court confirmed that liability under s 44 of HSWA turned on whether reasonable steps were taken, within the scope of the role and influence held, to ensure critical health and safety systems were in place and were being effectively implemented and verified in practice.

The High Court also dismissed Mr Gibson’s appeal against the sentence. While acknowledging that the starting point adopted by the District Court ($140,000) was towards the higher end of the available range, the High Court held that the overall package of penalties was not manifestly excessive, having regard to the seriousness of the risk created and Mr Gibson’s senior position.

Comment

The High Court’s decision confirms that the District Court judgment continues to be an important reference point for officer due diligence obligations under HSWA.

The decision reinforces that personal liability as an officer under HSWA can arise where an officer fails to take reasonable steps, within the scope of their role and influence, to ensure critical risks are properly managed.

The decision also highlights the ongoing importance of verification. It is not enough for officers to rely on documented systems, policies, or high‑level assurances. Due diligence requires officers to take active steps to satisfy themselves that appropriate resources, processes and controls are operating effectively in practice.

Closely connected to this is the need for officers to understand how work is actually carried out, rather than how it is intended to occur on paper. While the High Court did not impose a standard of “ultimate responsibility”, it confirmed that meaningful oversight requires insight into real‑world operations, particularly where known high‑risk activities are involved.

Taken together, the District Court and High Court decisions send a clear message to senior leaders: officer due diligence under the HSWA is an active and ongoing obligation, and courts will closely examine what officers did to inform themselves, test assumptions about safety performance, and follow up on identified risks.

Read the decision on the Courts of New Zealand website here: Gibson v Maritime New Zealand [2026] NZHC 813 — Courts of New Zealand

Resources

Gibson v Maritime New Zealand – Appeal Decision

Fee Langstone