What the courts found when they reconstructed
what directors believed was adequate
HSWA prosecution analysis. Public record cases where governance systems that felt adequate were judged differently under scrutiny.
The Pattern Across 40 Prosecutions
We analysed 40 HSWA prosecutions from 2016 to 2026. For each case we asked one question: what was the state of the company's governance before the incident that triggered prosecution?
Three patterns emerged.
Believed adequate — 27%
Systems existed. Policies were in place. Directors believed governance was sound. The court found gaps they didn't recognise.
Known gaps unaddressed — 54%
Evidence of prior warnings, deferred action, or audit findings that were not implemented. Many of these directors would have described their systems as “in progress.”
Genuinely unaware — 19%
No systems, no policies, no governance framework. Almost exclusively operators with fewer than 10 staff.
The critical finding: the “known gaps” cohort splits in two. Some companies made conscious decisions to defer action. Others commissioned audits, received findings, and let remediation slip without anyone formally deciding not to act. The directors in the second group experienced their governance identically to those who believed it was adequate. They didn't know the gap existed.
When you account for this, roughly 45% of prosecuted companies were led by directors who believed their H&S governance was working.
Having a Consultant Did Not Protect Them
Of the 40 cases analysed, 9 companies had confirmed external H&S support — external consultants, commissioned audits, internal H&S teams, or industry-level safety oversight.
All 9 were convicted. Zero acquittals in the cohort that invested in external expertise.
In several cases the external support made the prosecution easier. A consultant's report documenting an unaddressed hazard becomes dated evidence of constructive knowledge. An audit with unimplemented findings proves the company knew what it needed to do and chose not to.
Having a consultant creates a record. If that record shows identified risks that were not remediated, it becomes prosecution evidence — not a defence.
Landmark Cases
The cases that define the current enforcement landscape for NZ directors.
Maritime NZ v Tony Gibson [2024]
Gibson expanded the H&S team. He introduced the PortSafe management system. He commissioned a KPMG audit. The judge acknowledged he was a conscientious CEO.
He was convicted because the court found he could not demonstrate that those investments translated into operational outcomes. Exclusion zones were undocumented and unenforced. Night shift monitoring was absent. The gap was between the system he believed he had and the system investigators reconstructed.
Personal fine: $130,000 + $60,000 costs.
Point Lumber Ltd + Sean Sloper [2025]
In 2017, Point Lumber hired an external H&S consultant. The consultant identified an unguarded conveyor belt and recommended safeguarding. Neither the company nor the director implemented the recommendation.
In 2022, 23-year-old Ethyn McTier was entrapped in that conveyor belt and killed. In 2025, both the company and the director were convicted. The consultant's report — five years old — was the prosecution's strongest evidence: a dated record of a known hazard that was never addressed.
Director fine: $60,000. Company fine: $250,000. Reparation: $140,000.
WorkSafe v NZSki Limited [2023]
NZSki's own 2015 internal risk assessment identified 28 fence posts as likely to cause high-speed collisions. Management approved padding for 9. Eight years later, a skier hit an unpadded post and died.
The court convicted NZSki. The hazard was correctly identified, rated, and recorded. The failure was a governance-level decision about resource allocation against a known risk.
Fine: $440,000 (from $550,000 starting point).
RH and JY Trust v WorkSafe [2026] NZCA 12
The Court of Appeal ruled that trusts can be prosecuted as persons under HSWA and that trustees are “officers” under Section 44. This extends personal officer liability to the most common ownership structure for NZ farms and family businesses.
WorkSafe v Pakiri Logging + Earnslaw One [2021]
Both companies commissioned external H&S audits in 2018. The audits identified specific safety issues. Neither company took corrective action. In 2019, a worker was killed.
Both companies were convicted. The audits were not a defence. They were evidence of constructive knowledge — proof that the companies knew what needed to be done and did not do it.
Pakiri Logging: $468,000. Earnslaw One: $288,000. Combined reparations: $256,408.
WorkSafe v Whakaari Management / Buttle Directors [2023]
Whakaari Management Ltd was convicted. Three Buttle directors were acquitted — not because their governance was adequate, but because the Crown could not establish sufficient evidence of individual culpability. Operational management of tour activities was diffuse enough that personal responsibility could not be pinned to any one officer.
The company conviction was subsequently quashed on appeal on separate grounds (land ownership alone does not trigger the s37 PCBU duty). The officer liability analysis remains unchanged.
Company: $1,045,000 fine + $4.88M reparations (quashed on appeal). Directors: acquitted at close of Crown case.
Other Cases That Show the Pattern
WorkSafe v Kimberley Tool & Design / Jon-Brian Parker [2021]
Three Improvement Notices issued by WorkSafe before the incident. All three unactioned. Press unguarded. No emergency stop. Haphazard training. First successful prosecution and sentencing of a director under HSWA.
Director: $35,000. Company: $120,000. Reparation: $30,000.
WorkSafe v Waste Management NZ Ltd [2022]
Five hydrogen sulphide alarms activated and ignored before a worker was overcome. No hazardous substance register. Improper labelling. Inadequate worker instruction. The alarm system existed. The response system did not.
Fine: $450,000. Reparation: $250,000. Consequential loss: $100,000.
WorkSafe v Car Haulaways Limited [2021]
Wire ropes severely corroded. Four recorded falls from heights in 2017–2018. None escalated to remediation. Inadequate inspection and maintenance systems. The incidents were recorded. The response loop was absent.
Fine: $279,000. Reparation: $90,000.
WorkSafe v CentrePort Limited [2019]
Safe procedures existed on paper but were not implemented. Ladders not tied off, in poor condition, no edge protection — despite documented procedures requiring these controls. Prior WorkSafe conviction cited as an aggravating factor.
Fine: $506,048. Costs: $36,425. Reparation: $170,000. Consequential loss: $85,952.
WorkSafe v Safe Business Solutions Ltd [2024]
The first prosecution of an H&S consultancy as a PCBU. The consultant promised and failed to deliver a traffic management plan. A worker was struck by a telehandler. Conviction upheld on appeal.
Consultant company fined approximately $70,000.
What This Means for Directors
The prosecution record does not support the assumption that good intentions or reasonable investment in safety provides protection.
Directors are not convicted for being negligent people. They are convicted because the governance system they believed was working and the governance system the court reconstructed were not the same thing.
That gap — between internal experience and external reconstruction — is what the H&S Stress Test is designed to reveal. Before scrutiny arrives.
You have never seen how an investigator would reconstruct your governance. The Stress Test shows you.
All cases referenced are matters of public record. Sources include WorkSafe NZ prosecution outcomes, District Court judgments, and published legal commentary from Russell McVeagh, MinterEllisonRuddWatts, Bell Gully, Hesketh Henry, and Simpson Grierson.