Webinar highlights: Understanding the implications of Gibson v Maritime NZ Appeal decision
The High Court has dismissed the appeal in Gibson v Maritime NZ, reaffirming the conviction of Tony Gibson, former CEO of Ports of Auckland, for failing to meet officer due diligence duties under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSWA).
The ruling has raised important questions about what this means for other CEOs and Officers under the law. The Forum hosted a webinar with health and safety lawyer Olivia Lund and health and safety expert Mike Cosman to unpack the implications of the appeal decision.
This series of webinar highlights recaps the key lessons shared by Olivia and Mike. You can also download the written summary of the webinar, which includes key facts from the appeal decision.
If you find the resources helpful, please like the share them.
Download written summary of the webinar here
1. The importance of closing the loop
The High Court acknowledged that Gibson was a dedicated, conscientious and diligent safety leader. However, the issue wasn’t a lack of effort – in fact, he had done a great deal – but that one critical element was missing: effective verification.
↓
2. The primary focus for Officers
Prosecutions of Officers are extremely rare, so the focus from this case isn’t about personal liability, but about keeping people safe. Drawing on his experience on both sides of the system, Mike reinforces that the primary focus for Officers should be clear: identifying and managing critical risks.
From a legal perspective, Olivia echoes that the High Court’s decision centred on the concept of credible information – how Officers verify that critical risk controls are actually working in practice.
Resource mentioned: CEO guide to risks
↓
A powerful reminder from Olivia that being on notice of deficiencies is a clear signal of which critical risks must be prioritised. It’s important to ensure the system improvements being made are effectively closing the gaps.
↓
4. Understanding where verification come from
A critical part of verifying critical risk controls is understanding where those verifications come from. Assurance activities need to reflect the full range of operations across locations, functions and working hours – not just during standard operating hours.
↓
5. High degree of interrogation
Officers aren’t expected to be across every detail or implement controls themselves. However, they are required to verify that systems are effective by actively interrogating the quality, limitations and credibility of information they rely on.
↓
6. Defining what good looks like together
Beyond focusing on critical risks within individual organisations, Mike points to a growing opportunity for organisations within the same sector to collaborate, share lessons and collectively define best practice in managing critical risks.
↓