Gibson v Maritime New Zealand [2026] NZHC 813 – Officer Due Diligence Confirmed
The High Court has dismissed the appeal of the former CEO of Ports of Auckland, upholding both conviction and sentence for failing, as an officer, to exercise due diligence under s 44 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015. The prosecution followed a fatal container‑handling incident involving crane and lashing operations at the Port in August 2020.
The appeal focused on whether the District Court correctly applied the “reasonable officer” test under s 44(2). Mr Gibson argued that POAL had expansive mitigation systems in place and that his responsibilities did not extend beyond establishing policies, reporting lines and governance structures. The High Court rejected that approach, confirming that due diligence requires more than paper systems or passive reliance on senior management assurances. The Court found that reasonable steps were not taken to ensure critical controls—particularly crane exclusion zones and night‑shift safety arrangements—were properly resourced, implemented and operating effectively in practice.
The decision reinforces that officer due diligence under the HSWA is practical, proactive and ongoing. Mitigation strategies that exist on paper, but lack active verification and follow‑up, will not satisfy the statutory duty—especially where risks are well‑known and inherently high. The High Court upheld the sentence imposed: a $130,000 fine and $60,000 in costs.
Comparison with Australian Case Law
The outcome closely aligns with Australian WHS authority under s 27 of the Model WHS Act. Australian courts have consistently held that due diligence is not satisfied by policies or frameworks alone, but requires officers to ensure that critical controls are actually working on the ground—particularly for high‑risk activities such as crane operations, mobile plant and exclusion zones.
Where Gibson goes further is in confirming that this standard applies equally to CEOs of large, complex organisations. Unlike many Australian cases, which have involved owner‑operators or smaller businesses, the High Court made clear that organisational scale, delegation and system sophistication do not dilute personal accountability. Officers must obtain credible, operational assurance that safety controls are effective in practice, including during after‑hours and night‑shift operations.
Key Takeaways
Due diligence is active, not paper‑based: officers must take reasonable steps to verify that critical controls are implemented and effective. It is not a counsel of perfection.
High‑risk operations require heightened scrutiny: exclusion zones and crane/container interfaces demand demonstrable oversight, including at night.
Governance and assurance matter: boards and CEOs should test whether their reporting and assurance processes provide real, on‑the‑ground visibility of risk.
The judgement does not provide any practical insights as to how the on ground visibility of risk can be achieved by CEOs or senior leadership and it is difficult to see how this would be enforced in the context of a vessel that spends much of its time operating remote from head office. It would be useful if MNZ provided guidelines as to what this oversight would look like.