Forestry directors held personally responsible for cleaning up mess

Friday, 20 June 2025

Gisborne District Council took enforcement action against two companies and four directors in order to get them to remove woody debris that poses a threat in a forest on steep land near Tolaga Bay.

The directors said they should not be listed as parties to the council’s action.

The Environment Court agreed with the council and made orders requiring the directors to ensure the forest complies with resource consent conditions.

Three directors of a failed forestry company have been held personally responsible for ensuring that woody debris posing a threat in a Gisborne forest is removed.

Samnic Forest Management Ltd, and its directors Richard Hayes, Scott Funnell and Gavin Fortune, opposed enforcement orders by Gisborne District Council that would require them to address the threat posed by forestry slash and debris left on a 940 hectare block in the hills near Tolaga Bay.

Also opposed to the orders was the owner of the land, Woodlett Investments Ltd, and its sole director, Duncan Woodhouse.

Their opposition was heard in the Environment Court at Auckland over 11 days in March and April. Judge Melinda Dickey’s 97-page decision was released this week, and she would require them to rectify the situation.

The council had said its original orders were needed to ensure woody debris and sediment would not enter water and land outside the forest boundary.

The forest was on steep terrain and prone to severe erosion. The companies denied responsibility for the state of the forest and opposed the orders being made.

Pines planted in the forest were harvested between 2015 and 2022, in which time several roads and skid sites were constructed without resource consent.

There were numerous compliance issues from 2017, and Samnic and its forest manager were prosecuted and fined $126,000 last year for offending that occurred in 2022.

Samnic’s lawyer told Judge Dickey the company physically exited the forest around November 2022. He said its responsibilities under the resource consents ended then, and responsibility for the forest from that time was assumed by Woodlett.

Woodlett disagreed, saying Samnic remained responsible for ensuring compliance with the consents.

Dickey said Samnic and Woodlett “each point the finger at the other in terms of responsibility for addressing the state of the forest”.

The council’s view was that both Samnic and Woodlett had a responsibility to ensure compliance, and to ensure woody debris did not enter waterways.

Judge Dickey found that issues identified in the forest had not been satisfactorily addressed by Samnic before it departed the forest.

She was also “entirely dissatisfied with the appropriateness of Woodlett’s and Mr Woodhouse’s self-described passive role in the forest”.

Woodlett, as landowner, had a statutory responsibility to ensure activities on the land complied with the Resource Management Act, and “it is not enough to claim ignorance of what was happening,” she said.

Dickey said the forest and its infrastructure were in a parlous state and both companies and all directors were responsible for ongoing compliance and for securing and disposing of woody debris.

The Samnic directors said they were unlikely to have the financial ability to comply with the orders, and their lawyer claimed at court the council had only named them as parties because it was concerned about the company’s solvency.

Dickey found it was clear that the Samnic directors were involved in the harvest of the forest.

“Each director had different roles, but all were aware of what was happening in the forest, and involved in decisions (if only peripherally for some, ie Mr Funnell) that were made,” she said.

Likewise, Woodhouse was aware of harvest progress and involved in decisions around resource consents and replanting.

“It is appropriate that any orders we make include all directors,” she said.

She made the orders, which would initially require the completion of a risk assessment report and map identifying all at-risk locations.

Dickey also wanted a list of experts to inform the work that would be required.

A timeframe would need to be produced, with council input, outlining when woody debris would be removed, she said.

The court wanted to receive regular reports on milestones achieved, she added.

In February, a receiver was appointed to Samnic Waingaromia Forest Joint Venture.

The joint venture was comprised of Samnic Forest Management Ltd (SFM) and 20 shareholder companies, set up in 1993, with investors told they would get a returns of $1.3 million on an investment of $80,000.

The returns did not materialise, with some 100 investors instead losing $50,000.