Animal Welfare Act 1999

Offences - Further provisions relating to offences

164: Liability of employers and principals

You could also call this:

"Employers are responsible if their staff hurt animals, even if they didn't know about it."

If you are an employer, you can be held responsible if one of your employees breaks the Animal Welfare Act. This means that if your employee does something wrong, you can also be considered to have done something wrong, even if you did not know about it. You are responsible whether or not you approved of what your employee did.

If someone is acting on your behalf and breaks the Animal Welfare Act, you can also be held responsible. However, if that person did something without your permission, you may not be responsible.

If you are accused of breaking the Animal Welfare Act because one of your employees did something wrong, you have a defence. You can say that you did not know the wrong thing was happening and you took steps to fix the problem after it happened, or you can say that you tried to stop the wrong thing from happening and you took steps to fix the problem after it happened.

This text is automatically generated. It might be out of date or be missing some parts. Find out more about how we do this.

This page was last updated on 19 May 2025

View the original legislation for this page at https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM51914.

Topics:

Environment and resources > Farming and fishingHealth and wellbeing > Public health

163: Payment of infringement fees, or

"Paying a fine for breaking animal welfare rules"

165: Liability of directors and officers of bodies corporate, or

"Company bosses can be guilty too if they let animal welfare rules be broken"

Part 8Offences
Further provisions relating to offences

164Liability of employers and principals

Subject to subsection (3), where any offence is committed against this Act or any regulations made under this Act by a person as the employee of another person, that offence must, for the purposes of this Act, be treated as committed by that other person as well as by the first-mentioned person, whether or not it was done with that other person's knowledge or approval.
Where an offence is committed against this Act or any regulations made under this Act by a person acting as the agent of another person, that offence must, for the purposes of this Act, be treated as committed by that other person as well as by the first-mentioned person, unless it is done without that other person's express or implied authority.
In any proceedings for an offence against this Act or any regulations made under this Act against any person in respect of any offence alleged to have been committed against this Act or any regulations made under this Act by an employee of that person, it is a defence for that person to prove,—
in the case of a natural person,—
1. that he or she did not know nor could reasonably be expected to have known that the offence was to be or was being committed and that he or she took such steps as were reasonable in all the circumstances to mitigate or remedy the effects of the action or event after it occurred; or
2. that he or she took such steps as were reasonably practicable to prevent the commission of the offence and that he or she took such steps as were reasonable in all the circumstances to mitigate or remedy the effects of the action or event after it occurred:
in the case of a body corporate,—
1. that neither the directors nor any person involved in the management of the body corporate knew, or could reasonably be expected to have known, that the offence was to be or was being committed; and
2. the body corporate took such steps as were reasonable in all the circumstances to investigate or remedy the effects of the action or event after it occurred.