Rotorua Court Levies $10,050 in Fines for HFC Release, Exposing Dual Liability

For legal professionals, the prosecution of G.B Teat Limited and Cole Wicks is a striking example of how New Zealand regulators are sharpening the personal accountability edge of environmental law. By securing convictions against both a corporate entity and an individual service technician for the same deliberate act, the EPA has crafted a potent deterrent. This dual-liability strategy challenges the traditional assumption that front-line workers can hide behind an employer’s corporate veil and raises urgent compliance and risk-management questions for any business handling regulated substances.

On 25 June 2026, the Rotorua District Court imposed fines totalling $10,050 on G.B Teat Limited and its employee Cole Wicks for the deliberate release of a hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) into the atmosphere. The case, prosecuted by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), marks a significant enforcement action under the Climate Change Response Act 2002—New Zealand’s primary legislative tool for meeting international climate commitments. The incident occurred on 20 December 2024, while Wicks performed heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) services, highlighting the operational risks faced by a sector where potent greenhouse gases are routinely handled. The fines—$6,700 for the company and $3,350 for the individual—followed guilty pleas to one charge each, averting a trial but also establishing a clear precedent: both corporate entities and individual technicians can be held personally liable for wilful regulatory breaches.

“

On 25 June 2026, the Rotorua District Court imposed fines totalling $10,050 on G.B Teat Limited and its employee Cole Wicks for the deliberate release of a hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) into the atmosphere.

The legal framework at the heart of this prosecution is the Climate Change Response Act 2002, which criminalises the knowing release of HFCs during the installation, servicing, modification or disposal of refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment. HFCs are synthetic gases with global warming potentials thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide, making their containment a cornerstone of New Zealand’s domestic emissions reduction strategy and its obligations under the Paris Agreement. The Act entrusts the EPA with broad enforcement powers, yet until recently, prosecutions for HFC releases have been rare. This case therefore serves not only as a penalty for a specific violation but also as a deliberate signalling exercise by the regulator. Acting General Manager Brian Ruiterman stressed that the decision “is a good reminder to all businesses working in the HVAC industry of their obligations,” underscoring the EPA’s intent to move from passive guidance to active enforcement.

The dual liability structure—pursuing both the company and the employee—is particularly noteworthy. Corporate fines for environmental offences are common, but individual prosecutions of front-line workers remain less frequent in New Zealand. By charging Wicks personally, the EPA sends a message that technical staff cannot assume their employer’s corporate shield will absorb all legal consequences. This aligns with a global trend in environmental and climate litigation where individual accountability is increasingly used to deter non-compliance. For legal practitioners, it underscores the importance of due diligence in training, supervision and internal compliance systems. HVAC companies may need to reassess their protocols to ensure that every service call is documented, that staff understand the criminal nature of a deliberate release, and that senior management have robust oversight.

The fines themselves, while modest in absolute terms (totalling $10,050), must be viewed in the context of the maximum penalties available under the Act. The court retained discretion and appears to have considered the guilty pleas and likely the absence of prior offending. The relatively low quantum may also reflect an acknowledgment that the act was a single, isolated incident rather than a systematic practice. Nevertheless, for a small business, $6,700 is not trivial, and the attendant reputational damage—amplified by EPA press releases and media coverage—can be a more potent deterrent. The EPA’s decision to publicise the case via statements aligns with a “sunshine” regulatory strategy, using transparency to amplify the compliance message across the industry.