Reserved judgment — misrepresentations — false and/or misleading representations — compliance with the New Zealand Building Code — product certification — party to offending — Fair Trading Act 1986, ss 13(e) & 40 — Crimes Act 1961, s 66(1)(b) — Building Act 2004, ss 19 & 269 — Building (Products) Certification Regulations 2008 — Marcol Manufacturers Ltd v Commerce Commission [1991] 2 NZLR 502 — Godfrey Hirst New Zealand Ltd v Cavalier Bremworth [2014] NZCA 418 — Ashin v R [2014] NZSC 153. Two defendants faced charges relating to alleged misrepresentations under the Fair Trading Act. The defendants (a company, and that company's director/chief operating officer) had made claims that a construction product called K3T had been certified as compliant with the New Zealand Building Code (NZBC). In fact it had only been certified as complying with the Building Code of Australia. The claims had been made via a website, a letter, an interview aired on TVNZ, and directly to sales people and installers who had been engaged in training related to K3T. Both defendants denied each of the charges, disputing the details of some of the representations alleged, and also disputing that the various representations were false or misleading. The defendants argued that the information on the website was actually true. However the Court found that it contained implications that if not false, were in fact misleading. By failing to remove information that he knew to be misleading, the second defendant was a party to the misleading representations. Likewise, the second defendant in the TV interview made false representations as to K3T's compliance with the NZBC. The letter, which was sent to the defendants' sales people, was written on behalf of the first defendant and signed off by the second; the Court found that it contained representations that were "entirely false" as to the status of K3T in the New Zealand market. Finally, a number of the defendants' customers and people who had attended training seminars run by the defendants gave evidence of representations by the defendants that K3T had been approved for use in New Zealand and that this would make it easier to get building consents. The Court found that the defendants were jointly responsible for these representations, and that they knew them to be false. The Court found both defendants guilty on all charges. Judgment Date: 19 February 2021