Many directors have expressed concern to us about the public availability of their home address on the Companies Register.  This is currently a requirement of the Companies Act, with directors being required to provide this information (for public display on the Register) when they are appointed.

A law change passed last week will allow a director’s residential address to be redacted from the publicly searchable Companies Register. The change will not have wide application, as it requires a director to prove a risk of physical or mental harm if their home address is available to the public. We do not consider the change goes far enough to address the genuine privacy concerns many directors have.

The law change

The Companies (Address Information) Amendment Act 2025 (the Amendment) provides an option for directors to replace their residential address with an “alternative address” on the public Companies Register (which is available on the Companies Office website). The Amendment Act is expected to be brought into effect shortly but, failing that, it will automatically come into effect on 18 November 2026.

Currently, a director must provide their actual residential address, where they live or reside, for company registration, annual returns, and for public inspection (on the public Companies Register). Failure to provide an actual residential address is an offence under the Companies Act. There is also a more serious (imprisonable) offence for using a business address instead of a residential address knowing it is false and misleading.

Note that the Amendment only affects the public register. A director’s residential address must still be provided to the Companies Office, and it will be held by the Companies Office internally (eg for enforcement purposes).

Before we applaud this change, however, it is important to realise that the Amendment has a limited scope. The government’s intention was to introduce a mechanism for directors to protect their personal safety in response to growing concerns about privacy and risks associated with publicly accessible residential addresses.

Key features: what the Amendment provides for

The Amendment adds a provision to the Companies Act which enables a director to make an application to the Registrar to redact their home address from the public Register. The application must show that public availability of the director’s residential address is likely to result in physical or mental harm to the director or to a person living with them.

The application must be in a prescribed form (which is not yet available) and include a statutory declaration that verifies the risk of harm - see below.

On receipt of the application, the Companies Registrar must prevent public access to residential addresses and ensure the alternative address is shown instead.

There are some requirements for an alternative address. It cannot be the relevant company’s registered office or address for service. It must also not be a postal centre or document exchange. If the address is at a firm’s office, it must specify the firm and location detail for physical delivery.

For directors who are shareholders as well, or reside with shareholders (who consent to this step), the Registrar must also protect their residential address in that capacity and display the alternative address.

Statutory Declaration requirement

As mentioned above, an application must include a statutory declaration verifying a risk of physical or mental harm. The declaration must be made before an authorised person as specified under the Oaths and Declarations Act. In New Zealand, this includes, lawyers, justices of the peace, notaries public, court registrars, or other authorised persons.

The requirements for the declaration are not set out in the Amendment, but we expect the Companies Office will require a factual account of the circumstances creating the risk. It is also likely the declaration will be required to address the nature of the threat to safety. It is important to note such a declaration is subject to criminal sanctions if false, with a maximum penalty of 3 years’ imprisonment. 

Evidence of risk

While there is no evidentiary standard set by the Amendment, we anticipate what is likely to constitute physical or mental harm will be closer on the spectrum to clear cases of serious imminent danger to health or safety of a director, rather than mere nuisance value at the lower end of the spectrum.

The discretion of the Registrar

The evidence required to meet the necessary risk threshold will ultimately be determined by the Registrar. This suggests directors may be required to provide information on the nature of the risks they face, potentially with inclusion of documentation or statements outlining the circumstances. We await further guidance in the regulations as to what the prescribed form will require.

Implications for directors

Given the fairly high risk threshold directors must demonstrate to request a redaction, we anticipate the ability to redact will not be available to a large number of directors. The Amendment does not create an ability to redact for general privacy concerns.

A broader privacy question persists: why does a director's residential address need to be publicly available at all? We hope the Amendment will be reconsidered in the Government's broader review of the Companies Act, which could address these continuing privacy concerns.

Next steps

We will be watching to see what guidance from the Companies Office emerges before the Amendment is brought into effect. In advance of this, there are several steps that directors can take now to prepare:

• Assess safety concerns and confirm they are legitimate
• Gather supporting documentation for proof of risk
• Verify the proposed alternative address meets the requirements

For more information, please contact one of our experts.

Special thanks to Ella Sutter for her assistance in preparing this article.