A New Zealand High Court has overturned the conviction against the owners of Whakaari/White Island, where a 2019 volcanic eruption killed 22 people. The ruling absolves Whakaari Management Ltd., run by brothers James, Andrew, and Peter Buttle, of legal responsibility for the disaster, sparing the company from paying millions in restitution to victims’ families and survivors.
Court Overturns Conviction
In a 2023 trial, Whakaari Management was found guilty of violating workplace health and safety laws by failing to ensure visitor safety. The company was fined $560,000 (Rs 4.8 crore) and ordered to pay $2.68 million (Rs 23 crore) in reparations.
However, following an appeal, the High Court ruled on February 28 that the company was not liable, as it merely owned the land and did not control the daily operations of tours. Justice Simon Moore stated that Whakaari Management had only licensed access to tour operators, with no oversight of visitor safety protocols.
“It is impossible not to be deeply moved and affected by the sheer scale and nature of the human loss in this case,” Justice Moore said. However, he emphasized that legal responsibility lay elsewhere.
Eruption and Aftermath
On December 9, 2019, Whakaari erupted while 47 people—mostly tourists and local guides—were on the island. The eruption killed 22 people and left many others with severe burns. The volcano, considered New Zealand’s most active, had shown increased activity leading up to the disaster.
Whakaari has been privately owned by the Buttle family since the 1930s, when their grandfather purchased it and placed it in a family trust. It remains one of the few privately owned islands in New Zealand.
Owners Welcome Decision
James Cairney, a lawyer representing the Buttle family, said they welcomed the ruling, believing it would set a precedent for landowners who allow recreational access to their property.
“This decision brings certainty for all landowners who grant others recreational access to their land,” Cairney said.
The verdict has sparked mixed reactions, with some calling for stricter safety regulations, while others argue it clarifies legal responsibilities for private landowners in similar cases.