This article from Chapman Tripp offers a slightly different angle on this very case: https://www.chapmantripp.com/publications/sound-health-and-safety-guidance-from-pioneer-case
I believe this case will also come up at the LegalSafe Conference next week....it certainly invokes some very deep thinking

Interesting case, for sure. To me, this shows the improvement of the overlapping duties obligations when compared to the old Principal/Contractor/Controller of Place of Work approach. PCBUs should determine between them where boundaries of influence lie and operate accordingly. The approach used seems to make practical sense, but it would be interesting to find out if this was actually by mutual agreement and understanding, or simply a consequence of the structure imposed to maintain independence. So I don't agree it's 'contracting out' but do wonder whether it was properly considered and, if not, there may be a case to answer for all parties. In any event, from a practical perspective, I don't believe putting signs up to warn of steep slopes would have made the slightest difference.

I agree with your assertion about steep slope signs. What is a 'steep slope'? Do we have a definition in NZ (I know in some countries it is 1:2.5)? Would all landowners then need to get their land surveyed and every time a piece of land exceeded the threshold they would need to have a sign? Even quite shallow slopes can be dangerous if the quad bike is top heavy and the driver turns at speed.
The Hesketh Henry email said:
"To state the obvious, a quad bike is an all terrain vehicle commonly used to traverse difficult off road areas, and so it was reasonably foreseeable that an AgFirst employee could, in contravention of any training or instructions, use the quad bike off the mown tracks."
Regardless of the industry arrangement, any competent quad bike user knows this is not the case. "All terrain" does not literally mean "absolutely every type of terrain you could ever imagine" just like items called "heavy duty" have durability or weight limits and "sports utility vehicles" can't actually be used for sports. The quad should have come with an instruction manual outlining limits. AgFirst should have been responsible for providing operator training and identifying those limits - perhaps they did and the operator ignored it. If there were mown paths this should have been a strong instruction to any competent operator not to deviate from them. We need to stop relying on signs for the obvious otherwise we'll get sign blindness. While I don't know the difference in length between the mown/non-mown grass, my feeling is that Athenberry appears to have provided an environment in which a competent quad/LUV operator could complete their tasks.

my feeling is that Athenberry appears to have provided an environment in which a competent quad/LUV operator could complete their tasks. — Darren Cottingham

That is my feeling too. How much is a person liable for someone who they don't know is on their property, who is operating contrary to their own company policy and training, and best practice guidelines?

My take is that the Judge may have got to the right result, but that some of the comments in the judgment are (with respect) troubling.

The HSWA is clear that PCBUs can't contract out of their duties, but also that these duties are dynamic and need to be interpreted in the particular circumstances based on the ability of each PCBU to influence or control the risk. For my, the Judge got this part right, as it is too simplistic to say that just because Athenberry and Hume were PCBUs they had responsibilities for what the tester was doing. For Hume in particular, it is hard to see why they should have been responsible for much at all.

Where the Judge got into trouble was the suggestion that farmers and orchardists do not need to warn contractors about site features that will only be a hazard if there is "incompetence, careless or non-compliance with instructions'. The law is settled that employers need to guard against employee error, and previously the courts have taken a similar view for contractors. Suggesting that this is no longer the case may encourage some PCBUs to take less care to protect contractors than they should. I suggest caution before anyone relies on this.

By the way, our article on the case is available at: https://www.kensingtonswan.com/news-updates-and-events/first-defended-hearing-under-the-health-and-safety-at-work-act/

Surely there is a difference between "employee error" and even "incompetence" but guarding against carelessness "or non-compliance with instructions" is a hopeless thing to attempt.

I'm thinking of scaffold surrounding a high rise. Suppose there's a scaffold tag stating it is out of use and someone climbs it? Is the tag a reasonably practicable guard?

Suppose someone climbs the side of a scaffold instead of using a ladder. I guess we have to produce training documents to demonstrate the climber is trained not to clamber up the side of a scaffold. How would the training be sufficient guard against carelessness or "non-compliance with instructions" ?