Council BriefIssue 459 September 2016

The monthly newspaper of the Wellington Branch New Zealand Law Society

Wellington

ISSN 2382-2333(Print)ISSN 2423-0103 (Online)

From the

President

By David Dunbar

2629050_1

2016 Shirley Smith

Address

The Women in Law Committee of the Wellington

Branch NZLS invite you to the 2016 Shirley Smith Address

"Manliness, Male Right and Criminal law:

The Uses of Criminal Law in the

Formation of the Character of the Male Legal

Person"

To be presented by: Professor Ngaire Naffine

Bonython Professor of Law

University of Adelaide

When: Wednesday 23 November 2016

Formalities commence at 5.30pm

Where: Rutherford House Lecture Theatre 2, Victoria

University of Wellington Pipitea Campus

Light refreshments follow the Address

This is a free public Address.

This is a free public address.

This event has been made possible thanks to the generous sponsorship of:

I have recently been fortunate enough to meet a number of

you at the Whanganui and Marl-borough Bar dinners, and thenwith Council members at theannual Wairarapa Bar dinner on26 August.

On a personal note I feel anaffinity with the Wairarapa re-gion because both my uncle andgrandfather practised there.

In Wairarapa, we were warmlywelcomed by Jessie Hunt, theWairarapa president, and vicepresident Gretchen Freeman. Wewere given thoughtful insightsinto the reality of practice in theregion. There are both challengesand opportunities as well as astrong sense of community: fami-ly and friends, the law communityand the wider community served.

One of the concerns raisedwas better access to CPD activi-ties in Wellington for Wairarapamembers. The same concernabout CPD access was raised byMarlborough Branch members,who asked about possible live-streaming of Wellington-basedevents. The Branch Council willcontinue to explore that option.

It is both a point of differenceand a clear strength, to have a seatreserved on the Branch Councilfor a Wairarapa representativeand I would like to acknowledgethe commitment shown to theCouncil by Jessie Hunt and herpredecessors on Council.

Guest speaker at the Wairara-pa dinner was Her Honour Jus-tice Karen Clark QC. She caught

the imagination of us all in gener-ously and humorously sharingher experiences and first impres-sions as a newly appointed Judge.

I am delighted that HisHonour Justice Matthew Palmerhas agreed to speak at the up-coming Wellington Branch din-ner on 30 September 2016.

One of the special thingsabout the Wellington branch isits diversity. A simple illustrationis the recent call to the Inner Barof four Wellington QCs: Una Ja-gose QC, Solicitor-General, Ken-neth Johnston QC and VictoriaCasey QC of the independentbar, and John Prebble QC, Pro-fessor of Law at Victoria Univer-sity. This diversity is furtherhighlighted by the range of inter-ests represented by Councilcommittees.

The Branch dinner is a valuedopportunity to celebrate and en-joy the diversity of the Branch,and the collegiality and sharedvalues that underpin the profes-sion of law in Wellington. Iwarmly encourage you attend.

Complexities of youth offendingI would like to highlight the

upcoming Wellington MedicoLegal Society evening seminar on13 September, details of whichcan be found in e-brief. PrincipalYouth Court Judge John Walkerwill look at the effects of neuro-disabilities, alcohol and drug useand other issues as contributorsto youth offending. He will alsotalk about the innovative workbeing done in the justice systemto assist young offenders. TheWMLS consistently brings highcalibre speakers to the fore topresent on a wide range of medi-co legal issues. I attend as manyas I am able and highly recom-mend them to you.

Wellington family lawyer Mary More has been

appointed as a member of theNew Zealand Parole Board.

Mary More is a highly regard-ed practitioner who has wideexperience in all aspects of fam-ily law and has representedmany clients before the ParoleBoard. She was previously a

member of the Wellington Branch Council.Parole Board members are appointed by the

Governor-General on the recommendation of the

Demystifying the art worldThe Women in Law Committee invites all practitioners to join them for an evening at the Peter McLeaveyGallery, with speakers: artists Octavia Cook, and Andrew Barber; art collector and philanthropist Richard

Moss; and Courtney Johnston, Director of The Dowse Art Museum.5.30pm 20 September 2016. Cost $12. Book at: http:// bookwhen.com/wellington-branch

Mary More.

Appointment to Parole BoardAttorney-General. Mary is probably the first practi-tioner who regularly practises at the Parole Boardto be appointed as a member.

She has been working most recently as a Directorin The Law Store in Porirua, but is now moving topractice as a sole practitioner, and expects to con-tinue working part-time in the family court. Havingrepresented clients before the Parole Board formany years she is looking forward to the new chal-lenge of working in shared decision making with atleast two others in what is a quasi-judicial role.

She is also looking forward to having more timefor herself and her family.

AT the swearing in of JudgeCatriona Doyle recently,Wellington Branch VicePresident Mark Wiltoncongratulated the judge andoffered her the best wishes ofthe profession.

He praised the judge for her“keen sense of fairness, intelli-gence, pragmatism, soundjudgment and balance…”, andoutlined aspects of her career,in particular her significantcontribution to Family Law.

“You have been described bythe [Family Law Section] execu-tive as a tireless star who con-tributed at such a difficult time

for family lawyers which cameat the sacrifice of your ownpractice and personal life. Yourservice from 2010 was at a timeof such significant and funda-mental change to family justiceand legal aid…

“You went above and beyondas an advocate for family lawpractitioners representing andvoicing the position of the Soci-ety regarding the then proposedFamily Court reforms.”

Judge Doyle’s “caring andcompassionate nature” and herservice to the profession tran-scended professional develop-ment, Mark Wilton said.

Comments at swearing in

‘The values and collegiality thatunderpin the profession of law’

INSIDE:Wairarapa dinner 4Too much law? 5Marlborough dinner 5Domestic violence 6

Wellington Branch Diary SeptemberWednesday 7 SeptemberParole Law Committee

Thursday 8 SeptemberCourts, Tribunals & ADR Committee

Monday 12 SeptemberCriminal Law CommitteeIssues in Cancellation of Commercial Contracts & Leases, Webinar,www.lawyerseducation.co.nz

Tuesday 13 September‘Looking at the history – the complexities of youth offending’,Principal Youth Court Judge John Walker. Wgtn Medico Legal Society.www.wellingtonmedicolegalsociety.co.nz

Wednesday 14 SeptemberPRA Intensive, InterContinental Hotel. www.lawyerseducation.co.nz

Thursday 15 SeptemberHuman Rights Committee

Tuesday 20 SeptemberBody Corporate Governance, Webinar, www.lawyerseducation.co.nzFamily Law CommitteeDemystifying the Art World, McLeavey Gallery, Women in Law Committee

Wednesday 21 SeptemberWellington Branch Council Meeting

Thursday 22 SeptemberWills & Estates – Challenges in Practice, Webinar, www.lawyerseducation.co.nz

Monday 26 SeptemberLeadership & Improvement, Webinar, www.lawyerseducation.co.nz

Wednesday 28 SeptemberLegal Assistance Committee

Thursday 29 SeptemberImmigration & Refugee Law Committee

Friday 30 SeptemberCriminal Law Symposium, www.lawyerseducation.co.nzWomen in Law CommitteeAdmissions CeremoniesWellington Bar Dinner

September 12-14 2016 – Public LawConference: The Unity of PublicLaw, University of Cambridge.www.publiclawconference.law.cam.ac.uk/2016-conferenceSeptember 16 2016 – Practical Commercial LawSkills, Wellington. www.legalwiseseminars.co.nzSeptember 18-23 2016 – 23rd ANZFSSInternational Symposium of ForensicSciences, Auckland. www.anzfss2016.orgSeptember 18-23 2016 – IBA AnnualConference, Washington DC www.ibanet.orgSeptember 21-23 2016 – NZILA (NZInsurance Law Assn.) Conference,Queenstown. www.nzila.orgSeptember 22-24 2016 – RMLA (ResourceManagement Law Assn.) Conference 2016,Nelson. www.rmla.org.nzSeptember 23 2016 – Evidence Act Conference,Auckland. www.legalresearchfoundation.org.nzSeptember 28-30 2016 – 25th Australia & NZEducation Law Assn. (ANZELA) Conference,Auckland. www.lawfoundation.org.nzSeptember 28-30 2016 – 43rd Maritime LawAssn. of Australia & NZ (MLAANZ) AnnualConference, Noosa, Queensland.www.mlaanz.orgSeptember 30 2016 – Criminal Law Symposium,Wellington. www.lawyerseducation.co.nzOctober 12 2016 – ILANZ ‘Mini’, Rydges Hotal,Wellington. http://ilanz.orgOctober 12-14 2016 – 26th Australian and NZSports Law Assn. (ANZSLA) Conference, TePapa, Wellington. anzsla@anzsla.comOctober 13-14 2016 – Employment LawConference, Auckland.www.lawyerseducation.co.nzOctober 13 2016 – Tax Conference, Auckland.www.lawyerseducation.co.nzOctober 20 2016 – Marketing LawConference, Auckland.www.marketing.org.nzOctober 24-25 2016 – In-House CounselWorld Summit, Paris. http://icwsummit.comOctober 28-29 2016 – Advancing BetterGovernment through LegislativeStewardship, NZ Centre for Public Law,

Wellington. www.victoria.ac.nz/legislative-stewardshipNovember 3 2016 – Symposium: The LawReform Community in the 21st Century,Wellington. www.lawfoundation.org.nzNovember 4-7 2016 – Asian Patent AttorneysAssn. Annual Council Meeting, Auckland.www.apaa2017.comNovember 14-15 2016 – The Art of Negotiatingand Drafting Commercial Contracts ,Wellington. www.conferenz.co.nzNovember 16-18 – ACC Australia NationalConference, Canberra. http://acla.acc.comNovember 17-19 2016 – Maori Law SocietyHui-a-Tau, Queenstown.www.maorilawsociety.co.nzNovember 23-26 2016 – Australian & NZ Assn.of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 36thANZAPPL Annual Congress, Auckland.https://anzappl.org./annual-congress/Nov 30-Dec 3 2016 – The Law and SocietyAssn. of Australia and NZ Annual Conference(LSAANZ), Brisbane. www.lsaanz.orgDecember 5-7 2016 – 35th AnnualConference of ANZ Law & History Society(ANZLHS), Perth. anzlhs.orgDecember 8-9 2016 – Colloquium – 40 Yearsof Property (Relationships) Act 1976:Reflections & Reform, Dunedin.www.lawfoundation.org.nzMarch 20-24 2017 – 20th CommonwealthLaw Conference, Melbourne.www.commonwealthlawconference.orgApril 5-9 2017 – Inter-Pacific Bar Assn.Annual Meeting & Conference, Auckland.ipba.org

COUNCIL BRIEF, SEPTEMBER 20162 News

MADESIGNm

Answers for puzzles from page 6

1 a) for instanceb) tongue in cheekc) foreign aidd) centre of gravitye) be inspired

2 1…Re1 2 RxRe1 RxRe1 3 QxRe1Qh2#

Members of the Wellington Branch Council who met in Masterton last month, before attending the Wairarapa Bar dinner in the evening. Seated: President David Dunbar, right, and vice presidentMark Wilton. Standing: Christopher Griggs, Jessie Hunt, Steph Dyhrberg, Yemo Guo, Julia White, Megan Paish, Chris O’Connor and Cathy Rodgers.

Conferences

Council Brief deadlineOctober issue Monday

26 September

Crossword SolutionsFrom page 7

Across: 7 Administrator; 8 Housetop; 9 Ally;10 Patent; 12 Awards; 14 Hereto; 16 Stress; 18Flag; 20 Back-door; 22 Singing-master.

Down: 1 Advocate; 2 Tissue; 3 Hilt; 4 Stop-gaps;5 Canada; 6 Pool; 11 Trombone; 13 Discover;15 Engage; 17 Radish; 19 Laid; 21 Comb.

Cryptic Solutions

Quick SolutionsAcross: 7 Expostulation; 8 Shortens; 9 Aver; 10Annexe; 12 Finish; 14 Repast; 16 Listen; 18Show; 20 Narcotic; 22 Encyclopaedia.

Down: 1 Exchange; 2 Course; 3 Stye; 4 Blissful;5 Strain; 6 Lone; 11 Entangle; 13 Specific; 15Always; 17 Stolen; 19 Hang; 21 Ripe.

Civil procedure (white book), London :Sweet & Maxwell 2016 ed 2016KN361.A1 CIV

Copinger and Skone James on copyrightLondon: Sweet & Maxwell 17th ed 2016KN112.A1 COP

Delegated legislation in Australia,Chatswood, NSW: LexisNexis Australia4th ed 2012 KM302.K1 PEA

Electronic casebooks : higher courts,Wellington : New Zealand Law Society2016 KN365.1.L1 NEW

Evidence of bad character, Oxford : Hart3rd ed 2016 KM603.5.A1 SPE

He kura whenua ka rokohanga : report onclaims about the reform of Te TureWhenua Maori Act 1993. Lower Hutt :Legislation Direct 2016 KM208.433.L1NEW

Intellectual property : patents, copyright,trade marks and allied rights, London :Sweet & Maxwell 8th ed 2013 KN112.A1COR

Keating on construction contracts,London: Sweet & Maxwell 10th ed 2016KN83.8.A1 KEA

New residential withholding tax,Wellington : New Zealand Law Society2016 KM337.6.L1 NEW

News COUNCIL BRIEF, SEPTEMBER 2016 3

16 August 2016

I recently met with High Court managers who advised me of two areas where the court could beassisted by practitioners.

Judgment embargo practicesJudgments are delivered to counsel by the registry via email immediately upon delivery. There

is then a delay before the judgments are sent to the media and legal publishers. The purpose forthe delay is primarily to allow counsel to identify any errors, omissions or suppression issues to becorrected.

Those delays are as follows:• The registry waits one hour before sending the judgment electronically to the media and to

legal publishing houses.• There is generally a one hour delay before judgments to be published on the Courts of New

Zealand Decisions of Public Interest webpage are posted (however sentencing notes and oraljudgments are posted when signed).

• There is a three-day delay before decisions are published on Judicial Decisions Online (JDO)webpage to enable a final check of the decision.

It is very helpful when counsel point out any issues before wider publication. I ask thatwhenever possible following receipt of a judgment you promptly read it and, if necessary, advisethe court of any concerns.

AVL bookings for overseas witnessesIn certain cases, the High Court may allow witnesses to give evidence via AVL (audio-visual

link) from an overseas location. This is becoming a much more common practice.In order to ensure that AVL links are available, registry staff require sufficient notice to obtain

costings, organise an appropriate venue and practical arrangements at the venue, then set up andtest the link prior to the AVL link itself.

Please ensure you provide the registry with at least five days notice of the need for an AVL linkwith Australia, and at least 10 days notice for any other jurisdiction, to ensure suitable arrange-ments can be made.

If you have any queries about using AVL in proceedings please contact your local courtAuckland High Court: call 09 916 9600 or email AucklandHC@justice.govt.nzWellington High Court: call 04 914 3600 or email WellingtonHC@justice.govt.nzChristchurch High Court: call 0800 268 787 or email ChristchurchHC@justice.govt.nz

For more information contact:Debbie IversenJudicial Administrator to Chief High Court JudgeDDI: 914 3671debbie.iversen@courts.govt.nz

THAT confidence is probablymore important than compe-tence, was the most significantpoint made by Mary ScholtensQC when speaking recently toan audience of both men andwomen on “confident com-munication”.

Mary’s address on Thursday25 August, generously hosted byChapman Tripp, was arepeat performance ofher highly acclaimedtalk of last year, again atthe invitation of the Wel-lington Branch Womenin Law Committee.Some of the audience –and indeed some of thecommittee – had had to wait ayear to hear Mary’s talk, be-cause it was so heavily oversub-scribed last year. Others werereturning for a refresher.

Research and statistics showthat men score much betterthan women on self-belief andpresentation. Women do notgenerally apply for a job untilthey feel 100 percent competentto do it. Men will take a moregenerous view, and apply if theyfeel they can manage most of it.The difference interestingly re-sembled the difference in thecivil and criminal standards ofproof, with men apparently

The power of confidentcommunication

By Caroline Sawyer

Mary Scholtens QC

feeling that the balance of prob-abilities would be enough. And,often, apparently it is.

Moreover, success may follownot merely confidence so muchas the appearance of confidence.Mary spoke of the importance ofwalking tall, metaphorically andliterally, and the effectiveness ofapproaching difficulties without

undue flinching. If facedwith a court that doesnot want to hear aboutthe matter that consti-tutes most of what onehas prepared, she as-sured the audience thatone need not andshould not panic. Ac-

cept the situation and move on:the court may well move withyou, and in any event the crisiswill pass.

Mary peppered her talk withstudies that demonstrated thepower of confidence, and its linkwith optimistic thinking and agrowth mind-set. She suggestedexercises for developing confi-dence and optimism. She em-phasised the need to take risks,to step outside our comfort zone,in order to strengthen our ownassessment of what we are capa-ble of.

Mary’s key message was theimportance of “backing yourself”.

From the Chief High Court Judge

By Robin Anderson, Wellington Branch Librarian

❑ Library News

WITH the new financial year and new contracts with LexisNexis andWestlaw we have some more very useful titles added to thedatabases available on the Library’s computers. There are four newLexisNexis Practical Guidance titles available – District CourtLitigation, Family Dispute Resolution, Governance and Insurance.

Westlaw have also been adding more titles to their popular A-Zseries, taken from books that they have published. This seriesis encyclopedic in character and gives you the basics in an area.With subjects ranging from Charities, Equity, Forensic Science andTrusts, it is definitely worth a look.

Lexis Red. We are trialling access to this online e-book borrowingplatform. Once set up, you will be able to borrow an electronicversion of LexisNexis looseleaf titles for two weeks. At the momentall of this is a manual process. You need to emailwellington@nzlslibrary.org.nz giving your name, contact phonenumber, Registry ID number and the name of the title you want. Wethen need to set you up on the system and issue you the title. Toview the title you need to have a pc, laptop or ipad and to downloadthe Lexis Red app. There will be more publicity on this in the nextfew weeks.

District Courts Decisions website. There is a new website forDistrict Courts decisions which makes them available free on theinternet. The website is www.districtcourts.govt.nz and it coverscriminal and civil decisions in the District Courts, Youth Court andFamily Court decisions. If any suppression or prohibitions apply,these will have already been applied before the decisions are pub-lished.

Library research webinar available. The NZLS CLE webinar byJulia de Friez and Robin Anderson is freely available on the NZLSCLE website for anyone who missed it and would like to see it.Highly recommended! Go to the free recordings section. The semi-nar is the second one down. http://www.lawyerseducation.co.nz/Courses/Free+Recordings.html

New online library resources available

Following the commence-ment of part 5A of theCriminal Procedure Rules2012, the 2014 Practice Noteon sentencing in the Highand District Courts has beenrevoked.

From the Chief HighCourt Judge and ChiefDistrict Court Judge

COUNCIL BRIEFThe monthly newspaper of theWellington Branch NZ Law Society

Advertising Rates: casual or contract rates on application. Telephone Robin

Reynolds, Reynolds Advertising, Kapiti Coast (04) 902 5544, e-mail:

adman@paradise.net.nz. Rates quoted exclude GST.

Advertising Deadline: for the October 2016 issue is Tuesday 27 September, 2016.

Circulation: 3000 copies every month except January. Goes to all barristers and

solicitors in the Wellington, Marlborough, Wairarapa, and Manawatu areas. Also

goes to many New Zealand law firms, to law societies, universities, judicial officers,

and others involved in the administration of justice.

Will Notices: $50.00 GST inclusive for each insertion.

Subscriptions: Annual subscription $60.00 incl. GST. Extra copies $5.00 each.

Subscription orders and inquiries to: The Branch Manager, New Zealand Law Society

Wellington Branch, P.O. Box 494, Wellington.

Editor: Chris Ryan, telephone (06) 378 7431 or 027 255 4027

E-mail: chrisr@wise.net.nz

Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the NZ Law Society Wellington Branch or the Editor.

Council Brief is published for the NZ Law Society Wellington Branch

by Chris Ryan, and printed by Beacon Print, Hawke’s Bay.

ISSN 2382-2333

New titles at NZ Law Society Library WellingtonPrivacy law in New Zealand, Wellington :Thomson Reuters 2nd ed2016 KM209.P7.L1 PEN

Report on the Trans-Pacific PartnershipAgreement, Lower Hutt : LegislationDirect. 2016 KM208.432.L1 NEW

Riley on business interruption insuranceLondon : Sweet & Maxwell 10th ed2016 KN294.C6.A1 RIL

Statutory interpretation in Australia,Chatswood, NSW : LexisNexis Australia8th ed 2014 KL35.K1 PEA

The assignment of contractual rights,Oxford : Hart 2nd ed 2016 KN14.2.A1 TOL

The law of insolvency in New ZealandWellington : Thomson Reuters 2016KN312.L1 TAY

The law of proprietary estoppel, Oxford :Oxford University Press2014 KN384.4.A1 MFA

Theobald on wills, London : Sweet &Maxwell 18th ed 2016 KN125.A1 THE

Tristram and Coote’s probate practiceLondon : LexisNexis Butterworths31st ed 2015 KN127.A1 TRI

Wars, laws and humanity : New Zealand’sengagement with internationalhumanitarian law, Wellington : NewZealand Red Cross 2015 KC200.L1 NEW

Forensic Consultants Ltd

04 905 4611 | info@linkedforensics.com

Challenging and advancing the quality of forensic evidence

LINKED www.linkedforensics.com

COUNCIL BRIEF, SEPTEMBER 20164 Wairarapa Bar Dinner

Sue Shone, Mary More and Julia White.

Michael Bott, Chris O’Connor and Mike Lennard.

Steve Taylor and Christopher Griggs.Justice Helen Cull QC and Sir Ron Young.

Bruce Logan and John Greenwood.

Jock Blathwayt and Michael Bott.

Donna Watt, Jills Angus Burney and Christin Schetter.

Tim Slack and Lindsay Gribben.

Nerissa Barber and Penny Elliott.

Julie Millar and Leah Kershaw.

Sir Ron Young, Judge Tony Walsh, Sija Spaak and Rohan Cochrane.

Wellington Branch President David Dunbar, and Council members Megan Paishand Yemo Guo.

Aroha Black, Steph Dyhrberg and Andrew Beck.

Amanda Courtney, Matt Adams and Adam Parker.

Leah Kershaw, Jock Kershaw and Sonia Bannister.

Wellington Branch Vice President Mark Wilton, the dinnerorganiser Mark Hinton, and Wellington Branch Manager

Annelies Windmill.

Jock Kershaw and Jessie Hunt.

Council Brief Advertisingadman@paradise.net.nz

Mark Hinton, guest speaker Justice Karen Clark QC, Michael Bale and John Pike QC.

Is there too much law?

Trusted practice managementsoftware for NZ lawyers

Easy to learn, easy to use. Save timeand increase profits. That’s whatusers say!

New: document management & internet banking.Free installation and training. Visit our website fortestimonials from firms just like yours.

PPPPPjjjjjwww.jpartner.co.nz enquiries@jpartner.co.nz 09 445 4476 JPartners Systems Ltd

COUNCIL BRIEF, SEPTEMBER 2016 5Opinion

There is, obviously, a furtheraim of any judicial process –

not only time and cost, but alsoclarity. Those promotingperfectly phrased decisionsalways point out that lawyerscan more easily advise theirclients on their affairs if the lawis clear – and this is undeniable.But I wonder how reliable, inborderline cases, is indeed thesummation of cases in pointwhich have had to be broughttogether. We can generallyassume that every case which

actually goes to court goesbecause the issue is not clear (Iam ignoring damages issuesand similar non-schematicfindings). Our present system tomy mind opens up too manyavenues of argument downwhich highly paid lawyers canstroll.

This difference in approach isshown very clearly in the historyof the United States SupremeCourt in the Roosevelt era (1930sand 1940s). Academics wereable to sort the Justices into orig-inalists and legal realists – thefirst attracted to applying thewords of the Constitution literal-ly, and the second to making thelaw work in changing times.Very great Justices argued foryears about these points of view,and I do not mention that era asresembling our courts in anyway, but as illustrating how dif-ferent approaches can changethe results.

An example of these compet-ing approaches can be seen inGideon v Wainwright, in whichthe Sixth Amendment to theConstitution guaranteed any

accused “the assistance of coun-sel” and the question was wheth-er the State had to fund thatassistance. The originalists heldthat no funding was referred toin the Amendment, while thelegal realists held that withoutfunding the Amendment wasuseless to many citizens. The lat-ter won, but narrowly. Of coursewe have no constitution (exceptfor a ragbag group of statuteswhich some academics call aconstitution) and the legal state-ments to be defined in our daycome from statutes or regula-tions, to some extent, but somuch more from earlier judicialpronouncements.

And this is where I feel we’regoing wrong. At the risk of fray-ing the strength of stare decisis,I see the essential justice ofdisputes becoming too often ob-scured by a formulated frame-work which confines thediscretion of each Judge too nar-rowly for him or her to oftenachieve the justice they seek toapply. Lord Denning was muchcriticised for his approach, whichwas to work out what was a fair

NZ Law Society Library, WellingtonPhone: 04 473 6202

Fax: 04 471 2568

email: wellington@nzlslibrary.org.nz

Branch Manager: Annelies Windmill

Branch Administrator: Antoinette Lathbury-Axford

Librarian: Robin Anderson

Assistant Librarian: Julie Matthews

Research Librarian: Nicola Stedman

Library Assistant/LINX: Julie Kirkland

PO Box 494, WellingtonPhone: 04 472 7837

Email: Wellington@lawsociety.org.nz

Website: www.lawsociety.org.nz

NZ Law Society – Wellington Branch

John Burn is a retired barristerwith over 20 years experience atthe Christchurch Bar, then over 20years at the New South Wales Bar,and now living back inChristchurch. Last month CouncilBrief published John’s thoughts onhow the Courts and the Bar are,without any malicious intent,overloading the judicial processwith minutiae of detail, and theconsequent heavy costs burdenwhich this causes to thecommunity. He continues hisdiscussion in this column.

By John Burn

❑ This article is republished withpermission from the April 2016 edition ofCanterbury Tales.

result, and then seek to establishwhether the law would allow himto achieve it. But black letter law-yers, and Judges, and that today isprobably the majority, will resistany temptation to divert from thestatic and established frameworkof the law. So their attempt toachieve justice is constantlyhampered by previous decisionsand the minutely-argued sub-missions which they have to sur-mount before feeling safe in theirdecisions.

We used to furnish our cham-bers with impressive shelves ofbound law reports from our ownand (usually) the English Courts.Now they all lurk on computerscreens, and may (unfortunate-ly) be even more accessible. Sothe task of tunnelling into themountain of precedent is eveneasier, and so many counseldelve, I think, a good deal furtherthen they need to. Perhaps it istime to accept that the job of theCourts is to do justice, and not toadd constantly to the growingmountain of earlier opinions.The client who pays your feewants an answer – preferably inhis favour, but at any rate an endto his dispute. He is not payingto contribute to a future world oflegal wonderment, which maydelight the academic lawyer but

constitute a huge waste of effortfor the rest of us.

I am not saying that each caseshould be considered withoutprecedent – that would bethrowing out what judicialthought has achieved over theyears. But I am saying that eachJudge should feel entitled tobreak with precedent in the ap-propriate case. It is hard to seehow the strength of our legalframework can otherwise keeppace with the years. And if suchan approach cuts down the con-stant tendency towards micro-scopic argument, with theattendant costs, what anachievement that would be.

Clients want an answer, andnot a delicate piece of reasoningwhich may make expensive ap-peals unavoidable. We are law-yers and we should be serving ourclients, not priding ourselves ongraceful and sinuous exercises oflogic. But the lead has to comefrom the Judges, and the longerthis ultra-precision approachgoes on, in both the countrieswith which I am familiar, themore difficult it will be to makeour judicial system relevant to thecommunity once more.

Marlborough Bar Dinner

Attorney-General Christopher Finlayson QCwith Marianne Startup and Nigel Timpson.

NZ Law Society President Kathryn Beck, Stephanie Marsden, NZ LawSociety South Island Vice-President Andrew Logan, and NZ Law Society

Wellington Branch President David Dunbar.

Hannah Arnott, Kent Arnott, NZ Law Society Marlborough Branch PresidentSimon Gaines, Laura McFarlane and Andrew McFarlane.

Roy Seaton, Michael Woolley and John Holdaway.

Judge Richard Russell (left).

The Attorney-GeneralChristopher FinlaysonQC was guest speaker

at the MarlboroughBranch Bar Dinner

held at theMarlborough VintnersHotel on 20 August.

Council Brief deadline October issue - Monday 26 September

The Wellington Branch is creating a register of practitioners preparedto volunteer their time presenting CPD to their colleagues.

We all recognise that CPD comes with a cost both in time and moneyso we are creating a register of practitioners and educators who wouldbe available to present CPD if requested at no or low cost to theircolleagues.

We remind you that CPD presenters can get time in their own right.Time is claimable for preparation of CPD presentations (usually at aratio of two hours preparation for each hour of presentation) and timespent delivering. A typical one hour presentation would allow thepresenter to claim three hours of CPD, ie, two hours for preparationand one hour for the delivery.

Any practitioners prepared to go on the Branch register please contactthe Wellington Branch, email wellington@lawsociety.org.nz

Please include your name, your area of expertise, your telephonenumber and your email address.

Register of Presenters for ContinuingProfessional Development (CPD)

MADESIGNm

© Mark Gobbi 2016

Answers: See page 21 Decode these rebus puzzles:

STA4NCE

cHtOnGuEeEk

A4ID

graVity

SPIBRED

2 It is black’s turn to move; whatshould black do?

adman@paradise.net.nz

Council BriefAdvertising

COUNCIL BRIEF, SEPTEMBER 20166 Community Law Centre

FINANCIAL independence iscentral to the decision-makingand safety planning of survivorsof domestic violence and is vitalfor those seeking to leave violentrelationships. In light of theappallingly high rates ofdomestic violence in Aotearoa,1

one would hope that our welfaresystem would support survivorsof violence to achieve self-sufficiency. Unfortunately,however, survivors of domesticviolence who are in receipt of orapplying for welfare benefitsface a number of barriers toreceiving their full entitlements.This article will provide a briefoverview of three such issuesrecently encountered byCommunity Law Wellington andHutt Valley.

Benefit fraud and ‘relationshipsin the nature of marriage’

A beneficiary’s failure to pro-vide full and accurate informa-tion when in receipt of orapplying for a benefit can resultin a benefit fraud investigation.The outcome may be the estab-lishment of a debt and, wherethe Ministry has been deliber-ately misled, criminal charges.2

The leading cause of benefitfraud investigations is alleged‘relationship fraud’;3 that is, afailure to declare a ‘relationshipin the nature of marriage’ to theMinistry.

The leading case on this issue,Ruka v Department of SocialWelfare, found that both ‘emo-tional commitment’ and ‘finan-cial interdependence’ arerequired for a relationship in thenature of marriage to exist.4

Where domestic violence is

present, the usual indicia ofemotional commitment may benegated by the presence of vio-lence,5 meaning that in manycases violent relationshipsshould not be considered to be‘relationships in the nature ofmarriage’ for benefit purposes.

The initial implementation ofthe Ruka decision proved con-tentious, with a 2001 report byBarrister Frances Joychild find-ing that the Department of Workand Income’s failure to properlyimplement the decision was sosevere that a review of all mar-riage-type relationship casessince Ruka was required.6 Theimplementation of the Ruka de-cision remains problematic, par-ticularly in the context ofdomestic violence. Great re-sponsibility is placed on caseworkers to identify the presenceof violence and, where violenceis disclosed, there is an expecta-tion that clients will provide per-suasive evidence of the abuse.7

When one considers the usualdynamics of domestic violencethis is understandably a chal-lenge. Victims are often too fear-ful of the repercussions to seekassistance, violence typically oc-curs when witnesses are notpresent, and violence can beperpetrated in ways which leavefew physical signs or is psycho-logical in nature.

Social Security Appeal Au-thority (SSAA) decisions aboutrelationship status where vio-lence is present appear to set ahigh threshold before violencewill be considered to impactupon the nature of the relation-ship. The extreme and sustainedphysical and sexual violence thatwas present in Ruka is presentedas a benchmark against whichother cases consistently fallshort. For example, the SSAAcommented that an appellantwho reported being repeatedlystrangled, kicked and having herlip split “did not describe theacute and sustained physicaland emotional violence reportedin [Ruka].”8 This focus on the ex-tent of the physical violenceseems counter to the finding inRuka that “[i]t is the effects of theviolence on the battered wom-an’s mind and will, as those ef-fects bear on the particular case,which is pertinent.”9

Assessments of appellants’accounts continue to display areliance on myths about domes-tic violence, simultaneously ex-pecting that a victim would leavea violent relationship if theabuse was really as bad as de-scribed, while also treating ac-tive resistance strategies asimplausible. For example, theSSAA commented in one casethat “[i]t is difficult to under-stand why [the appellant] wouldwant to live in the same house as[her abuser] in preference to the

home of some other relativesuch as her daughter if violencewas a significant issue.”10 Mean-while, a beneficiary who de-scribed various violentincidents, including being stran-gled, “attacked”, dragged,pinned down and having her petshot,11 was found by the SSAA tononetheless be in a ‘relationshipin the nature of marriage’ as “thesort of ultimatum given [to herabuser to leave] does not appearto be one that a woman trappedin a violent relationship wouldbe capable of giving”.12

Benefit deductions for failingto name a child’s father

A further entitlement issuefaced by survivors of domesticviolence is the deduction of soleparents’ benefits where the ben-eficiary fails to name the otherparent of the child. Under s 70Aof the Social Security Act 1964(the Act), a sole parent who re-ceives a benefit has an obligationto identify both parents of achild. If a beneficiary fails orrefuses to identify the other par-ent of a dependent child, theirrate of benefit will be reduced by$28 (with a further $22 for eachsubsequent child).13

The Act allows for exemptionsfrom this deduction if the chiefexecutive is satisfied that thechild was conceived as a result ofincest or sexual violation or thatnaming the other parent wouldput the beneficiary or their childat risk of violence.14 Despite this,beneficiaries who have valid rea-sons for being unwilling or una-ble to name the father of theirchild are struggling to have thesedeductions removed.

Having to ‘prove’ and re-livetheir experiences of domestic vi-olence can be traumatising forthe clients concerned, as canraising such issues in Work andIncome’s open plan offices infront of other staff and clients.Work and Income staff are ex-pected to identify the presenceof sexual or domestic violence,and may fail to do so unless spe-cific language is used by the ben-eficiary. Many clients are forcedto recount their experiences tomultiple Work and Income staffmembers before obtaining theassistance they require. Our ex-perience is that this processleaves many feeling judged, de-graded and marginalised, actingas a barrier to having the deduc-tions lifted.

Lack of assistance for non-residents

In addition to the immensehurdles faced by women seekingto leave violent relationships,migrant and refugee survivorsface a specific set of challenges.For example, they may face pres-sure to maintain group culturalnorms, language barriers mayimpede their ability to seek help,

they may lack awareness of theirlegal rights or fear reporting toauthorities, and the agencies towhom they do report may lackappropriate cultural under-standing. Where their immigra-tion status is dependent upontheir relationship with their vio-lent partner this may be utilisedas a tool of abuse. Many migrantsurvivors fear ostracism andthreats to their safety shouldthey be forced to return to theirhome country.

A specific class of visa has ac-cordingly been established,along with a corresponding wel-fare benefit, for ex-partners ofNew Zealand citizens or resi-dents who intended to seek resi-dence on the basis of theirrelationship but the relationshipended because of domestic vio-lence. Unfortunately there is nosuch benefit (or visa) for womenwhose abuser is not a New Zea-land resident or citizen. Unableto obtain financial support or avisa independent of their abuser,remaining in a violent relation-ship may be the only viable op-tion for these women.

ConclusionThis paper provides only a

very brief summary of the barri-ers to obtaining welfare benefitsfor survivors of domestic vio-lence. Nonetheless, the conse-quences of these barriers areclearly immense; a finding ofbenefit fraud may burden a sur-vivor of violence with a debt thatremains with them for life and ajail sentence will deprive theirchildren of a parent. A weeklydeduction of $28 or more meanssole parent survivors who are al-ready in financial hardshipstruggle to support theirwhanau. The lack of a means ofindependent financial supportmay encourage migrant survi-vors whose abuser is not a resi-dent or citizen to remain in aviolent relationship. It is impera-tive that consideration is given to

the needs of whanau who haveexperienced or are experiencingdomestic violence in the devel-opment and implementation ofwelfare policy.

Footnotes1 The highest rate of reported intimate

partner violence in the developedworld; see ‘Strengthening New Zea-land’s legislative response to familyviolence – A public discussion docu-ment,’ Ministry of Justice, August2015, at 4.

2 Social Security Act 1964, section 127.3 The Ministry of Social Development’s

2012 HYPERLINK “http://statistical-report-2012.msd.govt.nz/uploads/M S D - S t a t i s t i c a l - R e p o r t -2012.pdf”Statistical Report reportedthat In 2011/2012 relationship fraudaccounted for over 43% of benefitfraud investigations.

4 Ruka v Department of Social Welfare1997 1 NZLR 154.

5 Ruka v Department of Social Welfare1997 1 NZLR 154 at 39.

6 Frances Joychild, ‘Review of Depart-ment of Work and Income imple-mentation of the Court of Appealdecision Ruka v Department of SocialWelfare’ [1997] 1 NZLR 154.

7 The Ministry’s policy manual pro-vides that, where a client has dis-closed domestic violence, the caseworker “should encourage [the] cli-ent to provide proof of the domesticviolence ... [from] a reputable personor organisation that is in a position tosupport a client’s statement”.

8 [2008] NZSSAA 41 at [62]. See also[2006] NZSSAA 16 at [68], where anappellant who described being “con-trolled”, punched, throttled andthrown down stairs was found not tohave indicated “a level of violencewhich might negate the propositionthat this was a relationship in the na-ture of marriage.”

9 Ruka v Department of Social Welfare1997 1 NZLR 154 at 39.

10 [2015] NZSSAA 7 at [31].11 Her abuser further admitted to

“smacking”, pushing and throwing abottle at her.

12 [2005] NZSSAA 72 at [58]. See also[2008] NZSSAA 41 at [62], where theSSAA commented that it “seems sur-prising that a person suffering frombattered woman syndrome wouldhave personally served a trespass no-tice on her abuser.”

13 Social Security Act 1964, section 70A.14 Social Security Act 1964, section

70A(3).

By Sarah Croskery-Hewitt, Community Lawyer

Benefit entitlement issues for survivors of domestic violence

-

-

DOWN1. Recommend a lawyer (8)2. Kind of paper to circulate after tea! (6)3. Part of the weapon to strike about

fifty (4)4. Check the openings for substitutes

(4-4)5. Country girl has ability first (6)6. Kitty is game (4)11. Musically speaking, it may be

successfully operated on a slidingscale (8)

13. Find a record bowling spell (8)15. Employ one to go into battle (6)17. Salad food causes Diana to be

surrounded with spots! (6)19. Eggs are put face upwards! (4)21. Make a thorough search for a toilet

requisite (4)

ACROSS7. Distrait Roman becomes governor

(13)8. Use different photo outside to show

the roof (8)9. Call your friend inside (4)10. It’s clear Pennsylvania needs

camping accommodation (6)12. Prizes that create dissension in

advertisements (6)14. The ore is broken up for this object (6)16. The strain associated with the work of

a constructional engineer (6)18. Show need for reviving the standard

(4)20. The sort of methods that will offer no

opening to the men at the front! (4-4)22. He should see that his pupils produce

good notes (7-6)

DOWN1. Swap (8)2. Prescribed series

(6)3. Inflamed eyelid (4)4. Rapturous (8)5. Stress (6)6. Solitary (4)11. Involve (8)13. Definite (8)15. Ever (6)17. Purloined (6)19. Suspend (4)21. Mature (4)

ACROSS7. Remonstrance

(13)8. Abridges (8)9. Assert (4)10. Additional

building (6)12. End (6)14. Meal (6)16. Hark (6)18. Demonstrate (4)20. Drug (8)22. Book of

information (13)

Cryptic Clues

Quick Clues

PRACTISING WELL

Chaplain, Julia Coleman, 027 285 9115You can use this diagram for either the Quick or Cryptic Clues, but the answers

in each case are different. This month’s solutions are on page 2.

COUNCIL BRIEF CROSSWORD

Opinion COUNCIL BRIEF, SEPTEMBER 2016 7

Council Brief Advertisingadman@paradise.net.nz

Wellington lawyers are very keento attend events presented by the

Wellington Branch office.

For several recent events demandhas outstripped the number of

places and long waiting lists haveresulted.

The answer is to please bookearly or you risk being

disappointed.

Book early for LawBook early for LawBook early for LawBook early for LawBook early for LawSociety events!Society events!Society events!Society events!Society events!

http://bookwhen.com/wellington-branch

Litigation funding is an indus-try which has been hailed as asolution to the cost barriers fac-ing impecunious claimantswith meritorious claims.

While the industry is now well-established and multiplejurisdictions have opened theway for litigation funding, it isan industry that can still divideopinion. One of the reasons forthis divide is the ethical andlegal concern that litigationfunding arrangements canbreach the common law torts ofmaintenance and champerty.

ContextThe tort of maintenance is

the improper support of litiga-tion in which the maintainer hasno legitimate interest, withoutjust cause or excuse. Champertyis described as a subspecies ofmaintenance or an aggravatedform of maintenance where themaintainer receives a portion ofthe proceeds in the relevant ac-tion.

These torts are still part of thecommon law in New Zealand.However, judicial concernabout funding arrangementshas morphed into an issue ofwhether the funding arrange-ment is an assignment of a barecause of action in tort and thecourts only tangentially consid-er maintenance and champerty.

In Saunders v Houghton[2010] 3 NZLR 331, our Court ofAppeal noted that, “until quiterecently common law courtsheld the firm position that, inthe absence of legislation to thecontrary, funding of litigationfor profit was an abuse of proc-ess, offending against ancientdoctrines of maintenance andchamperty, and was unlawfulper se”.

In a more recent case (Water-house v Contractors Bonding Ltd[2014] 1 NZLR 91), while not aclaim alleging maintenance and

champerty, the Supreme Courtneeded to consider the circum-stances in which a litigationfunding arrangement could bean abuse of process. The Courtmade clear that “assignments ofbare causes of action in tort andother personal actions are, withcertain exceptions, not permit-ted in New Zealand”.

While it now seems this rulehas achieved an independentexistence of its own, it had itsorigin in the torts of mainte-nance and champerty. TheCourt, in assessing whether afunding arrangement amountsto an assignment, noted it“should have regard to the fund-ing arrangements as a whole, in-cluding the level of control ableto be exercised by the funderand the profit share of thefunder”.

It is now apparent that thecourts have adopted a more lib-eral attitude towards the main-taining of litigation by alitigation funder than had previ-ously been the case. This is per-haps in recognition of the harshreality of current cost barriers tolitigation. In Saunders vHoughton, the Court stated that“the interests of justice can re-quire the court to unshackle it-self from the constraints of theformer simple rule againstchamperty and maintenance”.

Litigation funding is ordinari-ly provided on a non-recoursebasis. That means that if a case isnot successful, the funder losesits investment and does not gen-erate any return. The UnitedKingdom’s self-regulator, theAssociation of LitigationFunders (the ALF), defines litiga-tion funding as follows:

“[W]here a third party pro-vides the financial resources toenable costly litigation or arbi-tration cases to proceed. The liti-gant obtains all or part of thefinancing to cover its legal costsfrom a private commercial liti-

gation funder, who has no directinterest in the proceedings. In re-turn, if the case is won, thefunder receives an agreed shareof the proceeds of the claim. Ifthe case is unsuccessful, thefunder loses its money and noth-ing is owed by the litigant.”

New Zealand does not yethave any regulations in relationto litigation funding or an inde-pendent body like the ALF,which has set a UK code of con-duct for litigation funders bind-ing on all members of the ALF.

However, the New Zealandcourts have started to considerthis code of conduct when as-sessing litigation funding ar-rangements, for example inSaunders v Houghton [2013] 2NZLR 652, where the Court ofAppeal noted that the fundingagreement complied with thecode. This code includes a rulepreventing litigation fundersfrom controlling the litigation orsettlement negotiations.

CommentIn light of the abuse of process

approach by the courts, the tortsof maintenance and champertyare considered no longer fit forpurpose and little may be lost byabolishing them, like other juris-dictions have done. The questionnow seems to be whether thefunding agreement is an assign-ment of a bare cause of action intort.

It is understandable why thereis a legal concern about litigationfunders. However, this concernshould be minimised, if not elim-inated, by a carefully drafted andproperly structured funding ar-rangement. Such funding ar-rangement will leave theclaimant as the party in controlof the conduct of the litigationand the party primarily interest-ed in the result of the litigation. Ifthe litigation arrangementachieves this, no abuse of proc-ess should arise.

Indeed, reputable funders ac-tively avoid exercising unduecontrol over the litigation andaim for the claimant to maintainthe dominant economic interest.In New Zealand, if litigationfunders were to control or seekto recover the majority of theproceeds, they risk the fundingarrangement being declared anabuse of process (under mainte-nance and champerty or assign-ment), which may result in theproceedings being stayed or thelitigation funding arrangementbeing declared void, after poten-tially having already invested asignificant amount of money inthe case. This would be a care-less investment and would obvi-ously not be beneficial to thefunder or the claimant.

Similarly, litigation funderswant active and quality claim-ants – if funders have the domi-nant economic interest it is likelythe claimant would be less in-centivised to cooperate with theinstructed solicitors or otherwiseand generally less motivated totake the matter to resolutionwhether that be settlement ortrial.

It is worth bearing in mindthat disclosure of the funding ar-rangement may be requiredwhere an application is made towhich the terms of the fundingarrangement could be relevant.They ought therefore to be draft-ed with the presumption thatthey will at some stage be dis-closed to the New Zealandcourts. We have seen, in repre-sentative actions, that claimantsare now (arguably) voluntarilydisclosing the funding arrange-ments and seeking directionsfrom the court for approval ofthe funding arrangement, asseen in the kiwifruit and bankfees claims. The fact of possibledisclosure only strengthens theneed for both the funded partyand the funder to enter into ap-

propriate funding arrange-ments.

Cases are already being fund-ed in New Zealand and this willcontinue. If litigation funding isproperly arranged by reputableand legitimate funders, the con-cern in relation to maintenanceand champerty and/or assign-ment falls away and more claim-ants will gain the benefit of thislegal innovation.

Lara Bird is an Investment Offic-er at Woodsford Litigation Fund-ing Limited in London. Shepreviously worked as a solicitorat Bell Gully in Auckland, largelyin the area of competition litiga-tion, before moving to global liti-gation firm Hausfeld & Co LLP inLondon and then to WoodsfordLitigation Funding, where herrole includes reviewing cases forpossible investment, managingfunded cases and consideringopportunities in various juris-dictions around the world.

❑ This article first appeared in LawNews Issue 27 (12 August 2016)published by Auckland District LawSociety Inc., and is reproduced herewith permission.

By Lara Bird, Investment Officer, Woodsford Litigation Funding Limited, London

Council Brief deadlineOctober issue Monday

26 September

Litigation funding arrangements – not a legal concern

COUNCIL BRIEF, SEPTEMBER 20168 Notices

THE scheme to assist lawgraduates into work is still beingoperated by the WellingtonBranch.

Law graduates seeking workleave their CVs at the Society.These are available to potentialemployers needing staff whocan refer to the CVs and chooseappropriate graduates.

The work offered need not bepermanent. Any work in a lawoffice will give graduates experi-ence that may be helpful nexttime they make job applications.

Law graduateCV scheme

Wellington lawyers are very keento attend events presented by the

Wellington Branch office.

For several recent events demandhas outstripped the number of

places and long waiting lists haveresulted.

The answer is to please bookearly or you risk being

disappointed.

Book early for LawSociety events!

http://bookwhen.com/wellington-branch

Level 7, Legal House, 101 Lambton Quay, PO Box 5577, Wellington 6140

The members of Barristers.Comm, Peter Churchman QC, Peter Barker, Christopher Griggs,

Lisa Hansen, David McLay and Graham Taylor, are delighted to announce that

Gordon Davis and Edward Power have joined them.

Gordon Davis specialises in providing advice and litigation services in civil disputes and public

law. His areas of work include employment law, reviews, inquiries and investigations, governance

and machinery of government in the State sector and legislative review and design.

Gordon’s new contact details are:

Phone: 04 914 1051, Mobile: 0272452787, Fax: 04 473 3179.

Email address: gordon.davis@barristerscomm.com

Edward Power specialises in providing taxation advice and litigation services in all facets of

taxation law including the taxation of partnerships, trusts and companies in regard to PAYE, GST,

fringe benefits, superannuation and international taxation law. Edward also specialises in sports

law having served as chairman of football tribunals and football appeal boards for many years.

Edward’s new contact details are:

Phone: 04 914 1050, Mobile: 0272019605, Fax: 04 473 3179.

Email address: ejhpower@barristerscomm.com

After nearly 26 years Concept Secretarial Services is for sale as both Christine Crawshaw andLinda Sloan are retiring.

Concept is a great little business. It shares premises and provides full secretarial servicesto all at Capital Chambers (eight Barristers including three Queen’s Counsel).

Christine was working as a Legal Executive in a large Wellington firm when the businesscame on the market in 1990. She immediately saw the opportunity to be her own bosswithin an industry she knew intimately. This could now be your opportunity.

All expressions of interest should be directed to concept.sec@clear.net.nz

Alternatively, contact can be made direct with my accountant, Christie Burgess atchburgess@deloitte.co.nz

CONCEPTSecretarial Services Limited

BUSINESS FOR SALE

Donations to the Solicitors Benevolent Fund can be made through:

• “Give a Little” http://www.givealittle.co.nz/org/Solicitors,which will be automatically receipted, or

• by Direct debit: Bank of New Zealand: 02-0506-0101108-097

All donations go directly to the capital reserve. The Solicitors’Benevolent Fund Trust is registered as a charitable trust(number CC48709) and has tax deductible status.

If a receipt is required when making a direct debit, pleaseemail wellington@lawsociety.org.nz with your name, theamount deposited and a contact number to ensure a receipt isissued and sent to the correct place.

The Solicitors’ BenevolentFund – ways to donate

Council BriefAdvertising

adman@paradise.net.nz

The Devil’sOwn Golf

Tournament

The 82nd Devil’sOwn tournament

will be held at theManawatu Golf ClubFriday 23 September

to Sunday 25September 2016

DeadlineOctober 2016Council Brief

Monday 26 September

Young Lawyers Committee cocktail party