Newsletter September 2007
Barristers urged to get Australian experience
Valuable opportunity neglected N
ew Zealand barristers are being urged to make more use of transTasman mutual recognition legislation allowing them to experience a taste of practising in Australia. New South Wales Bar Association president, Michael Slattery QC, said the law had been passed 10 years ago, and he found it astonishing that practitioners on either side of the Tasman had to date made little use of it. Politicians were ahead of the legal profession in recognising the
value of cross-fertilisation between the two jurisdictions, he said. Mr Slattery told the New Zealand Bar Association conference that lack of familiarity with another jurisdiction was probably a key reason why more practitioners did not take the plunge and practise in another country. Barristers from one jurisdiction were not sure what the arrangements in relation to issues such as chambers
would be in another country, and might also be unfamiliar with the substantive law. However, he said that greater diversity in practice experience was a good thing and enriched both the individual practitioner as well as the bar in general. Mr Slattery observed that New Zealand and Australian lawyers seeking ● Cont. on p.2
In this issue . . . Australia calling Helping Judges Kirby J advises The media President’s report Conference pix Executive Director JUBES Scholarships JUBES’ pix Bar Chat Council minutes
p.1 p.2 p.4 p.5 p.6 p. 8,9 p.11 p.12 p.12 p.13 p.15 p.16
Ph: (09) 303-4515
At the Christchurch conference: Michael Slattery QC (left) and Justice Michael Kirby Fax: (09) 303-4516
P.O. Box 631 Auckland Email: nzbar@nzbar.org.nz N.Z.1140 Bar Association Newsletter. September 2006. Page 1
Helping judges to see it your way C
ounsel in preparing written submissions should aim to provide judges with draft judgments, Professor James Raymond told the New Zealand Bar Association conference. Professor Raymond, who works with both judges and lawyers to improve their writing styles, said that lawyers should use plain English as much as possible and should structure written submissions so that they were organised and easy to read. He referred to one of his professors who used to make students write in the style of a publication such as the New Yorker magazine in the belief that there was nothing in the law which could not be understood by non-lawyers. Professor Raymond said that, even though changes he suggested to judges and lawyers appeared minor, they had a formidable impact when implemented. He said that his suggestions would assist counsel in deciding whether they actually had a case to take to court, and would be positively received by judges. Professor Raymond passed on a number of tips from judges in different jurisdictions, including :
♦ Remember that, although you have been living with the case for perhaps
four months, we have been with it for only four minutes. Every submission you make should therefore have a quick reminder about what has gone on in the case. ♦ Just because you are allowed 40 pages to present submissions, this does not mean that you need to use all of those pages. Get to the point as soon as possible. ♦ Use correct grammar.
Bar Association Conference 2007 ♦ Make it interesting. ♦ Keep it simple. Professor Raymond outlined a number of principles in relation to written submissions and judgments. He said that judges had other things to do than pick up documents which were so boring that they made their eyes glaze over. If counsel found submissions hard to write and difficult to deal with, chances were that judges would react to them in the same way. Judges craved lawyers
who made things easy for them. Professor Raymond said that judges wanted lawyers to make it possible to determine the following matters: ♦ The issues counsel wanted the judge to determine – judges could not resolve issues unless counsel assisted them to determine what the issues were: ♦ The facts giving rise to those issues ♦ The remedy sought by counsel ♦ The law justifying the remedy ♦ The opponent’s argument. Professor Raymond said that it was a mistake to resist explaining an opponent’s argument. The judge had to understand the other side’s case. Counsel should make a credible summary of the other party’s argument, and then criticise it. ♦ Why truth and justice are on your side. Professor Raymond said that good legal writing was not boring and provided internal directions for reading right from the beginning. Legally-trained readers would go straight to the end of a document to find out the result before reading it in detail, so the result ● Cont. on p.3
Valuable opportunity neglected: to practise in places such as Asia faced trade barriers. He said that there was little hope of breaking those if lawyers were not using the trans-Tasman opportunities which already existed. The market for legal services would be enlarged by barristers practising transTasman, as it was currently difficult for law firms in Auckland or Sydney to engage another law firm and then a barrister in the other jurisdiction. Barristers with experience in both countries would remove one level of that barrier. Barristers’ fees were also
extremely competitive compared with the hourly rates charged for senior associates in large firms. A number of initiatives to encourage trans-Tasman practice were suggested by Mr Slattery. He said that, once continuing professional development programmes for barristers had been developed, he would like to invite some New Zealand barristers to go to Sydney and be involved in them. Sydney barristers could also come to this country to speak about
Continued from p.1
Australian law. Another suggestion would be to increase the number of door tenants, with different sets of chambers negotiating arrangements with chambers in the other country. Mr Slattery also said that, during the first three years that barristers were in practice, they could do work exchanges in the other jurisdiction for three to six months. The executive directors of the New Zealand and New South Wales associations would exchange ideas on how such proposals could be advanced. ■
N.Z. Bar Association Newsletter. September 2007. Page 2
Continued from page 2
Helping judges to see it your way should be stated at the outset. Bullet points assisted the judge to go to the point which interested the judge. Professor Raymond drew a distinction between texts which people read, and texts which people consulted. The former had to create interest to draw people in, and included documents such as novels, essays, letters, poems and feature stories. They were structured like “ski slopes” – the reader started at the beginning and kept going until the end. The second category of documents comprised those that people consulted, including dictionaries, phone books, statutes, and contracts. Such documents were like cutlery drawers, with people reaching in to take out what they wanted and then closing the drawer. He said that lawyers needed to ensure that their submissions fell into both categories, by being both readable and raidable. Professor Raymond said that the logic of the law could be reduced to a simple formula: ♦ The issue ♦ The losing party’s argument ♦ The flaw in the losing party’s argument ♦ The conclusion. That formula should be repeated for each issue arising. Professor Raymond said that the metaphor for submissions should be that of an American “shotgun house”. The introduction was the front porch, issue one was the first room, issue two was the second room, other issues followed, and the back door was the conclusion. A bach was a good metaphor for a novel, which was full of surprises. However, it was a terrible metaphor for submissions. Similarly, a castle, comprising unnecessary pieces of architecture and which was designed to keep people out, represented a bad structure for submissions. The introduction to the submissions should launch the judge
into the submissions and make it easy for him or her to find a way through the writing. The conclusion should be a recapitulation and conclusion. He recommended that lawyers adopt a helicopter view of facts at the outset, and then move to the issues. It was dangerous for counsel to include large amounts of irrelevant detail, which obscured what was actually important in the case. Professor Raymond said that life was a mess. Jurisprudence attempted to tidy up that mess. Adding in every detail messed things up again. He went
Bar Association Conference 2007 on to outline a five-step process for building submissions. The first step was to identify the issues and write a case-specific heading for each. Professor Raymond said that it was not easy to identify the issues, but doing so made judges’ lives easier and counsel would accordingly be rewarded for doing that. Headings should be bold and issues should be phrased in a way that would be comprehensible to nonlawyers. Counsel should read their writing from the point of view of a judge to check whether it was clear and comprehensible. Secondly, issues should be arranged in a sequence that made sense. He suggested that lawyers take pieces of paper, write one issue on each, and then arrange the issues in a rational order. Independent issues could be arranged in almost any sequence, but the strongest argument should be placed first. Dependent issues should follow a logical sequence. This might be, for example, jurisdiction, statute of limitations, and dismissal. It would not make sense to deal with jurisdiction last. If an opponent
raised numerous issues, counsel could assist the judge to deal with these by dividing them up into logical groups. Thirdly, each issue should be analysed. Patterns of analysis might consist of questions of law, questions of fact, the application of standards and the interpretation of texts. For instance, said Professor Raymond, a judge had wanted to impose a relatively lenient sentence in the case of a mother convicted of causing the deaths of her two children when the community was calling for a stiff penalty. The judge had done this by telling the story, setting out the expert psychiatric evidence, dealing with the precedents for maximum and minimum sentences, and then delivering the sentence. Telling a story in a detached way could sometimes be extremely powerful. Fourthly, a beginning should be written. The purpose of this was to provide a factual context in which the issues made sense. He noted that what made a good beginning – as in the case of much writing – often depended as much on what was not included as what was there. Latin and legalese should be avoided. Finally, there should be a conclusion. Professor Raymond warned against what he described as the “missed opportunity” ending. This was one which said that, “For the reasons stated, the judgment should be reversed.” Such wording sent the judge back to what he or she had previously read. It was instead preferable to restate the premise. ■
Next Newsletter publication date: December 2007
N.Z. Bar Association Newsletter. September 2007. Page 3
Wik case demonstrated that lawyers are “in the business of persuasion” T
he second conference session focused on oral advocacy. High Court of Australia judge, Justice Michael Kirby, said that the Wik case on which he had sat in the High Court of Australia had conclusively demonstrated to him that lawyers were in the business of persuasion, whether they were appearing in the lowest court on a bail hearing or presenting arguments in the highest appeal court. The case had been one flowing from the Mabo lands right case which overturned terra nullius. Justice Kirby said that all the assembled brilliance of the Australian bar had been present in court in 1996. The advocate for the Wik people had opened by painting a picture of what was happening to those people in 1879. That dramatic opening had been tremendously powerful in explaining how the Australian system had wrought dramatic change in the lives of indigenous people, and had been a dramatic appeal for understanding.
J
ustice Kirby said that he “unreservedly and ungrudgingly” supported what Professor Raymond said in relation to plain English and the architecture of argument. However, he observed that the legal profession was a craft, and it was not always possible to reduce it to the logical, crisp, pure and short by way of a scientific exercise. For instance, he said, counsel who were tall had an advantage as advocates, as did those who were good looking and who could look people in the eye and conceptualise cases. However, Professor Raymond’s value lay in assisting advocates to improve on what they had been given. Justice Kirby said that he had been an appellate judge for 22 years, so that was the direction in which his remarks were focused. When counsel were addressing multi-member courts, it was
likely that some judges would have read the written submissions, while others would not have. Advocates accordingly needed to be able to address those who had read every word of the submissions, at the same time as speaking to those who were unfamiliar with them, which was no easy task. Similarly, some judges liked international human rights law, while others did not and counsel had to work out how to reconcile those positions. He noted that judges also had their
Bar Association Conference 2007 personal idiosyncrasies. For example, he strongly disliked accused people being called only by their surnames. As a result, those appearing in the High Court were now referred to by titles. Counsel should remember that they were in court to speak for the voiceless, and must have the courage to stand up to judges, said Justice Kirby. He said that it was terrible to watch advocates who did not have a lot of courage and who buckled in court. “You’ve got to be as courageous as prudence permits.” Justice Kirby said that the opening sentences of oral submissions were counsel’s opportunity to capture the court’s attention. It was surprising how many advocates blew that chance by first saying, “I want to change paragraph X and sub-paragraph Y.” He said that such a boring approach was a waste of the headline moment in the case. Openings should not be boring. Justice Kirby also counselled against
the use of block quotes, which he said were read by nobody as they were not digested. It was essential to digest and to conceptualise. He said that judges were gossips and critics, and counsel should be aware of that. One Australian judge had kept a list of the 11 worst barristers, and charity might be in short supply in judicial attitudes towards the bar.
J
ustice Kirby concluded by discussing a number of points on which he disagreed with Professor Raymond. He said that judges would give brownie points to advocates who made concessions to the other side. By the time a case had reached the third level of appeal, it was plain that there were good arguments on both sides and it was more honest to reveal the difficulties in one’s own case. He also said that detail was sometimes important in explaining nuances. Further, much of contemporary law involved statutory interpretation, and it could not be oversimplified or made interesting. “Some things in the law are inescapably and ineluctably boring and that’s the truth of the matter,” Justice Kirby said. High Court judge, Justice Helen Winkelmann, began her address by explaining what judges did to prepare for hearings in the Auckland High Court. She said that judges who were going to hear oral argument would have read with care the submissions filed in advance. They would have familiarised themselves with the procedural issues, read the pleadings and sometimes read the main cases, carried out independent research or asked their clerks to prepare ● Cont. on p.5
N.Z. Bar Association Newsletter. September 2007. Page 4
Bar Association Conference 2007
Justice system and the media
Revolution in relationship T
he past decade had seen a revolution in the relationship between the justice system and the media, said Justice Tony Randerson. Speaking at a session on dealing with the media, he said that in high profile cases there could now be as many as 20 or 30 journalists in court. The immediacy of electronic transmission meant that counsel had now to be on their feet instantly if they wanted to raise objections about prejudicial material.
Justice Randerson said that the mainstream media were by and large extremely responsible, but difficulties could arise in relation to the internet and talkback radio. Justice Randerson said that the extent of the changes in media dealings with courts meant that judges had to look at new ways of dealing with the issues raised. He believed that there would be benefit in greater dialogue
between judges and the media, and the bar and the media. Dialogue meant that areas of mistrust were broken down. In considering whether to make media comment, Justice Randerson noted that counsel needed to consider their ethical obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct for Barristers and Solicitors. However, these did not provide detailed assistance, beyond ● Cont. on p.6
Wik case demonstration: memoranda on specific issues. If at all possible, counsel should therefore file their written submissions in advance. If they did not, the other side had the chance to capture the judge’s mind at the outset. Justice Winkelmann advised that counsel should assume that written submissions had been read. She endorsed Professor Raymond’s remarks about the importance of written submissions, noting that when decisions were reserved and it was several months before they were written, the written submissions would provide the judge’s best record of the arguments. She said that written submissions should be prepared carefully. “They should not be stream of consciousness raves into a dictaphone transcribed onto a page.” Justice Winkelmann also reported on what she described as an “unscientific survey” of High Court bench “pet likes” and “dislikes”. She said that a summary of the case and arguments should be placed at the beginning of written submissions. Judges often found it very difficult to work out what a party’s arguments were, and sometimes had the impression that “50 volumes of documents were being thrown at them with the request that they sort
out the issues”. Justice Winkelmann said that counsel must grapple with the difficult issues before preparing written submissions and address these up front. Judges strongly disliked over-citation of authorities, late filing of submissions, and stream of consciousness submissions. In presenting oral submissions, she said that counsel should always depart from written submissions. When lawyers lifted up their faces from the page to address a judge, that was when they were at their most effective. Oral submissions should pick up the essence of the case.
A
t the outset, time should be taken in providing practical assistance to the judge with the context of the case, so that the judge had to hand the required documents. Judges should be taken through the pleadings, abandoned causes of action should be noted, and difficulties in the case should be dealt with head on. Justice Winkelmann said that responding to judges’ questions was a key aspect of oral advocacy, and counsel should regard it as a good opportunity to obtain an insight into what was going on in the judge’s mind. Counsel should respond immediately when judges asked questions. Advocates who failed to answer questions, insisted
Continued from p.4
on reading every word of written submissions, or said that they would come to points later did their clients no favours. Justice Winkelmann said that counsel should not give up too easily or be deflated by what they thought the judge’s view was. Advocates should also not overstate their cases or use overblown language. In cases in which the case developed significantly during the course of oral argument, it was helpful for counsel during an adjournment to prepare a one or two page summary of the case as they now saw it for the judge. Kieran Raftery of Meredith Connell urged Professor Raymond as part of his training of judges to encourage them to produce short judgments. He said that the bar contributed to lengthy judgments by producing huge volumes of authorities. Brevity on the part of advocates could sometimes assist brevity on the part of judges. He stressed the importance of responding well to questions from the bench during the course of oral argument. Questions provided a real opportunity, and counsel needed to know the case inside out to respond to them ■.
N.Z. Bar Association Newsletter. September 2007. Page 5
President reports to AGM (abridged) T
he achievements of the Bar Association in 2006 and 2007 can be measured both quantitatively and qualitatively.
of negotiations that were successfully undertaken with the Crown Law Office to bring more of their lawyers into the Association.
Membership growth Membership growth between October 2006 (when we had 586 full members and 79 associate members) and August 2007 (when we have 619 full members and 157 associate members) totals 111 new members. The major growth has been in the area of associate members, which is largely the result
New silks Twelve new silks were appointed this year: John Marshall, Bruce Corkill, Robert Lithgow, Stephen Kós, Campbell McLachlan, Karen Clark, Stephen Mills, Matthew Casey, Deborah Hollings, Christopher Gudsell, Nicholas Till and Susan Hughes. This was a huge advance on the tiny number of appointments
in recent years and represented a successful campaign for an increase in the proportion of silks to the total bar that would bring New Zealand more into line with England and major Australian states. Young barristers The Association awarded a full scholarship each to Anoushka Bloem and Michael Lenihan to attend the NZLS CLE Litigation Skills Course in ● Cont. on p.7
Justice system and the media: stating that media comment must not be made without a client’s consent. Justice Randerson said that counsel considering making comment should ask themselves whether it would be in the client’s interests. In serious cases, there could be a risk of contempt of court or of a trial being aborted.
I
n civil cases, Justice Randerson said that he could see no reason why counsel should not make submissions available to the media. The risk in such cases lay not in placing pressure on a jury, but in the possibility that a vulnerable party on the other side might be pressured. Justice Randerson noted that recent trials of police officers on sex offence charges had led to an important debate about suppression orders and the Law Commission was now examining whether previous convictions should be admitted on a more liberal basis. It would be interesting to see what recommendations emerged from the commission. Justice Randerson said that there was a very clear tension between the competing interests involved. Queen’s Counsel John Billington said that the sole reason for the existence of advocates was to win cases for their clients. Using the media could form part
of this process, as long as it was done within reason. However, there needed to be a line advocates did not cross when speaking to the media. He said that in some instances an advocate’s client would be attacked in the media and there was nothing that counsel could do. In such cases, lawyers should keep right away from the media. If there was nothing to feed a story, it would die away. Once a case came to trial, Mr Billington said that the reality was that journalists did not sit in court all the time and did not report everything that happened — 90 per cent of the case would not be reported. Advocates should keep an eye on what was going on outside the courtroom as the case progressed, and assess whether it could influence the court proceedings. The internet in particular was now playing a significant role. It might be in future that rules relating to the media would be largely done away with. Columnist Deborah Coddington said that the media coverage of court cases had changed vastly in the past decade, becoming “something of a combat zone”. Many media organisations had done away with specific court reporters, who had previously been regular attendees at court.
Continued from p.5
Ms Coddington said that it had become harder to obtain court documents. Reporters could often spend a whole day attempting to obtain information to which they knew they were entitled. More and more, media organisations were required to instruct their own lawyers to seek access to documents. Journalists had become more aggressive, which was annoying and distracting, but represented the reality of the current climate.
M
s Coddington said that journalists liked to have a “goodie and a baddie” when telling stories. Lawyers who hunkered down in their cars while television cameras followed them ended up looking more like criminals. It was best to co-operate with the media. She said that it was a very sad thing that almost no judges would speak to the media. Ms Coddington counselled lawyers to find journalists they could trust and build relationships with them. Journalists would respect off the record information as they knew that if they did not, they would not be given any more information in future. She advised lawyers to explain legal arguments to journalists, provide them with copies of submissions, and work together. ■
N.Z. Bar Association Newsletter. September 2007. Page 6
President reports to AGM: Christchurch from August 19 to 25. The scholarship scheme is aimed at young barristers and reflects Bar Association policy that we have a responsibility to do everything we can to facilitate the training of young barristers. The Council has recently formed a Junior Barristers Mentoring Scheme Subcommittee consisting of Miriam Dean QC, Kate Davenport, Ken Johnston and Lauren Lindsay. A dedicated page on the web site to young members is also being established. An inaugural Junior Barristers social function was held in Auckland on Friday July 27. A similar event is planned for Wellington on November 30. International bar links he Association is exchanging newsletters and conference information with the bar of England and Wales, the Australian Bar Association, the South African Bar Association, and the state associations of Victoria and New South Wales. The Association is also seeking to engage in an annual exchange of attendances at Australian Bar Association and NZBA Council meetings. The possibility of a joint conference with the Queensland Bar Association is being investigated. Colin Carruthers QC at the end of June attended the Australian Bar Association Conference in Chicago and presented a paper on behalf of the Association. The attendance at our annual conference today of Michael Slattery QC, the president of the New South Wales Bar Association, and the special visit to address our Council and a meeting of Auckland barristers by Glenn Martin SC and Stephen Estcourt QC (past and present presidents of the Australian Bar Association) were and are also major steps forward in the establishment of closer relations with the Australian bars. I would like to make special mention of the efforts made by Jonathan Eaton, Chris Gudsell QC and Colin Carruthers QC in advancing these efforts. Beyond Australia, mention should also be made of the World Bar Conference which is
T
to be held in Dublin on June 27-30 2008, the organisers of which have expressed a strong desire for our participation. Rules reforms The Council has formed a Rules Subcommittee to deal with the increasing number of requests that are received from the very active Rules Committee that reviews High Court and District Court Rules of Court. This has required a huge amount of work from Council members in preparing submissions. Council members involved have been Stephen Mills QC, Colin Carruthers QC, Tony Hughes-Johnson QC, Chris Gudsell QC and Lauren Lindsay. Special mention should also be made of an excellent paper put together by Mary Peters and Phil Skelton, into the important subject of class actions, currently under consideration by the Rules Committee. Ahead of us is a major submission that will be required on District Court Rules reform. Regulatory reforms he New Zealand Law Society has the regulatory responsibility under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act to bring forward new regulations for professional standards. A major part of the Council’s activities for the past year has been the preparation and presentation of submissions to NZLS on the new Conduct and Client Care Rules. These rules cover not only general ethical and professional rules but also specific rules that have a direct effect on the future operation of the independent bar – in particular the intervention rule and the cab rank rule. Also of potential consideration were questions such as whether barristers should be able to practise in partnership. There is a strong difference of view within the bar as to the future of the intervention rule. The Council eventually endorsed a modification of the rule that would allow direct instruction up to the point of the issue of legal proceedings - the solution adopted in New South Wales and, with variation, in England.
T
Continued from p.6
Another area of regulatory reform has been the organisation and structure of the profession. The Council of the Association formed a special NZLS Structure and Constitution Committee consisting of Colin Carruthers QC, Chris Gudsell QC, Stephen Mills QC, Ken Johnston and Terry Sissons. They met with the NZLS Restructure Working Group, in a critical meeting in April 2007, at which our case for the right to have a representative on the reformed NZLS Council was successfully advanced. Other Council and committee work Libraries Steering Group Subcommittee consisting of Trevor Shiels and Matthew Ward-Johnson has been formed. The continued existence of Law Society libraries throughout the country has been a matter of particular concern to barristers, especially in the smaller centres.
A
The perennial problem of legal aid continues. Jonathan Eaton is preparing a report for the Bar Association for submission to the NZLS Legal Services Committee. There is a continuing need to keep the Association’s constitution under ongoing review. Bruce Gray QC acted as convenor of a committee consisting of Miriam Dean QC, Stephen Mills QC, Kate Davenport, Matthew Ward-Johnson and Lauren Lindsay to plan and organise, together with Monique Pearson, the annual conference. This year, it was decided to hold the conference in Christchurch. Colin Carruthers QC was the NZBA representative at High Court meetings in Wellington with external agencies and Alan Sorrell continued this role in Auckland. By arrangement with NZLS, Brendan Brown QC has continued to liaise with the Bar Association on matters of concern to the bar. ● Cont. on p.10
N.Z. Bar Association Newsletter. September 2007. Page 7
Bar Association conference 2007
N.Z. Bar Association Newsletter. September 2007. Page 8
Crowne Plaza, Christchurch
N.Z. Bar Association Newsletter. September 2007. Page 9
President reports to AGM: I would want to acknowledge the excellent work done by Chris Gudsell QC as vice president of the Association, and by Trevor Shiels as treasurer – not a job for which there are normally volunteers.
T
he Association’s bulk buying scheme, which was the result of the initiative of Miriam Dean QC, has continued to grow and develop with further additions to the list of preferred suppliers providing substantial discounts to members of the Association. Miriam Dean is also undertaking the task of organising, together with the Legal Research Foundation, a joint conference in February 2008 on legal process. Chris Gudsell QC successfully renegotiated PI insurance rates which remain unchanged, notwithstanding increased benefits and the adverse judgments of the Supreme Court in Lai v. Chamberlain. Stuart Grieve QC and I met with Russell Johnson Chief DCJ to express the concerns of the Council at the report that a District Court judge had altered summing up notes between the time of delivery and the hearing of an appeal in the case. We were satisfied that the Chief Judge had been well aware of the seriousness of the matter and had immediately addressed it appropriately An innovation this year which I believe will be of enduring significance was the holding of the inaugural Bench and Bar Dinner. This was held in Wellington and was well attended by both judges and members of the bar. David Carruthers, chairman of the Parole Board, addressed the gathering on the work of the board and of the important social and legal issues that have to be confronted The year in summary This has therefore been a year of substantial and identifiable achievement. However, in my view, the greatest achievement for the Association has
been the successful establishment of a professional management structure in the form our new full-time executive director. Monique Pearson was appointed to this position in December 2006 after an extensive advertising and screening and interview process by a committee consisting of Stuart Grieve QC, Miriam Dean QC, Chris Gudsell QC and myself. The increasing influence of the Association Allied to this is the continuing increased influence which the Association has in matters relating to the legal system and in particular the conduct of litigation and other forms of dispute resolution. Our relationship with the judiciary is, in my view, higher than it has ever been. We have been fortunate to have Justice Tony Randerson, the Chief Judge of the High Court attend Council meetings. The Chief Justice also has maintained her interest in the Association and its affairs by being a regular attender of bar functions, as also have been many other members of the judiciary. I also see our developing co-operation with NZLS as being of considerable significance.
H
owever, challenges remain, not the least of which is the provision in the legislation that enables senior counsel to be appointed from law firms. It remains to be seen whether this can be done, and to what extent, without destroying the very qualities that have characterised Queens’ Counsel. It seems likely, to take the positive side, that from the process that is under way for considering an appropriate new regime there will emerge an appointments process that is more transparent and objective than that which has existed to date.
Conclusion I would like to thank all Council members for the hard work that they have undertaken over the past year. Council membership is certainly no sinecure but the rewards in terms of satisfaction for a job well done are high.
Continued from p.7
It is encouraging that this year we had 17 candidates for 12 positions. August 18, 2007 Jim Farmer QC (The full version of the president’s report can be seen on the Association’s website.)
NZ Bar Association Official Newsletter EDITOR Catriona MacLennan Telephone: 09 378 0964 Email: catmac@clear.net.nz LAYOUT / DESIGN Graham Wear Telephone: 09 415 9968 Email: wears@clear.net.nz John Slane Telephone: 09 524 5643 Email: j.slane@xtra.co.nz EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Miriam Dean QC Convener Telephone: 09 377 8959 Email: miriam@barrists.co.nz Marian Hinde Telephone: Fax:
09 366 7757 09 303 4566
Jodi Libbey Telephone: 09 309 4690 Email: j.libbey@xtra.co.nz Stephen Kós Telephone: 04 472 9026 Email: jsk@40johnston.co.nz Monique Pearson Telephone: 09 303 4515 Email: nzbar@nzbar.org.nz
N.Z. Bar Association Newsletter. September 2007. Page 10
Message from the Executive Director: T
his edition is jam-packed full of interesting news and articles. We had a fantastic response to this year’s annual conference with a terrific number of delegates and great feedback on the quality of speakers and topics. I would like to extend the Council’s appreciation to our speakers for making the programme interesting and informative and also to our sponsors, AON, Crombie Lockwood, TFB New Zealand and OfficeMax. The conference started on Friday night with an informal dinner at Fat Eddies Jazz Bar.The work programme on Saturday was set in motion by Professor Jim Raymond, a North American academic who has lectured on legal writing all over the world, followed by Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court of Australia and Justice Winkelmann and Kieran Raftery from New Zealand who led debate on when oral submission should depart from synopsis. The afternoon programme addressed the interface between the bar and the media. Justice Tony Randerson, John Billington QC and Deborah Coddington explored when it is appropriate for barristers to talk to the media, what media want from barristers and how best to deal with the media. The formal dinner was held at the Christchurch Art Gallery on Saturday night. Photos of the functions can be viewed on pages 8 and 9 of this publication.
T
he president of the NSW Bar Association, Michael Slattery QC, attended this year’s conference. As he talked about how we could achieve greater contact between both bars, the possibility of jointly organised events, promoting greater contact between New Zealand barristers and barristers in New South Wales and ideas on work exchanges, it made me think about why we haven’t done anything about this before. This is a tremendous initiative which I suspect both bars will gain a great deal from and I look forward to pursuing our common interests of cultivating a trans-Tasman relationship with great enthusiasm.
On the subject of new initiatives, the inaugural Junior Barristers’ function was recently held at Pasha Lounge on Auckland’s Viaduct. The event was a huge success with a great attendance from both members and prospective members. Lauren Lindsay, our Junior Barrister representative, is making a superb effort of ensuring our junior members are fully represented on the Council. Lauren now has a regular feature in our Newsletter to report on news, events and challenges which face our junior members. A topical issue is the formation of a Mentoring Scheme Sub-committee which Lauren has commented on in her column. We have an amazing line-up of events for the remainder of this year including two bar dinners for the newly
appointed silks and a Junior Barristers’ function which will be held in Wellington on November 30. The Council is also due to visit Hamilton on September 27 and have invited the local bar to join us for lunch.
B
efore I sign off I would like to remind members to visit the Association’s website for regular updates on news and events. Members are also encouraged to check that their details are correctly recorded in the Directory of Members which is displayed on our website. If you missed out on attending the conference, you can read Professor James Raymond’s papers on our website www.nzbar.org.nz Monique Pearson
New Zealand Bar Association Preferred Supplier
New Zealand Ltd
Don’t Settle for Second Best With over 30 year’s in the legal industry, we have an innovative range of solutions that are widely implemented across New Zealand and the UK which can be tailored to each client’s individual needs.
n
Case and Document Management
n
Time Recording and Billing
n
Management Information
n
Reporting
n
Database
n
File Emails Automatically
n
Marketing
n
E-commerce
n
Remote Working
n
Managing Office Accounts
TFB – Voted Number One for client satisfaction in the Law Society’s Software Solutions Guide for England and Wales
tel
0064 9 918 0530
email enquiries@tfbnz.co.nz web
www.tfbnz.co.nz
TFB New Zealand, 6 Clayton St, Newmarket, Auckland, New Zealand
Auckland . Fareham . Glasgow . Manchester . Dublin . Belfast . Cork N.Z. Bar Association Newsletter. September 2007. Page 11
JUBES — Bar Association’s secret ingredient Jube (sl) [pronounced joob] 1. (n) soft gelatinous confectionery encrusted with sugar. 2. (n) an affectionate term used to denote a junior barrister. Originally coined by Bruce Gray QC, the term has since garnered widespread use throughout the barristerial community.
Inaugural Junior Barrister function – Auckland: The inaugural Junior Barrister function was held on Friday July 27, 2007 at Pasha Lounge in the Viaduct. The function went extremely well. Of the 25 in attendance, 16 were either junior barristers or judges’ clerks. (Judges’ clerks who are eligible for a practising certificate can, since the AGM last month, qualify for associate membership of the NZBA.) Attendees had the opportunity to meet fellow jubes and mingle with members of the middle and senior bar. While those present munched on Moroccan tapas and sipped Waipara Hills pinot noir, Stuart Grieve QC issued a reminder of the Association’s commitment to supporting junior barristers as much as their senior counterparts. The perception that the Association exists solely for the senior bar is a myth that the Association is dedicated to dispelling. The Association is for all barristers throughout the country, irrespective of practice area. Stuart emphasised that junior barristers are an integral part of the NZBA since they represent the future of both the Association and the profession. Thank you to Monique Pearson and David Bigio for their help in organising the function. I would also like to thank the Council members who attended: Miriam Dean QC, Trevor Shiels, Bruce Gray QC and Stuart Grieve QC. Annual Conference – Christchurch: The annual conference was held on
August 17 to 18 at the Crowne Plaza in Christchurch. I had the opportunity to meet other barristers from around the country as well as judges from the High Court and Court of Appeal. A distinguished smorgasbord of speakers informed me about the art of persuasion, the structuring of written and oral argument and how journalists would like advocates to approach cases of high public interest. Professor Jim Raymond’s talk on the content and structure of written submissions was funny and intellectually stimulating. Justice Kirby gave a spellbinding speech about his experiences with oral advocacy and painted a poetic background to the submissions given in the High Court of Australia in the Mabo case. And, he reminded me why I wanted to become a lawyer in the first place: to give a voice to those without. Mentoring Sub-committee: The Mentoring Sub-committee is presently drafting guidelines that will provide the basic structure to the mentoring relationship. Mentoring is a valuable initiative which will particularly assist those jubes who are not in chambers and require a “chat” from time to time with someone more experienced. As this is a new initiative, your feedback is essential. Please email me what you would like from and/ or expect to get out of a mentoring scheme. Final musings: I would like to finish my column by emphasising the importance of junior barrister involvement in the Association. Attending events is the first step in that involvement. While some of the events are free (such as the junior barrister function held in Auckland and the upcoming event in Wellington) others are not. Keep in mind that the cost of an NZBA event is a tax deductible expense and will always be worth your while.You will meet new people, be able to pick ● Cont. on p.14
Junior Barristers awarded skills scholarships Each year the Association offers a full scholarship to two new members of the independent bar, as an indication of the Council’s determination to support initiatives to improve the standard of litigation skills of those at the independent bar. The Litigation Skills programme has been run annually by the New Zealand Law Society since 1986. Based on the tried and tested teaching methods pioneered by the United States National Institute for Trial Advocacy (NITA), the week-long programme provides in-depth, hands on training in litigation skills. This year’s recipients of the full scholarships are Michael Lenihan and Anoushka Bloem.
Michael Lenihan (above) completed an LLB at Otago, an LLM at Canterbury and then an LLM at Cambridge. An extended OE followed in which he did investment banking in London, travel and then switched back to law for two and a half years at a leading Sydney insolvency practice. Michael came home in late 2003 and worked at Jones Fee in Auckland doing ● Cont. on p.14
N.Z. Bar Association Newsletter. September 2007. Page 12
Inaugural Junior Barrister function
N.Z. Bar Association Newsletter. September 2007. Page 13
Continued from page 12
Junior Barristers awarded skills scholarships
insurance and then Russell McVeagh in Wellington doing insurance and general civil work. He commenced practice at the independent bar in November last year and has been doing mainly civil work (with some criminal work, which he hopes to continue). Michael is currently at Eldon Chambers in Shortland Street, Auckland and can be contacted on (09) 357 0594 or michael@ lenihan.net.nz “The Litigation Skills course was of immense value to me. I received the benefit of detailed scrutiny on all aspects of advocacy, some of which as a junior practitioner I had not done much of before. It gave me the opportunity to mix and talk with the very experienced and able people on the faculty. Also, I was able to meet a number of great people on my course. I wish to record my gratitude to the Bar Association for awarding me the scholarship,” he said. Anoushka Bloem’s work for the last three years has involved all areas of criminal law including traffic and serious crime in both the summary and trial jurisdictions. Anoushka graduated from Auckland University at the end of 2002. For the first two years she worked at Bell Gully Auckland in the
areas of tax and corporate law. She then made a significant change of direction to practise solely in the area of criminal law as a barrister. “I am very grateful for the NZ Bar Association Scholarship to attend the New Zealand Law Society Litigation Skills course in Christchurch for one week. I benefited a great deal from this course. The teaching staff were of an extremely high calibre, including judges and senior practitioners from around the country. It was encouraging to be surrounded by such people who have an obvious commitment and passion for advocacy and ensuring that other lawyers are trained to a high standard. The course involved the opportunity to be regularly critiqued by the teaching staff via video recordings of attendees several times a day. This was a very rare and useful opportunity to fine tune my technique and presentation in court.” Anoushka currently works from Albion Chambers in Wellesley Street, Auckland with four other lawyers specialising in criminal law. Her contact details are: Albion Chambers 79 Wellesley Street, Auckland, PO Box 6627 Wellesley Street, phone (09) 3691800, fax (09) 369-1810 and mobile 021 500 584.
● Anoushka Bloem
JUBES:
cont. from p.12
another barrister’s brain, and, dare I say it, enjoy yourself. Upcoming events: ♦ Junior Barrister function in Wellington, Friday November 30, venue to be confirmed ♦ NZBA Council meeting, September 27, Hamilton Till next Newsletter… Lauren Lindsay
NZ Bar Association 2007–2008 Council — Contact details Ph: 09 358 7090 Fx: 09 358 7091 P O Box 1800 Auckland
Christopher Gudsell QC ctgudsell@xtra.co.nz
Ph: 07 839 3290 Fx: 07 834 0587 P O Box 19085 Hamilton
Trevor Shiels
Colin Carruthers QC crc@crcarruthers.co.nz
Ph: 04 471 4275 Fx: 04 471 1195 P O Box 305 Wellington
Elliot Hudson elliothudson@xtra.co.nz
Ph: 07 839 6644 Fx: 07 838 9319 P O Box 19252 Hamilton
Terry Sissons terry.sissons@xtra.co.nz
Kate Davenport kate@katedavenport.co.nz
Ph: 09 307 8787 Fx: 09 307 8788 P O Box 141 Shortland St Auckland Ph: 09 377 8959 Fx: 09 377 8960 P O Box 4111 Auckland
Tony Hughes-Johnson QC achj@xtra.co.nz
Ph: 03 365 2158 Fx: 03 365 7273 P O Box 286 Christchurch
Junior Barristers Representative Ph: 09 307 8771 Lauren Lindsay Fx: 09 307 8772 Lauren@laurenlindsay.co.nz P O Box 770 Shortland St Auckland
Ken Johnston k-johnston@clear.net.nz
Ph: 04 471 2727 Fx: 04 499 4620 P O Box 5058 Wellington
Stephen Mills QC
Ph: 09 307 9820
President James Farmer QC jamesfarmer@queenscounsel.co.nz
Miriam Dean QC miriam@barrists.co.nz
Jonathan Eaton Ph: 03 372 3466 j.eaton@bridgesidechambers.co.nz Fx: 03 365 2592 P O Box 13-868 Christchurch
trevor.shiels@barristerschambers.co.nz
Ph: 03 477 4030 Fx: 03 477 7320 P O Box 1219 Dunedin Ph: 04 471 1380 Fx: 04 499 8795 P O Box 23063 Wellington
stephen.mills@shortlandchambers.co.nz Fx: 09 307 1572
P O Box 4338 Auckland
N.Z. Bar Association Newsletter. September 2007. Page 14
Bar Chat Appointment of two new judges of the High Court to sit in Auckland The Bar Association offers its warmest congratulations to Peter Woodhouse QC and Ailsa Duffy QC on having been appointed judges of the High Court.
Bar Council office holders 2007 – 2008 President
Jim Farmer QC
Auckland
Miriam Dean QC Stephen Mills QC Kate Davenport Lauren Lindsay
Waikato/BOP
Christopher Gudsell QC Elliott Hudson
Wellington
Colin Carruthers QC Ken Johnston Terence Sissons
Canterbury
Tony Hughes-Johnson QC Jonathan Eaton
Otago/Southland
Trevor Shiels
New Bar Association members The Bar Association welcomes the following new members to the independent bar and/or the Bar Association: AUCKLAND
Anoushka Bloem Brett Cuningham David Dickinson Geoff Mercer James LaHatte Karen Meikle Kelly Quinn Lorraine Lipman Peter Johnson Tony Drake
CHRISTCHURCH Craig Ruane Denise Johnston Stephen van Bohemen
HAMILTON
Lyn Walkington Thomas Sutcliffe
NELSON
Warwick Heal
SYDNEY
David Russell QC
TAURANGA
Edward Burke John Leigh
WELLINGTON
Donald Stevens QC Duncan Ferrier Joanne Verbiesen
N.Z. Bar Association Newsletter. September 2007. Page 15
New Zealand Bar Association Council
Summary of meeting minutes T
he Council met on Thursday, July 19, 2007 at the Northern Club, Auckland. The draft financial accounts for the period October 1, 2006 to March 31, 2007 were presented. Thirteen full members have joined since May 10, 2007. As at July 15, 2007 the Association had a total of 767 members (610 full, 93 associate, 56 judicial and eight honorary). A sub-committee was formed to facilitate amendments to the Association rules. The meeting discussed associate membership status, increasing the number of vice presidents and the limitation on the number of years a member can serve on the Council. Once updated, the constitution will be posted to the members-only area of the website. An Administrative Committee was formed to discuss administrative resources required by the executive director. The meeting discussed a report which the Law Commission has produced on access to court records which proposes a disclosure regime similar to that under the Official Information Act. As to the proposed one society model, the meeting expressed its support for the Association to have a voice on the NZLS Council. If passed, the Association will be a member on the Council with one vote along with the sections and the Corporate Lawyers’ Association. The Chief Justice, Solicitor General, Chris Darlow and Jim Farmer are meeting to discuss the matter of the appointment of senior counsel and will report at the next meeting.
A combined silks dinner for Auckland and Waikato new silks will be held in Auckland in October.
Ron Walden, a member of the Association, addressed the Council on how the Association could extend its involvement to those members who could not afford to attend the conferences and other social events. Suggestions presented concerned improved networking for junior barristers, additional mentoring support and more low-cost activities for the younger members.
A Mentoring Committee was formed to concentrate on putting into action a mentoring scheme for junior barristers. The committee is to meet to discuss how the scheme would work.
[The full minutes can be read on the members-only section of the Association’s website.]
Review of Regulations that set Civil Court fees: Terry Sissons spoke to his paper on whether the fees will impede access to justice and whether the waiver system is working. The full report along with Terry’s edited highlights will be placed on the NZBA website.
Civil Litigation in practice 29 October 2007, 9am to 4.40pm. Ellerslie Event Centre, Racecourse This conference is aimed at junior practitioners with up to an intermediate level of experience, with the objective of upskilling them to better respond to practical demands of civil litigation. All through, speakers will concentrate on tips, techniques and checklists to reinforce best practice, and also address the strategic and tactical aspects of the litigator’s role. Full programme at www.adls.org.nz Discussion topics �� Starting right – bringing together the procedural and tactical elements of litigation �� Select elements of case management �� Making a difference through pre trial preparation �� ADR and Settlement options – what is best for your client? �� Effectively leveraging your Expert Witness �� In court procedures and tactics - the plaintiff viewpoint �� In court procedures and tactics - the defendant viewpoint Speakers and Commentators include: His Honour Judge John Cadenhead - Miriam Dean QC - Bruce Stewart QC - Grant Illingworth QC - Adam Ross, Partner, Chapman Tripp - Christina Bryant, Partner, Hesketh Henry - Mary Peters, Barrister, Bankside Chambers - David Neutze, Partner, Brookfields - Mark Davies, Partner, Meredith Connell - Gerard Curry, Partner, Russell McVeagh - Grant Millar, Barrister, Shortland Chambers Price: $395 plus gst = $444.38
To register, email cle@adls.org.nz, or phone (09) 306 3992; fax (09) 309 3726
N.Z. Bar Association Newsletter. September 2007. Page 16
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES International Bar Association Conference 14 – 19 October 2007 The IBA Conference will take place on 14-19 October 2007 in Singapore. The programme has over 150 international law sessions covering all areas of practice and three showcase programmes addressing the highly topical areas of: The importance of the rule of law to international business; the impact of cultural differences on international law; the many faces of corruption – efforts, challenges and opportunities for the future. The conference offers numerous opportunities to network with leading professionals from around the globe and to participate in discussions of interest and relevance to you. Please contact Monique Pearson if you wish to receive a copy of the preliminary programme.
International Advocacy Teachers’ Conference 2 – 4 January 2008 The second International Advocacy Teachers’ Conference to be convened by the Australian Advocacy Institute will be held in January 2008 at the Monash University Campus in the historic city of Prato in Tuscany, Italy. The institute invites all involved in advocacy teaching to attend. This will be a forum where future directions of advocacy teaching in all jurisdictions will be examined and discussed, with a view to bringing together teaching approaches from a variety of sources. Select speakers from Australian and international advocacy bodies will examine the changing role of the advocacy teacher. It will not be just a comparison of what is done now... the conference will encourage a frank discussion on the future and how all advocacy teachers can adapt to meet head-on the challenges of teaching in the 21st century. Relevant details can be found at www.advocacy.com.au.
World Bar Conference 27 – 30 June 2008 Having previously been held in Edinburgh, Cape Town, Hong Kong and Shanghai, this event will next year be co-hosted by Dublin and Belfast. Details of the conference will be posted on the Association’s website.
N.Z. Bar Association Newsletter. September 2007. Page 17
New Zealand Bar Association and Legal Research Foundation Joint Conference
CIVIL LITIGATION IN CRISIS – WHAT CRISIS? The New Zealand Bar Association, together with the Legal Research Foundation, is holding a conference in February 2008 on a topical and timely theme : “Civil Litigation in Crisis – What Crisis?” Apart from its annual conference for members, this is the first time the Association has been involved in organising a conference to a wider audience.The theme is particularly relevant to those at the bar who have a civil litigation practice. Confirmed speakers include: ●
●
●
Sir Gavin Lightman, retired High Court judge, (England and Wales) – who has had some provocative comments to make on the adversarial system and whether it is suited to deliver justice in a timely and inexpensive way. The Honourable Justice Hansen – who delivered the F.W. Guest Memorial Lecture for 2006 on the issue of “Court Administration, the Judiciary and the Efficient Delivery of Justice : A Personal View”. The Honourable Justice McColl, judge of the Court of Appeal of Australia
Other judges and senior practitioners involved include Jim Farmer QC, Robert Fisher QC and the Honourable Justice Chambers.Also, the conference organisers are particularly pleased that a consumer’s perspective will be given by Grant and Marilyn Nelson who, as a result of their five year litigation experience, have endowed $1m to the University of Otago to establish a Legal Issues Centre.
Jim Farmer QC, president of the New Zealand Bar Association, urges all members of the independent bar practising in the civil courts to attend this conference: “Barristers need to be up with the current thinking of those who interest themselves in reforming civil processes — for better or for worse — and contribute to the debate if they have a concern about the conditions under which they run cases”. Similarly, Justice Raynor Asher, as president of the Legal Research Foundation, notes: “The adversarial system and the procedures that underpin it are coming under increasing pressure. Some change, perhaps in due course substantial change, will occur. This seminar offers practitioners an opportunity to participate in the debate in a ground breaking seminar, where the issues will be for the first time fully debated and developed in a New Zealand context”. As Justice Hansen said in his memorial lecture, the current problem with the civil (and criminal) litigation processes is “too serious to be flippant about. Many techniques have been attempted to reduce delay, and although the system is much more efficient than the days of Jarndyce v Jarndyce it is still far from satisfactory.” Attempts at reform to date, as His Honour says, “have essentially been designed to refine our existing system”.The time has come to consider whether “we cling to our system, self-righteously and self-satisfied that it is the best in the world,”or, whether we “at least question our system, and to debate whether there is a better one”. This will be the theme of this conference – whether there is, indeed, a better way forward. It is an opportunity to consider, not only from the lawyer’s perspective, but also his/her clients’ what we are entitled to expect from the court system. The conference will be held at Stamford Plaza in Auckland, on Friday February 22, 2008. Brochures for the conference will be available late-October/early-November. Places will be limited. Mark your diaries now.
N.Z. Bar Association Newsletter. September 2007. Page 18
LEGAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION
Movement and Markers in Criminal Law The last 12 months have seen some major changes in the criminal law, including the commencement of the Evidence Act, the redefinition of search and seizure law in R v Williams, and the introduction of the new sentencing options. The Legal Research Foundation will hold a seminar dealing with these changes on Friday October 26, 2007, featuring Judge David Wilson QC, Public Defender Michael Corry, Crown Counsel Mathew Downs and Law Commissioner Dr Warren Young. The seminar will be chaired by Crown Prosecutor Simon Mount of Meredith Connell. To register for this half-day seminar, please contact Barbara Relph at the LRF at info@legalresearch.org.nz or (09) 303 9540.
The Permanent Court of Appeal: A Celebration of 50 Years (1958–2008)
The Legal Research Foundation is delighted to announce a one-day conference to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the New Zealand Court of Appeal, which sat for the first time as a permanent Court of Appeal in February 1958. The conference is being organised by the foundation at the invitation of the current members of the Court of Appeal. The Foundation is pleased to acknowledge also the sponsorship of the New Zealand Bar Association, the New Zealand Law Society, and the Faculty of Law at the University of Auckland. The conference will be held in Parliament Buildings, Wellington, on March 14, 2008, and will be followed by a dinner at the Wellington Club. A number of distinguished speakers have been invited to speak on the Court of Appeal’s approach and contribution to New Zealand (and wider Commonwealth) law over the past 50 years in a variety of areas: the doctrine of precedent (Professor Jim Evans), administrative law (Professor Mike Taggart), criminal law (Professor Tony Smith), relationship property (Professors Mark Henaghan and Nicola Peart), Accident Compensation legislation and tort law litigation (Professor Stephen Todd), equity in commercial dealings (Professor Peter Watts and Dr Julie Maxton), and indigenous rights (Associate Professor Richard Boast). The Rt Hon Sir Ivor Richardson will also, as an “insider”, deliver a paper on the development and achievements of the permanent Court of Appeal. It is intended that the conference papers will eventually be published as an edited volume of essays in celebration of the permanent Court of Appeal’s golden anniversary. The foundation is pleased to acknowledge the sponsorship of the New Zealand Bar Association, the New Zealand Law Society, and the Faculty of Law at the University of Auckland.
N.Z. Bar Association Newsletter. September 2007. Page 19
SECOND INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON THE LAW OF REMEDIES Advancing the Common Law of Remedies : Praxis and Pedagogy throughout the Commonwealth
Friday November 16th, 2007 Hyatt Regency - Auckland, New Zealand ������������������������������������ New Zealand, Canadian and Australian Kingdom, and to a lesser extent, legal America. That picture has changed Commonwealth countries has matured. generated much legal discourse.
common law has traditionally been influenced by developments in the United developments of that other great common law bastion, the United States of significantly over the last two decades as the legal practices of these There is now significant inter-connectivity between these nations which has
This Remedies Symposium is designed to explore the intersection of remedies and rights in domestic legal systems, but its frame of reference is distinctly trans-national. It asks whether it is now appropriate to speak of a new understanding of the common law. A common law that traces its historical roots back to Anglo legal traditions, but which builds upon the jurisprudence of all mature Commonwealth legal systems.
This Symposium is a must for lawyers, civil litigators, academics, judges, and policy makers who wish to delve more deeply into how remedial issues shape rights, and to those desiring to understand emerging remedial trends across Commonwealth jurisdictions. Leading specialists from New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, will write and contribute to one of five themes: Assessing lost opportunity and other interests in quantifying loss; Assessing ephemeral, subjective, and other types of non-pecuniary losses, Remedies which go beyond compensation; Holding others to a higher account; and Brave New World – The Globalization of Litigation. Full details of the programme are outline on the Symposium Website. Over twenty presenters have agreed to write and lead interactive discussions on the above topics, including Justice Robert Sharpe (Ontario Court of Appeal), Justice Grant Hammond (NZ Court of Appeal), Michael Tilbury (NSW Law Commissioner), and Professors Capper (Queen’s Univ., Belfast), Hedley (University College, Cork), Rendleman (Washington & Lee Univ. USA), Weaver (Louis Brandeis Univ. USA), Copper-Stephenson (Saskatchewan Univ. Canada), Pratt (Queen’s Univ. Canada), Berryman (Windsor and Auckland Univ.), Fairley (Theall Group, Canada), Carroll (Univ. Western Australia), Spender (ANU), Watson (Macquarie Univ. Australia), Wright (Univ. Adelaide), Davis (Flinders Univ. Australia), Chetwin (Canterbury Univ. NZ), Manning (Auckland Univ.), McLauchlan (Victoria Univ. Wellington), McLay (Victoria Univ. Wellington), Harris (Auckland Univ.) and Palmer (Otago Univ.).
The Remedies Symposium is a joint venture of the Faculty of Law, University of Auckland, and the Faculty of Law, University of Windsor, Canada, and is made possible with financial sponsorship of the New Zealand Law Foundation, and Law Foundation of Ontario. For further details and to register, please visit the Symposium Website at: www.uwindsor.ca/law/remedies
N.Z. Bar Association Newsletter. September 2007. Page 20