LawNews - Issue 15

NEWS May 20, 2022 Issue 15

Inside ■ PROPERTY

The new reality of sunset clauses P06-07

■ EMPLOYMENT

Negotiating plans to return to the office P08

In defence of adls.org.nz

CO-GOVERNANCE

Contents 03-05 TREATY NEGOTIATIONS COERCION

The arguments for co-governance

LawNews is an official publication of Auckland District Law Society Inc. (ADLS).

06-07 PROPERTY CAVEATS FINANCE

Sunset clauses come back to bite developers

Editor: Jenni McManus Publisher: ADLS Editorial and contributor enquiries to: Jenni McManus 021 971 598 Jenni.Mcmanus@adls.org.nz Advertising enquiries to: Darrell Denney 021 936 858 Darrell.Denney@adls.org.nz

08 EMPLOYMENT NEGOTIATION COVID

Navigating hybrid work arrangements

All mail to: ADLS, Level 4, Chancery Chambers, 2 Chancery Street, Auckland 1010 PO Box 58, Shortland Street DX CP24001, Auckland 1140, adls.org.nz

10-11 FEATURED CPD

12

Photo: Eerik / Getty Images

CPD IN BRIEF

Write for LawNews LawNews welcomes commentary and opinion pieces from ADLS members and readers. We ask that contributions are civil in tone, factually correct, well-written and logically argued – and fewer than 800 words. And we won’t publish anonymous commentary.

Any questions, please email the editor at: Jenni.McManus@adls.org.nz

LawNews is published weekly (with the exception of a small period over the Christmas holiday break) and is available free of charge to members of ADLS, and available by subscription to non-members for $140 (plus GST) per year.

To subscribe, please email reception@adls.org.nz. ©COPYRIGHT and DISCLAIMER Material from this publication must not be reproduced in whole or part without permission. The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and, unless stated, may not reflect the opinions or views of ADLS or its members.

Responsibility for such views and for the correctness of the information within their articles lies with the authors.

Cover: Phil Walter / Staff Getty Images

02

May 20, 2022 Issue 15

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/OPINION

In defence of co-governance: a response to Gary Judd QC Our constitutional beginnings are about how different governance concepts are to be balanced, intertwined, reconciled here in Aotearoa. Talking about co-governance is at the core of our constitutional whakapapa

Baden Vertongen

constitutional framework from the Magna Carta to current legislation. But, on that journey, he has overlooked a number of key parts of our constitutional history, including Te Tiriti and He Whakaputanga.

Any discussion of our constitution which does not include these documents is fundamentally flawed from the start.

This is particularly so in the context of a co-governance

Photo: Phil Walter / Staff / Getty Images

In his 6 May 2022 LawNews article Lawyers must reject cogovernance and coercion’, Gary Judd QC mounts a number of arguments against co-governance arrangements. His arguments span headings such as our constitutional history, an appeal to reason and the importance of the rule of law and equality under the law.

Judd’s arguments also appear to reference absolutely unfounded suggestions of coercion and threats by those advocating for co-governance.

I have worked with iwi for almost 20 years in negotiating treaty settlements and co-governance arrangements. To imply that I, my colleagues or my clients have ever based any of those discussions on threats or coercion, that we are not ‘ordinary New Zealanders’ for arguing these positions or that we are ‘extremists’ is deeply offensive.

Judd’s entirely inappropriate analogy to current events in the Ukraine also shows a profound lack of knowledge of the history of Aotearoa. If one wishes to evoke parallels with Mariupol and Kyiv then one needs to first look to Ō-Rākau and Parihaka.

But, putting this rhetoric aside, Judd’s arguments can be countered under the broad headings he argues. As lawyers, we should be embracing and exploring discussions about cogovernance arrangements. Here is why.

Judd takes us on a historical journey through our

Continued on page 04 03

Continued from page 03 discussion.

There is no doubt Te Tiriti is difficult and challenging.

We can debate the details of the meaning of rangatiratanga and kawanatanga, of sovereignty and chieftainship and how these ideas relate to each other. We can argue what issues or resources these concepts apply to. There are no easy answers here.

But that is the point. Our constitutional beginnings are about how different governance concepts are to be balanced, intertwined, reconciled here in Aotearoa. Talking about cogovernance is at the core of our constitutional whakapapa.

It is for this reason that lawyers should embrace discussions about co-governance as being entirely consistent with our constitutional heritage.

Judd takes us to Thomas Jefferson as a source of reason and principles for a civilised society. Of course, it can be argued that Jefferson could have benefited from some ‘cogovernance’ in his own writings. These might be much more compelling discussions on human rights and fundamental liberties if Sally Hemings had also been able to set out her thoughts on the subject in Notes on the State of Virginia.

But Judd is right that free inquiry, reason and the persuasion of others is fundamentally important in any discussion of co-governance.

The difficulty is that free inquiry and reason is largely missing from his article. Claims of coercion and threats are made with no justification or evidence. Aspirations and motivations are ascribed to those of us working on cogovernance issues with no inquiry having been made of us as to what these might actually be.

Nor is the question ever asked as to whether cogovernance would work. Would it deliver better outcomes?

Would it reduce the significant disparities for Māori across areas like health and justice? Would it lead to better management of our natural resources? What is the actual impact on non-Māori of more involvement by Māori in decision-making?

Those of us working in this space freely inquire into those types of questions. When we do, we are often persuaded that the answer may very well be ‘yes, co-governance is better’ (or at least ‘it’s worth a try because it can’t be much worse’).

So, again, lawyers should embrace co-governance discussions. They are reasoned discussions about what might actually work to achieve the best outcomes for everyone in Aotearoa. They are discussions that draw on a range of 04

Lawyers should embrace discussions about cogovernance as being entirely consistent with our constitutional heritage

perspectives and world views and open our minds to fresh understandings. They are discussions that might take us to Thomas Jefferson’s writings but they take us to Moana Jackson’s too.

Rule of law and equal rights We can also agree with Judd on the importance of the rule of law and equality before the law as being fundamental principles. From there though, there is a misunderstanding of what co-governance is and its relationship with the rule of law.

Co-governance is, simply put, a mechanism for drawing in different voices and different perspectives to how a particular issue or resource might be managed. What comes out of that structure still applies equally to everyone.

There are a number of reasons why including those different voices is important.

It may be that groups – like hapū or iwi – have legally recognised rights and interests in particular resources that mean it is important to ensure their views are included in management.

Or it may be that in areas like health and justice, where the current systems result in significant disparities for Māori, it is important to ensure a Māori perspective is present in decision-making to understand why this might be and what can be done to address it. These reasons all aim at ensuring equality and equity.

Continued on page 05

Photo: Hannah Peters / Stringer / Getty Images

Reason

May 20, 2022 Issue 15

Continued from page 04 In addition, co-governance frameworks have never been forced through outside the rule of law – never by extremism, coercion, threats of violence or by espousing civil war.

They are developed in a way that is firmly grounded in the law and our legal system. They flow from the recognition of legal rights won in the courtroom and in other tribunals. They are developed at the negotiation table. They are given effect to by our Parliament, by our elected representatives across the range of political parties and are set out in statute. They reflect Te Tiriti.

This path, working within the rule of law, has been set by those who have come before us. For example, it upholds the directive given by Te Kooti-Arikirangi that, following the violence of the 19th century, Ko te waka hei hoehoenga mā koutou hei muri i au, ko te ture. Mā te Ture anō te Ture e āki (The canoe for you to paddle after me is the law. Only the law can be set against the law)”.

Suggestions that aspirations for, and work towards, cogovernance are somehow outside the rule of law are deeply ill-informed of the history of Aotearoa and how this guides us all today.

It is open for others to disagree with a co-governance arrangement and argue that view in court, in Parliament, or in other legal forum. We may win or we may lose that debate within our legal system and applying the law equally to each of us. But all this occurs within the law.

Judd is right that free inquiry, reason and the persuasion of others is fundamentally important in any discussion of cogovernance

Co-governance is, simply put, a mechanism for drawing in different voices and different perspectives to how a particular issue or resource might be managed. What comes out of that structure still applies equally to everyone

This is why it is important for lawyers to openly engage with co-governance discussions. They are debates about how to reflect and provide for legal rights and how our legal and governance structures might provide equal and equitable outcomes. They are discussions about how to uphold the rule of law.

Rejecting those discussions based on fear, ignorance and misinformation is a rejection of the rule of law, a rejection of reason and a rejection of our history.

Our obligation as lawyers is to be better than that. ■ Baden Vertongen is co-president of the Māori Law Society (Tumuaki Tāne, Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa) ■

NEW TITLE

Family Law in New Zealand, 20th edition Authors Mark Henaghan, Bill Atkin, Shonagh Burnhill, Anna Chapman With in-depth commentary and updated legislation and case law, this is an invaluable resource for students and practitioners who need an authoritative resource at their fingertips.

Now packaged as a two-volume set, Family Law in New Zealand, 20th edition, is a consolidation of selected commentary from the online publication Family Law Service.

It emphasises succinct practical analysis of the current and

historic principles and trends in family law.

Price for ADLS members $136.95 plus GST* Price for non-members $152.17 plus GST * (* + Postage and packaging) To preorder this book, please visit adls.org.nz; alternatively, contact the ADLS bookstore by phone: (09) 306 5740, fax: (09) 306 5741 or email: thestore@adls.org.nz.

05

PROPERTY LAW

What a buyers’ market means for property developers and off-the-plan purchasers Jenni McManus

Bryce Town

Joanna Pidgeon

06

What a difference a few months can make, particularly in the notoriously mercurial residential property market.

Not only are prices toppling from the high of August and September last year but latest first-quarter figures for 2022 reveal volumes have plummeted when compared with the same period last year.

Nationally, residential sales for the quarter have dropped from 8324 to 5597 (32.8%), New Zealand numbers (excluding Auckland) are down 28% and Auckland sales are a whopping 40.2% lower.

Market-watchers report, however, that while transactions might be fewer, they tend to be stickier. Bryce Town, a partner at Morrison Kent and convenor of the ADLS Property Law committee, says billable hours remain similar to when the market was at its height.

Bridging finance has all but dried up, meaning purchasers who buy before selling their current property are taking big risks, Town says. Finance is becoming “challenging” to negotiate, with banks stress-testing potential loans at 7.5% to ensure borrowers can repay all their mortgages at this rate.

And now that FOMO (fear of missing out) is no longer powering the market, purchasers are taking more notice of conditions in their sale and purchase agreements. Red flags in LIM and building reports, which six months ago might have been glossed over in the race to secure a property, now have purchasers’ attention and are, in some instances, being used to drive down prices.

“Purchasers are now using those due diligence clauses to negotiate further conditions and sometimes to negotiate reductions in price,” Town says. “In the past couple of years, if you bought and didn’t go unconditional someone else would be lining up to buy and probably at a higher price. These days have gone for the time being.”

Another sign of the times is that pre-sold rural sections and blocks are starting to come back onto the market when the titles are issued as the purchasers discover they can’t afford to settle, Town says.

You can’t use sunset clauses to intentionally delay building projects with the aim of exploiting buyers

Along with bridging finance, bank loans for developers have dried up. Town says he acts for some “long-standing, experienced developers” who are struggling to raise funds.

“Banks won’t lend anything to them at the moment. They have gone out of the market so we’re having to do special partnerships and get investors in there,” he says.

“I’m told by my clients that the banks are more concerned about the supply chain for completing properties than losing money on the development.” The second-tier lending market, with its higher costs, is becoming important again.

“Developers are dropping out of the market,” Town says.

“They’re not looking to buy development sites any longer whereas three months ago they were still looking. They probably have enough on their plate, trying to finish what they’ve got. A lot of people are sitting on sites where they can’t fund the development or can’t price it properly.”

Sunset clauses In the falling market, developers are also at risk that sunset clauses – used in last year’s rising market to cancel off-the-plan contracts so developers could on-sell the property at a higher price – could come back to bite them.

Joanna Pidgeon, a principal at property specialists Pidgeon Judd, a former president of ADLS and a member of ADLS’ Property Law committee, says the power balance between developers and purchasers has shifted in the past few months. In a market where prices are falling, a purchaser might now want to use the sunset clause to renegotiate the price downwards.

“All sunset clauses work a bit differently but if they bought at the height of the market, and it’s not completed and not valuing up, [purchasers] could well use the sunset clause to get out if they paid more than what it is now worth,” Pidgeon says. She has seen this happen in previous property cycles.

Continued on page 07

May 20, 2022 Issue 15

Continued from page 06

“If you bought off plans two or three years ago, it’s still going to be worth more than you signed up for, but if you signed up in August last year and it was to settle in the next while, you might have paid a bit too much.

“The power has changed a little bit because it’s harder [for a developer] to get sales now.”

Sunset clauses, which give either or both parties the ability to cancel a property contract if certain conditions are not met by a specific date, created havoc last year when developers, arguing that covid had caused delays and hiked prices for materials, invoked them to cancel agreements.

The purchasers, often first-home buyers, were left stranded.

While their deposits were usually still intact in a solicitor’s trust account and, in many cases, the developer was happy to continue with the agreement if the purchasers agreed to a higher price, many couldn’t afford to pay more and found themselves locked out of the market as the deposit they’d paid a year or two earlier was no longer enough to secure another property.

Some are fighting back. Barrister Des Wood, a member of ADLS’ Property Law committee, has a handful of cases where purchases are threatening to litigate, specifically by way of injunction, to prevent developers from using sunset clauses in this way. Others are heading towards mediation. The principal argument, says Wood, is that the developers have not acted in good faith.

Pidgeon, who acts for both developers and purchasers, says there’s a difference between developers cancelling a contract because they can’t get resource or building consents or finance for the project and developers who “try to screw the scrum” once the consents are in place and the decision has been made to proceed.

At that point, she says, clause 9.10 in the standard ADLS sale and purchase agreement requires the developer to do everything necessary to enable the conditions to be met by the date of fulfilment.

With covid delays, Pidgeon says some developers are thinking ‘it’s not too long until the sunset clause expires so maybe I should just delay filing everything with council and pull the rug out’. Such delaying tactics are ‘cynical’, she says.

But Pidgeon is also seeing purchasers start to take control by refusing to accept sunset clauses in favour of the vendor or, if such a clause exists, there’s a stipulation that the developer cannot cancel and on-sell at a higher price.

No-caveat clauses The issue can be complicated by no-caveat clauses in some development contracts.

These can give purchasers more leverage and better protect their interests if developers try to invoke sunset clauses. Banks and developers find them a nightmare, Town says, because they can delay the consenting process.

Nonetheless, he tells clients that once their deposit is paid, they need to get a caveat in place so if the developer then tries to invoke a sunset clause and cancel the contract, it must first get the caveat removed.

“It strengthens the purchaser’s argument that [the developer] acted in bad faith or is not entitled to cancel the contract,” Town says. “[The purchaser] can insist they have an unconditional contract, and they can proceed.”

Without a caveat, the purchaser’s only remedy is injunction which is an expensive route. “A caveat is great protection, and the vendor has got to do a lot of heavy lifting to get rid of it,” Town says.

It won’t trump a properly worded and enforceable sunset clause, but purchasers are in a stronger negotiating position if it’s there.

Des Wood

De facto clause Pidgeon also points out that s 255 of the Resource Management Act 1991 is a de facto sunset clause, implied in every agreement.

The parties can’t contract out but because the clause relates only to the issue of title, it has become standard practice for parties to also negotiate a clearer and simpler clause.

“If you are selling off the plan, you’re selling something that doesn’t yet exist, so you need these mechanisms to enable people to get out, so they’re not trapped,” she says.

“The purchase is dependent on the vendor doing certain things – obtaining finance, obtaining resource consent – and it’s not in the public interest that purchasers be left hanging in there forever.”

Covid, she says, created a perfect storm. “Developers were facing increased delays and additional costs and property values were going up incredibly. They were feeling very squeezed and started putting in things like sunset clauses which were for the benefit of developer and purchasers, and usually the developer would have a clause making the agreement conditional on having resource consent and building consent and making sure there was financial viability. Often, they’d have a force majeure clause, so they were not stuck in a situation where it was impossible to complete.”

Usually, Pidgeon says, developers are keen to complete and settle as soon as possible to avoid excess interest on borrowings.

But the “weird period” of the past couple of years had seen cynical delays and cancellations.

Pidgeon says she’s aware of one contract where the developer, with the benefit of a sunset clause, passed a council inspection for code compliance certification that was issued three working days after the developer had cancelled the contract so it could on-sell.

There are better ways for developers to protect themselves than sunset clauses, she says. And one way to protect purchasers might be legislation banning the clauses, as is the case in many Australian states. For example, in New South Wales a developer needs written consent from the buyer or the court if it wants to terminate a contract because the project is delayed.

“It’s similar in Victoria,” Pidgeon says. “You can’t use sunset clauses to intentionally delay building projects with the aim of exploiting buyers.” ■

Purchasers are now using those due diligence clauses to negotiate further conditions and sometimes to negotiate reductions in price

07

EMPLOYMENT LAW/COVID-19

Finding the right mix between office and home?

Dougal Sutherland After more than two years of disruptions, lockdowns and uncertainty, employers are facing a new reckoning in 2022: getting staff back into the office.

Dubbed by some the “great hybrid return to work”, employers across a range of industries are being forced to consider what the work environment will look like for staff.

In an environment where labour is tight, just how much can businesses prod employees to come back into the office? And how can bosses design a solution to meet the needs of the collective after more than two years of work-from-home flexing where individual choice has reigned supreme?

This reckoning isn’t isolated to New Zealand, with stories from the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia painting a picture of a world that has fundamentally shifted and the dawn of what may well become the work-from-home decade.

Granted, not all employees can work from home.

Some never have, as they’ve continued to show up on the frontline in hospitals, grocery stores and emergency response call-outs. But research suggests those who got a taste of working from home are hungry for more.

Emphasis on coordination A 2022 report from Stanford University heralds the benefits of a hybrid approach to work, acknowledging that most – but not all – staff benefit from a bit of time at home and a bit of time in the office.

The Stanford recommendation is to coordinate the return to the office with agreed days (for example, Tuesday through Thursday in the office, Monday and Friday at home) and reassess at the end of the year to create a long-term plan.

This copy-and-paste plan certainly won’t work for all workplaces but it suggests there is some merit to a coordinated approach.

Fairness as key Social connection isn’t the only reason some researchers are advocating for a hybrid working 08

Employers should take the opportunity to tap into the specific wants and needs of their employees by implementing a consultation process

model where teams come in on the same agreedupon days.

This approach can maximise fairness and equity, thereby boosting diversity and inclusion. Having teams in one place at the same time ensures equitable information transfer and opportunities for development and promotion.

This could be especially pertinent for working parents, who may already face difficulty or discrimination from working flexibly or taking parental leave, and for minority groups that have traditionally been pipped at the post for promotions or mentoring opportunities.

Fairness, one of the key protective factors against burnout at work, helps to offset feelings of cynicism, anger or indignation.

Decisions about returning to the office should be transparent and clearly communicated. And while individual approaches may be necessary, plans for work should equally advantage all groups – senior leaders and entry-level graduates alike.

Ask, don’t assume What works for some won’t work for all, so employers should talk to their employees. This simple advice applies as much to the general well-being of employees as it does to the structure of the work week.

By engaging in genuine conversations with staff and including them in the decision-making process, leaders can build and maintain a level of trust that is essential to a strong culture of well-being in the workplace and can ensure the diverse needs of employees are met.

While everyone is neck deep in the process of discovering a new normal, employers should take the opportunity to tap into the specific wants and needs of their employees by implementing a consultation process.

This may mean providing various options for people to give input, such as informal check-ins (faceto-face, text or otherwise) or more formal meetings and forums; this formal and informal communication can be complemented by anonymous employee surveys to capture opinions that some people may

find hard to give in person.

This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to launch a new way of working that meets the needs of employees and allows them to participate in the process of strengthening support and well-being in the workplace.

Build back better While many leaders may bemoan the reluctance of their employees to return to the office, citing a reduction in collaboration and information-sharing in the work-from-home setup, it’s worth asking whether pre-covid office spaces are really that much better.

Open-plan offices, the norm for many modern workplaces, can actually increase stress responses in the body and, paradoxically, reduce collaboration, well-being and engagement.

How do businesses strike a balance between opportunities for collaboration and informationsharing, while protecting an employee’s individual well-being?

With the aim to build back better, employers need to consider adapting office space in a way that is fit for connection as well as focus, with multiple breakout spots, intentional collaboration opportunities and quiet working zones.

Businesses should harness the power of hybrid working too – perhaps utilising work-from-home days for deep work, with a ‘no meetings’ rule and reserved in-person office days for collaborative working and catch-ups.

The next six months will undoubtedly be a period of trial and error for many businesses as they look to encourage workers back to the office. Following the simple rules – ‘ask, don’t assume’ and ‘keep it fair’ – may go a long way to ensuring the return to the office is helpful for employees and organisations alike. ■ Dr Dougal Sutherland is a clinical psychologist working at Victoria University and with Umbrella Wellbeing. Gaynor Parkin and Dr Amanda Wallis from Umbrella contributed to this article ■ The above was first run in The Conversation and is republished with permission

May 20, 2022 Issue 15

Briefs Photo finish Australians go to the polls tomorrow in a federal election where the Opposition Labor Party is running neck-to-neck with the Coalition government of Scott Morrison. Morrison is, however, well ahead of Labor’s Anthony Albanese in the polls as preferred prime minister.

Morrison pulled a rabbit out of the hat late last week by announcing that first home buyers will, if his government is returned to power, be permitted to access their superannuation funds, to a maximum of A$50,000, to boost their deposits.

Security beefed up The US Senate has passed a bill to expand security around Supreme Court judges and their families after protestors gathered at the Maryland homes of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh. They were expressing disapproval about a leaked draft opinion purporting to overturn Roe v Wade – a 1973 Supreme Court decision giving Americans the right to abortion. ■

Family Law New Plymouth, Taranaki

▪ Unique opportunity for career progression and a lifestyle near the beach.

▪ Leading and highly experienced law firm in New Plymouth.

▪ Ideally 1+ year PQE, but graduates are welcome to apply and may be considered.

New Plymouth was named the most liveable city, for a population between 75,000-150,000, by the International Awards for Liveable Communities. Learn more about the Taranaki region here.

EXPERIENCE MAKES THE DIFFERENCE IN LEGAL RECRUITMENT

Connect Legal Taranaki is a progressive and growing full-service law firm based in New Plymouth, Taranaki.

Our dynamic and busy family law team deals with varied and challenging work.

Our legal recruitment specialist and career advisor, Mark Simpson, has been instrumental in developing the talent framework behind many NZ law firms and businesses.

When you join us you are welcomed into a friendly, approachable and highly experienced supportive team with a great sense of humour. We are seeking someone who can focus under pressure, with practical problem-solving attributes.

Law is in his DNA - a qualified lawyer himself, Mark previously practiced at two top tier firms and as an in-house counsel for over 12 years. This, combined with recruiting in the legal space since 2007, presents unparalleled market insight and knowledge of the legal profession.

We offer ongoing professional development, training, mentoring and social activities. We think work-life balance is important so you can get out and enjoy our awesome local lifestyle.

With the support of our dedicated Research Team, Mark recruits legal roles at all levels, from Lateral Partner moves down. Whether you’re an individual considering the next stage in your legal career, or seeking to build your talent pipeline, contact Mark Simpson for a confidential chat:

We would love to hear from solicitors with a genuine interest in Family Law or graduates, either pre or post admission, who have a desire to build a successful career in Family Law.

mark@convergencepartners.co.nz | 09 300 6876 | 021 249 4647

Applications close: 03 June 2022 Please email your cover letter, CV to Patti Wolsbauer pattiw@connectlegal.co.nz Ph 06 769 8080, 136-138 Powderham Street, New Plymouth www.connectlegal.co.nz

09

FEATURED CPD

FINAL NOTICE

TRUSTEES REPORTING RULES

New reporting requirements for domestic trusts Webinar 1.5 CPD hrs Wednesday 25 May 4pm – 5.30pm Presenters Stephen Tomlinson, principal, Tomlinson Law and Geordie Hooft, director, Hooft Consulting Ltd

Most domestic trusts required to file income tax returns must also comply with new reporting rules enacted under urgency and with no prior consultation with stakeholders. Gain an understanding of the new rules and an insight into Inland Revenue’s operational approach.

Chair Bill Patterson, managing partner, Patterson Hopkins

FIND OUT MORE

Harm and revenge in digital communications

Webinar 1.5 CPD hrs Monday 30 May 1pm – 2.30pm Presenter David Harvey, retired District Court Judge Chair and commentator Arran Hunt, partner, Stace Hammond

The Harmful Digital Communications Act has been law for almost seven years. But how well is the legislation working and is it fit for purposes? This webinar will explore the Act’s principles, offences provisions and civil and criminal procedures as well case law. It will interest those practising in civil, criminal and family law.

OFFENCES CASES ENFORCEMENT

FIND OUT MORE

Lessons from Lyttle DISCLOSURE COSTS FAIR TRIALS

Webinar 1.5 CPD hrs Tuesday 7 June 4.30pm – 6pm Presenter Christopher Stevenson, barrister, Pipitea Chambers (David Lyttle’s lawyer) Chair and commentator Julie-Anne Kincade QC, Blackstone Chambers

When did you last make a costs application in a criminal case? Based on the recent Court of Appeal judgment in R v Lyttle [2022] NZCA 52, this webinar will look at the prosecutorial failings in that case and the learnings for any party involved in criminal and regulatory prosecutions.

FIND OUT MORE 10

May 20, 2022 Issue 15

adls.org.nz/cpd

Deportation: a practical guide for lawyers

In Person | Livestream 2 CPD hrs Wednesday 15 June 4pm – 6.15pm Presenters Richard Small; Deborah Manning; Bernard Maritz and Terri Thompson

cpd@adls.org.nz

09 303 5278

Deportations will be resuming as the border reopens so it is timely to refresh your knowledge. This seminar offers practical guidance and valuable insights into the process from the perspectives of counsel, INZ Compliance and MBIE Legal.

Chair Stewart Dalley, partner, D&S Law

PRACTICAL GUIDANCE PROCESS

IN PERSON

LIVESTREAM

International family law conference – NEW PROPERTY MAINTENANCE PARENTING

In person | Livestream 5.75 CPD hrs Thursday 16 June 9.15am – 4pm Presenters Margaret Casey QC; Ewan Eggleston; Isaac Hikaka; Jennie Hawker; Calina Tataru; Inger Blackford; Zandra Wackenier and Duncan Holmes.

Conflict of laws

Focusing on legal disputes across international divides, the conference will explore the key issues of property, maintenance and parenting. It will cover trans-Tasman proceedings and with insights into other jurisdictions.

Chair Simon Jefferson QC, Trinity Chambers

IN PERSON

Webinar 1.5 CPD hrs Tuesday 14th June 1pm – 2.30pm Presenters Maria Hook, associate professor, Faculty of Law, University of Otago and Jack Wass, barrister, Stout Street Chambers

LIVESTREAM

The authors of The Conflict of Laws in New Zealand will provide a framework for dealing with cross-border problems and discuss issues challenging the law in the field of jurisdiction, statutes and enforcement of foreign judgments. The webinar will interest advisers and litigators in civil, commercial and family law.

CROSS-BORDER FRAMEWORK ISSUES

FIND OUT MORE 11

CPD IN BRIEF

Class and funded litigation

Livestream | In person 2 CPD hrs Tuesday 31 May 4pm – 6.15pm Presenters Paul Collins; Philip Skelton QC; Angela Parlane and Jonathan Woodhams

This seminar will help lawyers identify and navigate the unique obligations and professional responsibility issues arising in class and funded litigation before they become a problem.

FIND OUT MORE

Personal effectiveness workshop (June)

Online Workshop 4 CPD hrs Monday 27 June 9am – 1.15pm Presenter Tony Gardner, managing director, Archetype Leadership + Teams

Back by popular demand, this workshop offers a range of personal effectiveness insights and tools to help increase your productivity and return-on-effort at work. It is facilitated by a leading high-performance consultant.

FIND OUT MORE

Overseas investment update

Webinar 1.5 CPD hrs Thursday 30 June 12pm – 1.30pm Presenters Pedro Morgan; Lael Kim and Andre Baldock, all from the Overseas Investment Office

This webinar will cover the overseas investment regime as it applies to the types of residential property purchases lawyers are most likely to encounter. It will help you understand the overseas investment regime, recognise when consent is needed from the Overseas Investment Office and the application process.

FIND OUT MORE

Complex wills workshop

In Person 3.5 CPD hrs Wednesday 3 August 9am – 12.45pm Presenters Henry Stokes, general counsel, Perpetual Guardian and Theresa Donnelly, legal services manager, Perpetual Guardian

Led by two facilitators immersed in wills and asset planning and known for their practical focus and examples-based development, this workshop will offer practical tips on what to look out for in complex wills and how to draft fit-for-purpose wills that will stand up when needed.

FIND OUT MORE

Written Advocacy: What Judges Want Thursday 9 June | 4pm - 5.30pm | 1.5 CPD hours In Person | Livestream Visit adls.org.nz for more information.

12

May 20, 2022 Issue 15

First Time Advertised East Auckland Practice for sale A well-established firm with a solid client base specialising in property, wills, trusts, estates and subdivisions.

This is an opportunity for a sole practitioner or a merger with an existing practice.

Expressions of interest in strict confidence to advertiser@adls.org.nz quoting ref: EAP05

WILL INQUIRIES

Please refer to deeds clerk. Please check your records and advise ADLS if you hold a will or testamentary disposition for any of the following people. If you do not reply within three weeks it will be assumed you do not hold or have never held such a document.

LawNews: The no-hassle way to source missing wills for $80.50 (GST Included) reception@adls.org.nz DX CP24001, Auckland 1140

ADLS, PO Box 58, Shortland Street, Fax: (09) 309 3726

MCINTYRE Angela Ann

• Late of 16A Albert Street, Whitianga • Married • Primary school teacher/ museum custodian • Aged 88 / Died 01’03’22

• Late of Swanson, Auckland • Aged 50 / Died 30’10’21

• Late of 54 Cameron Street, Onehunga, Auckland • Single • Mother • Aged 43 / Died 30’03’22

are ageneral small general practice located in the centre of Henderson, We are We a small practice located in Henderson, looking for a looking for a full time experienced registered legal executive with at full-time experienced registered legal executive with at least 3 years’ least 3 years’ experience to join our team. experience to join our team.

The ideal person will have excellent communication skills, be able to

The ideal person will have excellent communication skills, be able work autonomously, take pride in their work and have a strong to workattention autonomously, to detail.take pride in their work and have a strong attention to detail.

This person will have experience in the following areas:

This person will have experience in the and following areas: including due  Conveyancing (both residential commercial) diligence, (both residential and commercial) including • Conveyancing  Landonline and Webforms, due diligence,  Estates, • Landonline andEnduring WebForms,  Wills and Power of Attorneys, and • Estates,  Trusts.

• Wills and enduring powers of attorney, and If you think you could be a good fit for our team, please send your CV • Trusts. and a covering letter in confidence to the Principal at pteei@teeilaw.com If you think you could be a good fit for our team, please send your CV andReferences a coveringare letter in confidence the Principal at roles that essential – with twotoreferees from recent must be able to be contacted by telephone and email required. pteei@teeilaw.com

References aresmall essential – with referees from rolesavoid thatthe Join our friendly teamtwo in Henderson, workrecent locally and must betraffic. able to be contacted by telephone and email are required.

Join our small friendly team in Henderson, work locally and avoid the traffic.

(09) 303 5270

DAVY Margaret Rose

HANSEN Airini

Registered legal Registered Legal Executiveexecutive

WONG Yam Chee • Late of 42 Lewisham Street, Highland Park, Auckland • Self-employed • Aged 65 / Died 05’02’22

Senior Commercial Lawyer – Partnership Opportunity With our longstanding Senior Commercial Lawyer retiring we are looking to replace her as soon as possible. We are seeking a Senior Lawyer able to undertake residential and commercial conveyancing; trust and estates; company law; generally advising and all such associated type of work.

A substantial salary is available to the correct person commensurate with ability and experience. No overtime or weekend work required.

Definite early partnership opportunity is available. Cash incentive lump sum for successful candidate will be considered.

Parking on premises, only 16 minutes from City Centre.

Contact Bruce Dell: Bruce Dell Law Phone: (09) 570 5036, Email: bruce@brucedell.co.nz

13

Lessons from Lyttle

1.5 CPD HOURS

Tuesday 7 June | 4.30pm - 6.00pm Webinar When did you last make a costs application in a criminal or regulatory case? Based on the recent Court of Appeal judgment in R v Lyttle [2022] NZCA 52, this webinar will look at the prosecutorial failings in that case and the learnings for any party involved in criminal and regulatory prosecutions.

T 09 303 5278

Conflict of Laws

E cpd@adls.org.nz

W adls.org.nz/cpd

1.5 CPD HOURS

Tuesday 14 June | 1.00 - 2.30pm | Webinar Join Maria Hook and Jack Wass, authors of ‘The Conflict of Laws in New Zealand’, as they discuss the framework for dealing with cross-border problems and the issues challenging the law in jurisdiction, statutes, and enforcement of foreign judgments. If you work in civil, commercial, or family law and come across cross-border issues, this CPD webinar should not be missed.

T 09 303 5278

14

E cpd@adls.org.nz

W adls.org.nz/cpd