NEWS Jul 8, 2022 Issue 22
Inside ■ REGULATION
A message from ADLS President Marie Dyhrberg QC P05
■ LEGAL AID
British barristers go on strike P07
Lower cost and less delay with proposed
adls.org.nz
CLASS ACTION REGIME
Contents 03-04 OVERSIGHT FUNDERS CERTIFICATION
Class action and litigation funding plan: a step in the right direction
LawNews is an official publication of Auckland District Law Society Inc. (ADLS).
06 PARTNERSHIPS DEVELOPERS SETTLEMENTS
Property developers feeling the heat
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 UNIONS TRANSPORT CONTRACTORS
Aussie Uber drivers strike deal over employment status
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 EVENTS
12-13 Photo: Andrew Brookes / Getty Images
FEATURED CPD
14 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: athima tongloom / Getty Images
02
Jul 8, 2022 Issue 22
LITIGATION
Lower cost and less delay if govt accepts new class action and litigation funding regime We consider the commission’s proposals represent an important step in the right direction which may improve access to justice while balancing the interests of plaintiffs, defendants, funders and the courts
Certification
Laura Fraser
Laura Fraser, Nicola Swan & Daniel Street The Law Commission has released its final recommendations to create a statutory class action regime and to regulate litigation funding in New Zealand. Decisions on whether to legislate, and when, now sit with the government. We consider the commission’s proposals represent an important step in the right direction which may improve access to justice while balancing the interests of plaintiffs, defendants, funders and the courts in a fair and efficient process.
Nicola Swan
Competing class actions
Key recommendations The class action regime will be available to all civil claims in the High Court involving a representative plaintiff and at least two other persons with a common issue of fact or law. The commission has also advised the government to explore a separate class action regime for employment claims. Litigation funders will not be bound by a bespoke licensing regime, but will be subject to greater judicial oversight and strengthened security for costs and adverse costs. The proposed reforms will apply only to funded class actions with other funded claims (for example, by liquidators) continuing under the existing common law. There will also be ancillary changes to the professional obligations of lawyers acting in funded proceedings to mitigate any potential conflicts between lawyers, funders, representative plaintiffs and class members.
All class actions will need to be certified by the High Court in order to proceed. The applicant must satisfy the court that: ■ it has a reasonably arguable cause of action; ■ there is a common issue of fact or law in the claim of each class member; ■ the representative plaintiff is suitable and will fairly and adequately represent the class; ■ a class action proceeding is an appropriate procedure for the efficient resolution of the claims of class members; and ■ the opt-in or opt-out mechanism proposed for the proceeding is an appropriate means of determining class membership. If the court is satisfied that the proposed proceeding has met the test, it will then be certified as a class action and a certification order published. Any judgment in the proceeding will then be binding on all members of the class for the common issues set out in the certification order.
Daniel Street
Once a proposed class action is filed and notice published, any similar class actions covering the same, or substantially the same, issues, and at least one of the same defendants, must be filed within 90 days. The court will then consider all concurrent class actions for certification simultaneously and will also determine which proposed class action will best allow member claims to be resolved in a just and efficient way. This assessment will consider how the cases are framed, the preferences of class members, the respective litigation funding arrangements and the legal representation. If a court certifies more than one class action to proceed, then it will also make orders for how the concurrent class actions are to be casemanaged together.
Disclosure and court approval Funded class action plaintiffs will need to seek the court’s
Continued on page 04 03
Continued from page 03 approval of any litigation funding agreement and disclose it, with some limited redactions, to the defendants. The court must be satisfied that the representative plaintiff has received independent legal advice on the agreement and that the agreement as a whole is fair and reasonable. This will include an assessment of: ■ when the funder can terminate the agreement; ■ whether the agreement diminishes the representative plaintiff’s control of the litigation; ■ any dispute resolution process between the funder, the representative plaintiff and the class members; ■ the terms and extent of any adverse costs indemnity; and ■ the fairness and reasonableness of the funding commission in the context of the total relief claimed, the estimated costs of the litigation, the complexity of the claim and the estimated returns to the funder. In an opt-in class action, the court will retain the power to vary the funding commission to be deducted from any damages award to the extent that the funding commission is materially in excess of the estimated returns provided to the court as part of the court’s approval of the litigation funding agreement.
Costs-sharing orders In respect of opt-out class actions, the court could order that the costs of a class action be equitably spread among all class members, even if they have not opted-in, in the form of a costssharing order. The court can set a provisional funding commission (or range of commissions) and vary that amount at a later date to ensure it is fair and reasonable in light of the actual costs and circumstances of the case.
Security for costs Given the significant costs of defending class actions, the commission proposes a rebuttable presumption that: ■ funded representative plaintiffs will provide security for costs in class actions; and ■ the security will be in a form enforceable in New Zealand so defendants don’t have to chase overseas funders. The court will also be empowered to order security for costs and adverse costs awards directly against the litigation funder.
Supervised settlements All settlements of class actions will be subject to court approval as to whether they are fair, reasonable and in the interests of the class. The court would be required to consider: 04
The commission has advised the government to explore a separate class action regime for employment claims
■ the terms and conditions of the proposed settlement; ■ any legal fees and litigation funding commission that will be deducted from relief paid to class members;
■ any information that is readily available to the court about the potential risks, costs and benefits of continuing with the proceeding; ■ any views of class members; and ■ any steps taken to manage potential conflicts of interest. Disgruntled class members will be able to file written objections to any settlement entered on their behalf. Where a settlement has been approved, class members will not be able to opt out of the settlement unless it is permitted by the settlement agreement or where the court considers that the interests of justice require it.
Public funds The cost of litigation is a significant barrier to justice for many class members and in many instances, litigation funders will fund only proceedings which are “sufficiently profitable”. In recognition of these realities, the commission is recommending the establishment of a public class action fund which would be available for class actions on issues of public interest, based on a Canadian model. The fund would be available to cover adverse costs or other fees and be administered by an independent board.
Our comment We provided detailed submissions to the commission during the consultations and are pleased to see several of these reflected in the final report. See our previous insights below. In recent years, the growing number of funded representative actions in New Zealand has resulted in numerous court skirmishes over procedural issues, adding to the cost and delay of already challenging proceedings. We expect these to reduce significantly once the new regime beds in. While the proposed regime will not solve every issue, it will make an appreciable difference. The proposals provide significant and meaningful scrutiny for litigation funding agreements in the interests of class members, including assessing the fairness and reasonableness of the funder’s commission and the extent of any control over the conduct of the claims. ■
Our previous insights Chasing design perfection in class action regime Class action and litigation funding regime welcomed, if the right balance is struck Laura Fraser and Nicola Swan are partners, and Daniel Street is a senior associate, at Chapman Tripp ■
Jul 8, 2022 Issue 22
A review of the structure, regulation, governance and culture of the legal profession is underway by an independent panel headed by former Ombudsman and Disability Commissioner, Professor Ron Paterson. Lawyers are urged to give feedback in response to a consultation paper prepared by the New Zealand Law Society (NZLS), with submissions due by 12 August. It is the first major review of the framework set up by the Lawyers and
Conveyancers Act 2006. Among other things, the consultation document considers whether NZLS should retain its joint functions as regulator and a representative body or whether an independent regulator should be appointed, how complaints and disciplinary issues are dealt with, how to increase diversity within the profession and whether non-lawyers should be permitted to take stakes in law firms.
A message from ADLS President Marie Dyhrberg QC
Marie Dyhrberg QC
This is a rare opportunity to shape the future of the legal profession. It is critical that ADLS members – and, in fact, all lawyers – provide comment and feedback as we are impacted by, and subject to, the rules and regulations of the New Zealand Law Society. We now have the chance to shape the future, based on our professional experience. This opportunity to give meaningful comment will not come around again for a very long time. If we don’t speak out, there is a risk that the independent review panel will have insufficient information on which to base its conclusions and make meaningful recommendations. The panel cannot work in a vacuum. It needs comment and feedback from those who have experienced the way NZLS has done its job. Lawyers all around the country will have a range of views on these issues. Below are my opinions but within the profession there are as likely to be as many views as there are practitioners. The ADLS Council is keen to understand what members think about these very important issues and we will be feeding this back to the panel. I strongly encourage you to have your say and provide your comments before the 12 August cut-off date. A major area of dissatisfaction within the profession is how complaints and regulatory procedures are dealt with. This has a huge impact on individual lawyers and their firms. For example, the complaints procedure moves very slowly. This is difficult for the lawyer who is the subject of the complaint. And because we are not aware of who is before the board, we might continue our professional relationship with someone who is facing a serious complaint which could impact on the way we perform ourselves. Timeliness is critical. Complaints need to be dealt with quickly. It is also important that interested parties are kept informed of the progress of a complaint. I know of someone who made a serious complaint about three years ago and still has no idea about the outcome, or whether the complaint even proceeded. Name suppression is another issue. It will always be seen by non-lawyers as discriminatory but being the subject of a complaint is a major issue for practitioners and their reputation. The rules need to be clearer but in my view the default position should be suppression. Failing that, we need clearer guidelines about what a lawyer will face should he or she come before the disciplinary tribunal. On the issue of an independent regulator, I think this function should remain under the umbrella of NZLS. The legislation and the obligations are already in place, along with the regulatory structure. I want NZLS to maintain that position and become more efficient and effective in the way it carries out this function. In my view, lawyers and NZLS need to retain control of the profession. Under an independent regulator, I think we would have less ability to critique and try to improve the system, as an independent is likely to resist our input. Lawyers need to be subject to NZLS regulation but retain the ability to monitor and hold their society accountable. Another problem for me is the time and effort needed to get lay people up to speed on the way the profession thinks and works. Most non-lawyers have no real understanding of how to run a practice or the issues we confront daily while doing our jobs. But I don’t think NZLS can retain both the regulatory and representative functions. There is too much potential for conflict – you can’t represent people and carry a stick as well. To read the consultation document and provide feedback, please click here ■
05
PROPERTY
What happens if you default on a property settlement? I think we may see people pursuing directors personally if they think they have been too nonchalant in entering into an agreement Jenni McManus As inflation, rising interest rates, tighter bank lending rules and higher building costs begin to bite, some property developers are facing the unthinkable – being unable to settle their purchases. Bryce Town, a partner at Morrison Kent and convenor of the ADLS Property Law committee, says he knows of no actual defaults – yet. But inexperienced developers and first-home buyers who purchased off-the-plans are vulnerable in the current market. Confronted with the prospect of being unable to settle and the consequences - crippling penalty interest and losing their deposits - developers are casting around for options, Town says. These might include bargaining with the vendor for more time or trying to set up special partnerships with private investors to finance their projects. And there’s always bridging finance – if you can afford the repayments and find a bank that will play ball. “Some are going to be in a difficult position because they’re going to ask for further extensions, but the vendors are also going to ask for a further deposit,” Town says. If the deposit was $100,000, a vendor would probably want that amount again. “So, it’s going to be challenging for those developers. The reality is, though, a lot of them will just walk away from their deposit and if they’re using a company with no other assets, you can’t sue them.” If he were acting for the vendors, Town says he’d probably advise them to sell the property themselves – the traditional way to mitigate losses – then sue the defaulting developer for any shortfall. Town concedes, however, that if the purchaser 06
was a limited liability company with no assets, “it’s all a bit of a waste of time. It’s a bit like lawyers and leases. People aren’t that interested in personal guarantees these days. They know we’ve all got our assets in trusts, so they want bank bonds to get their hands on the money a lot quicker if things go wrong.” There are other complexities. For example, young people who’ve bought apartments or townhouses off-the-plans with pre-approval from their bank are finding they no longer meet the bank’s stress test requirements, and their mortgage is declined. Developers see their pre-sales evaporating and, as a result, can’t complete settlement. So, they put the properties back on the market at a discount which discourages other purchasers in the development from settling at the full amount. “There will be some blood out there and it affects a lot of people, not only the developer,” Town says. “There will be a lot of smaller law firms that are heavily reliant on conveyancing transactions who must already be hurting. Some of their clients, who tend to go for the cheaper prices, will be under some stress.” Developers in the worst position are those who’ve started construction but cannot complete the project, so can’t get code compliance. “So, we’re going to see quite a bit of carnage, I think, in some sectors. It’s a bit of a contagion,” Town says.
Litigation Joanna Pidgeon, a director at Pidgeon Judd and a member of the ADLS Property Law committee, says her firm is seeing developers who purchased at the height of the market with indicative finance but are finding six to 12 months later that they can’t borrow as
much because values have dropped, funding is twice as expensive and properties are harder to sell. With some developers, she suspects this might be a cynical bid to renegotiate a price reduction. Vendors, Pidgeon says, have decisions to make if their purchaser can’t settle. Do they sue for specific performance? Or cancel the contract and re-sell, then sue for any loss? Even if the developer has purchased via a $100 shelf company, this will still have directors who have Companies Act duties not to enter into obligations without a reasonable belief that they can fulfil them. “I think we may see people pursuing directors personally if they think they have been too nonchalant in entering into an agreement,” she says. Right now, it’s too soon to tell if proceedings will ensue as the problem has arisen only over the past month. “And if you’ve had a decent deposit, say 10%, you may think you’ve been compensated enough but it depends on what the gap is on your resale price.” Along with that “decent deposit”, Pigeon says vendors might want to seek extra security, such as personal guarantees from directors, if they’re selling to $100 shelf companies.
Risk reduction Town has some risk-reduction advice for those purchasing off-the-plans. Rigorously check the quality of the build, he says. “Be very wary, there’ll be a lot of rubbish out there.” Ask where the deposit will be kept. It should be in a solicitor’s trust account. Find out if the bank will actually lend. And have a plan B if everything turns to custard. If things do go wrong, Town advises to settle the purchase then either put the property back on the market or rent it out. Don’t move in yourself. “That’s what I recommend for people who suddenly find themselves very stretched through loss of a job or an inability to sell their own house. Just suck it up for a while till you’re back on your feet. Be prepared to do it tough if things go wrong and don’t expect the banks to bail you out. They won’t.” ■
Jul 8, 2022 Issue 22
NEW TITLE
Memoranda of Wishes Author Vicki Ammundsen This guide to memoranda of wishes considers the development of memoranda of wishes and relevant case law, providing valuable guidance on how to construct a memorandum of wishes that will properly promote the settlor’s intentions and directions to trustees. This text also considers the legal position of memoranda of wishes with respect to the Trusts Act – as core documents and in light of trustees’ disclosure obligations. Price for ADLS members $72.00 plus GST* Price $80.00 plus GST* To purchase this book please visit https://adls.org.nz or contact the ADLS bookstore by phone: 09 306 5740, fax: 09 306 5741 or email: thestore@adls.org.nz (* + Postage and packaging)
Briefs Barrister strike in UK For the second week in a row, barristers in full court regalia and carrying placards (‘crime doesn’t pay’) have gone on strike across England and Wales in a long-running dispute about legal aid fees. Industrial action erupted after the barristers rejected a proposed 15% rise in fees, saying they want at least 25%. The Criminal Bar Association says since 2006, barristers’ real earnings have dropped by 28%. Many are not well-paid – they are freelancers employed by solicitors to work on individual cases. CBA chairman Jo Sidhu says, however, that the dispute is not just about pay, “but [about] redressing the shortfall in the supply of criminal barristers to help deal with the crisis in our courts”. Sidhu said judges were forced to adjourn 567 trials last year at the last minute because there was no prosecutor or defence barrister available. Victims of crime and defendants would not see their day in court if the government did not take steps to “reinject funds into the barely functioning justice system”. There has been a 35% fall since 2012 in the number of firms doing legal aid work in the UK. Barristers say because of the amount of time spent preparing cases, many are earning less than the minimum wage. ■
Criminal Defence Lawyers Are you passionate about criminal law? Ever thought about a career with the Public Defence Service? The Public Defence Service is looking for experienced lawyers to join our committed and professional teams located in our 10 offices across the country. We are seeking expressions of interest at all levels, from junior lawyers who have at least 12 months’ criminal litigation experience, through to senior lawyers with PAL 3 or PAL 4 approval, or the ability to obtain these levels! The Public Defence Service (PDS) provides high-quality legal advice and representation in a full range of criminal cases. Aimed at helping people access justice, the PDS promotes the values of respect, integrity, service and the delivery of excellent service to its clients. Our 10 offices are located in Auckland City, Manukau, Waitakere, North Shore, Tauranga, Hamilton, Hawke’s Bay, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin. Working for the PDS you will find challenge and satisfaction with a varied caseload, supportive colleagues, comprehensive professional development and excellent terms and conditions. If you are interested in joining any of our offices, we want to hear from you. Joining the Ministry of Justice means you will become part of an inclusive organisation that values you and the communities we serve. It’s our promise to ensure our workplace is one where our people feel healthy and safe, supported and able to be themselves at work. We value respect as the foundation for building a positive workplace culture and one where diversity is welcomed and celebrated. Please contact Elaine Hines, Deputy Director, Operations Either via email: Elaine.Hines@PDS.govt.nz or mobile 027 561 1025 Make contact today!
07
EMPLOYMNET LAW
As Uber and a group of drivers scrap in the Employment Court, a deal has been struck across the ditch Caleb Goods, Alex Veen & Tom Barratt Uber Australia has struck a historic agreement with the Transport Workers’ Union – a statement of principles that re-regulates work in the Australian rideshare and food delivery industry. This is a major shift to industrial relations in the gig economy. Uber and its rival platforms have largely treated their workforce as independent contractors, not employees with rights to benefits such as sick leave, minimum wages or union representation. Now, the poster company of the gig economy has agreed with the union that workers on the platform should receive some baseline conditions. Most importantly, Uber and the Transport Workers’ Union have agreed to support the creation of an independent umpire, potentially as part of the Fair Work Commission, to apply minimum standards and practices across the industry.
Areas of agreement There are four key objectives: ■ an enforceable floor around earnings, to give transparency to drivers and ensure platforms don’t seek to compete by driving down labour costs. Earnings are a critical concern for gig workers. ■ enhanced and low-cost opportunities for workers to resolve disputes via an independent umpire. Gig workers, as contractors, currently have little recourse to address grievances. ■ the right for workers to collectively organise and be represented by a union. ■ the effective enforcement of these and other standards, including occupational health and 08
safety compliance. Beyond these key principles, Uber and the Transport Workers’ Union have also agreed to have an ongoing conversation about making these principles work in reality, not just on paper.
Why now? The Uber-Transport Workers’ Union statement of principle follows the union signing a similar joint charter with DoorDash in May. Given DoorDash (a restaurant food delivery service similar to Uber Eats) has been operating in Australia since 2019, and Uber since 2012, why are they making these voluntary agreements to pursue improved working conditions now? The answer seems reasonably obvious: the Morrison government, which had little enthusiasm for regulating the gig economy, has been replaced by the Albanese government, which has signalled it will. The new Labor government’s plans for the gig economy and employee-like work arrangements include giving the Fair Work Commission the power to regulate “employee-like” forms of work. The exact details and timeline for these reforms have not been announced. These union-platform agreements suggest that platforms are keen to get in front of, and potentially shape, this regulation agenda.
Classification debates Critically, unions and platforms working together may mean the end of the classification debates – employee versus independent contractor – that have been fought out in the Fair Work Commission and the courts during the past five years. As we have suggested previously, the debates on
Uber and its rival platforms have largely treated their workforce as independent contractors, not employees with rights to benefits such as sick leave, minimum wages or union representation
whether workers treated as independent contractors should actually have been classified as employees have largely been a dead-end. They may have even harmed workers, as platforms have sought to avoid doing anything the Fair Work Commission or a court might interpret as indicative of an employer-employee relationship. This agreement represents a different approach that may produce better outcomes. It should help platforms avoid the cost and reputational damage of ongoing litigation. It also helps the union. Recent High Court rulings have made it harder for the union to recruit, organise and represent gig workers. This agreement implicitly accepts the union’s right to represent those workers.
Setting the agenda These statements of principles also strongly align with the Albanese government’s proposal to improve the conditions of “employee-like work”. Uber and Doordash appear to be embracing self-regulation to help set the agenda around what is (and importantly what is not) included in the new regulations for employee-like work arrangements. The future of gig work is looking very different from what it did a few months ago. ■ Caleb Goods is a senior lecturer, management and organisations at the University of Western Australia, Alex Veen is a senior lecturer at the University of Sydney and Tom Barratt is a lecturer at the Centre for Work and Wellbeing at Edith Cowan University in Western Australia ■ The above appeared originally in The Conversation and is reprinted with permission
Jul 8, 2022 Issue 22
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
ADLS, PO Box 58, Shortland Street,
DX CP24001, Auckland 1140
Fax: (09) 309 3726
( 09) 303 5270
BARTON Dean Clyde
TAURA Terepai-O-Teina
• Late of 412 Whangaroa Road, Kaeo • Single • Beneficiary • Aged 32 / Died 23’11’19
• Late of 33 Fergusson Road, Otara, Manukau, Auckland • Retired freezing worker • Aged 81 / Died 27’02’20
GREGG Logan Wade • Late of Selva Road, Pukekohe, Auckland • Aged 19 / Died between 31’05’22 and 01’06’22
TAURA Vaine Mouari • Late of 33 Fergusson Road, Otara, Manukau, Auckland • Widowed • Aged 81 / Died 26’01’21
NEW TITLE
The Conflict of Laws in New Zealand Authors Jack Wass and Maria Hook The first comprehensive text on the conflict of laws (private international law) in New Zealand, the book covers adjudicatory jurisdiction, choice of law, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and civil procedure specific to cross-border disputes. It has dedicated chapters explaining the rules applicable to obligations (including contract and tort), property and trusts, succession, family law and corporations and insolvency. Price for ADLS members $156.52 plus GST* Price for non-members $173.91 plus GST* (* + Postage and packaging) To purchase 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.
Trevor J Shiels QC, FAMINZ (Arb), T.E.P Barrister and Arbitrator I have practised as a barrister based in Dunedin for nearly three decades, having previously been a partner in a general practice firm. I have now also joined Eldon Chambers in Auckland and I am available for instructions nationwide for advice and representation in civil disputes and proceedings, including in particular: • Real property disputes including sales and purchases, leases, caveat proceedings and Property Law Act matters, • Estates and trusts,
This space could be yours LawNews reaches a discerning audience of nearly 6000 lawyers, judges, politicians and academics every week. Get your message in front of them. Call our advertising executive, Darrell Denney, on 021 936 858 or email Darrell on Darrell.denney@adls.org.nz
• Relationship property, • Contractual disputes. I am an experienced arbitrator and a member of the AMINZ Arbitration Panel and I accept appointment as an arbitrator nationwide. Contact details: Website: trevorshiels.co.nz
Email: office@trevorshiels.co.nz Mobile: +64 21 936119
DUNEDIN Ten George Chambers L2, Burns House,10 George Street Dunedin +64 3 477 4030
AUCKLAND Eldon Chambers Level 3, 9 High Street Auckland CBD +64 9 300 7477 Photo courtesy of ODT
09
Events Central Auckland lawyers’ lunch This was hosted at The Glass Goose on Wednesday 29 June. It was great to see so many people together, sharing stories and networking with their friends and colleagues. Thank you to our sponsor Co-Legal for your continued support.
Jason Hendriks, Tom Pilley and Matthew Thompson
10
Anna Humphires and Fiona Wu
Marie Dyhrberg QC, Rae Nield and Joanna Pidgeon
Adam Botterill and Kelly Cocks
Mary Huang and Georgina Pauling
Jul 8, 2022 Issue 22
Featured events
Connecting New Zealand lawyers
Rotorua lawyers’ lunch Wednesday 27 July 12.30pm – 2pm Ambrosia Restaurant, 1096 Tutanekai Street, Rotorua Sponsored by MAS
Upcoming August
Thursday 4 | Tauranga lawyers’ lunch
September
Wednesday 28 | Takapuna lawyers’ lunch
Learn more
Soon to be added: Henderson lawyers’ lunch Thursday 11 August 12.30pm – 2pm The Grounds, 8-14 Henderson Valley Road, Henderson, Auckland Sponsored by MAS
October | Wellington lawyers’ lunch November | New Plymouth Sundowner November | East Auckland lawyers’ lunch November | Tauranga Sundowner December | Northland lawyers’ lunch
Learn more
Hawke’s Bay lawyers’ lunch Wednesday 17 August 12.30pm – 2pm East Pier Hotel, 50 Nelson Quay, Ahuriri, Napier, Hawke’s Bay Learn more
Christchurch lawyers’ lunch Wednesday 24 August 12.30pm – 2pm Dux Central, 6 Poplar Street, Christchurch, Canterbury Learn more
Book Here
events@adls.org.nz
adls.org.nz
11
FEATURED CPD
Choosing a business structure LEGAL TAX BUSINESS
Livestream 2 CPD hrs Wednesday 31 August 4pm – 6pm Presenters Bevan Miles, partner, Chapman Tripp (tax); and Greer Fredricson, special counsel, Chapman Tripp (corporate and commercial)
Knowing your clients’ business needs, coupled with a good understanding of the legal and tax features of common business structures, are key to advising clients on the best structure for their business. This seminar looks at a range of common options.
Chair Andrew Lewis, principal, Andrew Lewis Law
FIND OUT MORE
New Incorporated Societies Act
Livestream | In Person 2 CPD hrs Tuesday 27 September 4pm – 6.15pm Presenters Mark von Dadelszen, barrister and Joanna Pidgeon, director, Pidgeon Judd
This seminar will provide an update on the new Incorporated Societies Act 2022 and will include practical scenarios from those at the coalface.
CHANGES IMPLICATIONS EXAMPLES
FIND OUT MORE
Property rights and data ISSUES CASES INSIGHTS
Webinar 1.5 CPD hrs Thursday 28 July 1pm – 2.30pm Presenter David Harvey, retired District Court judge
Possession is said to be nine-tenths of the law, but how does this work with digital data? With reference to key cases from New Zealand and overseas about property rights and data, this webinar will provide insights into this increasingly common and complex area of law.
FIND OUT MORE 12
Jul 8, 2022 Issue 22
adls.org.nz/cpd
Understand the role of lawyer for child INSIGHTS PERSPECTIVES EXAMPLES
Seminar | Livestream 2 CPD hrs Thursday 4 August 4pm – 6.15pm Presenters David Amodeo, barrister; Vao Muller, barrister; Sonya Singh, barrister and Craig Walker, service manager Family Court coordinators, District Courts, Ministry of Justice IN PERSON
cpd@adls.org.nz
09 303 5278
Giving perspectives from those in the role, the judiciary and the ministry, this seminar will provide key insights into what the role is (and is not), the statutory framework and the balancing act required when considering the child’s views and his or her welfare and best interests. Chair Judge Antony Mahon
LIVESTREAM
The law and the wellbeing of tamariki FRAMEWORK JURISDICTION MECHANISMS
Seminar | Livestream 2 CPD hours Thursday 18 August 4pm – 6.15pm Presenters Judge Sharyn Otene; Alison Cleland, senior lecturer, AUT and Anthony Dickson, principal advisor, Oranga Tamariki Chair Judge Emma Parsons
Providing an understanding of the context and nature of legislation around the care and wellbeing of children, this seminar will help lawyers better comprehend – and perform − their role in this crucial area.
IN PERSON
‘Court’ by forensics workshop
Workshop 4 CPD hrs Saturday 20 August 9am – 1.15pm Presenters Tom Coyle, managing director, Forensic Insight Ltd and Allie Coyle, director, Forensic Insight Ltd
LIVESTREAM
During this practical hands-on workshop, you will interact with a forensic practitioner and fingerprint expert in a purpose-built crime centre to learn about the workings of major crime scenes and chain-of-evidence procedures. Very limited spaces available.
UNIQUE PRACTICAL USEFUL
FIND OUT MORE 13
CPD IN BRIEF
Drafting complex wills
Dealing with media
Leading your career
Workshop 3.5 CPD hrs Tuesday 23 August 9am – 12.45pm Facilitators 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 aproach, this workshop will give you the confidence to deliver real value to your clients.
Webinar 1.5 CPD hrs Tuesday 30 August 4pm – 5.30pm Presenters Jenni McManus, journalist and LawNews editor; Brenda Newth, PR consultant and Samira Taghavi, barrister and practice manager, AM Legal
Have you ever had a microphone shoved in your face when entering or emerging from court? If you were asked for an ‘off the record’ comment, how would you react? What is the effect of an embargo?
Workshop 8 CPD hrs Tuesday 13 September 8.45am – 5pm Facilitators Miriam Dean QC and Liz Riversdale, Catapult
This practical, interactive one-day workshop, led by one of New Zealand’s top QCs and one of New Zealand’s senior leadership experts, will arm you with resources, self-confidence and focus to apply immediately to your role and to enhance your future career.
Limited spaces available
FIND OUT MORE
Chair Marie Dyhrberg QC
FIND OUT MORE
Places are limited. Register now to avoid missing out.
FIND OUT MORE
International family law conference
In Person | Livestream 5.75 CPD hrs Thursday 10 November 9.15am – 4pm Presenters Ewan Eggleston; Isaac Hikaka; Jennie Hawker; Calina Tataru; Margaret Casey QC; Inger Blackford; Zandra Wackenier and Duncan Holmes
Increasingly, family law matters involve one or more international aspects. This conference will explore the key issues of property, maintenance and parenting. The focus will be on trans-Tasman proceedings with insights into other jurisdictions. Chair Simon Jefferson QC
Leading your Career - Wellington Workshop Exclusively for Women Lawyers with 6+ years’ PQE
Tuesday 13 September | Wellington | 8 CPD hours Visit adls.org.nz for more information. 14
IN PERSON
LIVESTREAM
Jul 8, 2022 Issue 22
3.5 CPD HOURS
The Art of Will Drafting: Complex Wills Workshop Tuesday 23 August | 9am - 12.45pm | Workshop | Rydges, Auckland Led by two facilitators immersed in wills and asset planning and known for their practical aproach, this workshop will give you the confidence to deliver real value to your clients.
T 09 303 5278
E cpd@adls.org.nz
W adls.org.nz/cpd
4 CPD HOURS
‘Court’ by Forensics Workshop Saturday 20 August | 9am - 1.15pm Workshop | Albany, Auckland This workshop will take you behind the scenes as a crime scene investigator, so that you will get a greater understanding of what type of evidence is preserved from the scene and used effectively in Court, and the importance of the chain of evidence, plus an insight into how to deal with expert forensic witnesses. T 09 303 5278
E cpd@adls.org.nz
W adls.org.nz/cpd
15