LawNews- Issue 23

Lessons for lawyers in real estate

Contents

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

Editor: Jenni McManus

Publisher: ADLS

Editorial and contributor enquiries to: Jenni McManus 021 971 598 Jenni.Mcmanus@adls.org.nz

Reweti Kohere 022 882 2499 Reweti.Kohere@adls.org.nz

Advertising enquiries to: Darrell Denney 021 936 858 Darrell.Denney@adls.org.nz

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

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: Witthaya Prasongsin / Getty Images

Photo: Maskot Getty Images

Independence and the public interest: the role of a legal services regulator

The tradition of self-regulation has been an important safeguard of the independence of the professions from pressure to toe the line of governments or causes

Mark Neale

Depending on who you listen to, the Bar Standards Board is doing far too much and, in the process, neglecting its core regulatory functions. You will also hear it said, on the other hand, that the Bar Standards Board is too passive. We react to events rather than intervene proactively to shape the Bar to meet the changing public interest and new opportunities.

A possible reaction to these criticisms would be to assume that, in fact, we must be steering a broadly correct course. After all, regulators are never popular. And if we’re criticised in equal measure for doing too much and doing too little, we must surely be getting things about right.

That’s not my view. Some criticisms are justified. We have always, rightly, attached paramount importance to the fairness and integrity of our decisions but we have not always been as prompt or responsive as we should be in transacting business.

We can also be smarter in using intelligence to inform regulatory action and more on the front foot in taking action. I’ll return to what we are doing to improve in both respects.

But I do think it is time the Bar Standards Board spoke up. That is partly because I am very conscious of the dedication and hard work of the people who work for the Bar Standards Board. Their efforts deserve a voice.

So too do their achievements: the consistently high standards of our decisions; the ground-breaking research and analysis on equality at the Bar; the far-reaching reforms of Bar training which have increased choice and flexibility, while reducing costs at no detriment to high standards; the improved transparency for consumers brought about by our transparency rules; our partnerships with third-sector organisations which have helped consumers in vulnerable circumstances to navigate legal services.

More fundamentally, though, the criticisms that come our way often reflect differing views about what the role of a legal services regulator should be. So I want to address that question, to explain how we, in the Bar Standards Board, see our role and

Continued on page 04

In this edited version of a recent speech, British Bar Standards Board Director-General Mark Neale makes the case for an independent regulator that is firmly anchored in the profession and ‘not a creature of government or Parliament’

Photo: Bloomberg Creative / Getty Images

Continued from page 03

how our view shapes the approach we take to regulating in the public interest.

Five arguments

I want to make five arguments.

The first is that the regulation of professional services is not the same as the regulation of economic utilities: there is scope for collaboration between the regulator and the regulated. And, indeed, in the case of legal services, the professions have a long and honourable tradition of self-regulation which has been an important safeguard of independence.

The second, however, is that the public interest and the interests of the profession are not the same. The regulator is there to champion the public interest and the public interest is not simply confined to acting as gatekeeper and disciplinarian on behalf of the profession.

The third flows from the second. It is that the regulator must, accordingly, make independent judgments in delivering its functions about how effectively the profession is serving the public interest in terms of all the regulatory objectives established by the Legal Services Act 2007.

This does mean the regulator and the profession will often take a duplicate interest in many issues, but need not mean they duplicate activity where they share a common analysis of risk or opportunity.

The fourth is that the Bar Standards Board must focus on how well the Bar in particular is serving the public interest. The risks and opportunities at the Bar will not necessarily match those of the other legal professions.

And fifth, and finally, independence is essential to the Bar Standards Board’s ability to do its job. Independence must be understood not just as independence of decision-making, but also as operational independence and psychological independence.

Overlapping interests

So why regulate a profession like the Bar?

The then government, in proposing the legislation that was enacted in the Legal Services Act 2007, was very clear that the purpose of the changes is to put consumers first.

In this, the government was echoing the findings of Sir David Clementi’s earlier review which found the pre-existing selfregulatory arrangements had insufficient regard for the interests of consumers.

Pause, though, on why the needs of consumers are in need of protection.

Not, I think, because the consumer is at risk of economic exploitation by powerful monopolies. On the contrary, legal services in general, and the Bar in particular, are marked by high levels of competition. In that respect, the regulation of the legal professions is different from the regulation of, say, economic utilities.

The producer interest in the provision of utilities is, as Adam Smith recognised, focused on exploiting monopoly to maximise profit and, accordingly, is opposed to the interest of the consumer in competition and good value.

The economic regulator is there to redress the economic balance in favour of the consumer. Relations between the regulator and the regulated should be correct but never collaborative.

The regulation of professions is not like that. The public interest does not lie in countering monopoly power but in negotiating the inevitable information asymmetries and complexity inherent in a specialist field which most of the public will encounter only intermittently.

So, the public and professional interest overlap. Barristers share the public interest in the strength, diversity and independence of their profession.

This commitment is manifest at the Bar in the time and energy many barristers give to the training and development of the next generation and to pro bono work. It is manifest in the excellent work the Bar Council, the Inns and the Circuits do to promote good practice at the Bar.

It also reflects, of course, the fact that for much of their long history the Bar and other legal professions have regulated themselves. That tradition of self-regulation has been an important safeguard of the independence of the professions from pressure to toe the line of governments or causes.

The independence of the legal professions is more important now than ever.

The principle of self-regulation was carried forward in the Legal Services Act 2007 which required the representative bodies, designated by the Act as approved regulators, to establish their own independent regulatory arms and delegate to them their regulatory responsibilities. So regulation became independent, but also continued to be anchored in the profession itself, not a creature of government or of Parliament.

It follows, therefore, that I agree with the Legal Services Board conclusion in its recent report on CILEx and CILEx Regulation that the professions and their regulatory bodies should work effectively together to secure shared objectives. We are not adversaries.

Different approach

That is not, however, the same thing as saying there will always be an identity of interest between the profession and its representative body, the Bar Council, and the Bar Standards Board as regulator. Although we share objectives, we approach those objectives from different angles of vision.

As the regulator, we approach the delivery of our regulatory functions in the public interest; the Bar Council is there to represent the professional interest. Sometimes the two will coincide, but not always.

That is fairly obvious when we reflect on the nature of the

Continued on page 05

The regulation of professional services is not the same as the regulation of economic utilities: there is scope for collaboration between the regulator and the regulated

Continued from page 04

public interest itself. It is helpfully defined in the first section of the 2007 Act.

There you will find regulatory objectives the profession would certainly endorse to the full. Adherence to the rule of law; the profession’s own independence, diversity and effectiveness; the maintenance of professional principles: all fall into this category.

But alongside these objectives are others which go to the reason for reforming legal services regulation in the first place: to protect and promote the interests of consumers; to improve access to justice; to improve public understanding of the citizen’s legal rights and duties. All of these are designed, as David Clementi recommended, to put the consumer first and give the consumer a champion undaunted by the complexity and information asymmetry which give the profession the upper hand in its dealings with consumers.

This has a big consequence for us as regulator in exercising the arrangements delegated to us. We are not there simply to act as gatekeeper or disciplinarian in individual cases, but to ask searching questions about how the wide range of arrangements and rules we oversee support or inhibit the Bar in meeting the needs of the public.

The Bar, as a profession, is certainly not opposed to these public interest objectives, but nor are they at the forefront of its mind. Self-employed barristers – around 80% of the total – have limited personal interest in how well the Bar as a profession is meeting the present and future consumer interest in competition, access and comparative information.

On the contrary, the long traditions of the Bar – in many ways a strength and safeguard of independence – also underwrite many unexamined practices which may have outlived their usefulness and no longer work in the interests of consumers or, indeed, of the diversity of the Bar itself.

For example, the future supply of barristers – and hence the public’s access to their services at competitive prices – will be determined in the long run by the cumulative decisions being taken now by chambers and employers about how many pupils to take on and, in the case of chambers, how many

tenancies to award.

Does that accumulation of individual decisions both globally and specialism by specialism result in an answer which will ensure adequate supply in all specialisms for the long-term?

It may. But, then again, it may not. We can see in fact that the profession is steadily ageing.

Or, to take another example, we need to consider whether, when solicitors refer clients to barristers, it is in the client’s interest that they often provide little or no choice and whether this may entrench inequalities in the distribution of work among barristers themselves.

Or, again, many barristers’ chambers occupy premises little changed since the 18th century. What steps are being taken by the chambers and their landlords to ensure these premises are fully accessible to disabled barristers, pupils and clients? And if they really cannot be made accessible, are they really any longer fit for purpose as modern accommodation?

These are proper questions for the regulator to ask in fulfilling its functions.

Independence and collaboration

A further consequence follows from our duty as the regulator to view our functions through the prism of the public interest. The Bar Standards Board cannot simply resign to the Bar Council an exclusive interest in the pursuit of some regulatory objectives.

We must form our own judgment about the risks to all the regulatory objectives and, to the extent that those risks engage our functions, about the interventions needed to manage those risks in the public interest.

Incidentally, when I talk about risks I include here the risk that new opportunities – the opportunities offered by new technologies, for example – will not be exploited in the public interest.

So there will, I am afraid, be duplication of interest, analysis and reflection between the Bar Standards Board and the Bar Council. We cannot, for example, simply say the diversity of the profession is a matter for the profession itself and we

Continued on page 06

In the case of legal services, the professions have a long and honourable tradition of self-regulation which has been an important safeguard of independence

shall disinterest ourselves in whether the profession is a good reflection of the society we serve or serves all consumers equally.

Duplication of interest should not, however, result in duplication of activity.

In some cases, we as the regulator shall be able – and indeed eager – to collaborate with the Bar Council in reducing risk or seizing opportunity.

A good example is the work we are doing to support chambers in their oversight of standards, equality and access. The Bar Standards Board spells out in it equality and other rules the minimum requirements of practice management for which all barristers belonging to a set of chambers share a responsibility. Increasingly, we shall express these requirements in terms of outcomes rather than in terms of processes or policies.

We are conscious, however, that the Bar Council, the circuits and specialist Bar associations have all published much useful guidance in meeting the outcomes we all want to see. Many chambers exemplify good practice.

So let’s work together and make it easy for chambers –particularly smaller chambers – to find their way to the guidance and good practice which will help them meet our regulatory expectations.

This is a win/win. The more assurance the Bar Standards Board can take from the quality and robustness of chambers’ governance, the less need for regulatory intervention.

The Bar Standards Board and the Bar Council should also be careful not to duplicate each other in requesting information from barristers and chambers. Indeed, I have come to the conclusion that the Bar Standards Board should in future make targeted information requests only where warranted by our analysis of risk and not repeat our five-yearly, omnium gatherum regulatory returns.

There will be other areas where we can agree a division of labour in pursuit of shared objectives – always recognising that, as the regulator, we reserve the right to act ourselves, through regulation or other means, where that is necessary for the protection of the public interest.

Risk and opportunities

You would be right to interpret what I have just said as an assertion of our determination to make judgments about the public interest independently of the profession, but not to rule out working with the profession.

I am equally clear, however, that the Bar Standards Board must make independent judgments about the public interest as it applies to the Bar and in the light of the circumstances of the Bar. This will govern the extent to which we can adopt approaches in common with other legal services regulators.

Opportunities for common action certainly exist. Since arriving at the Bar Standards Board, I have, for example,

consistently championed a cross-cutting strategy for public legal education.

Consumers don’t care about professional boundaries. They care about gaining access to good value professional help to identify and fix pressing legal problems.

It makes good sense, therefore, for the legal services regulators to join forces to identify the most pressing legal needs, particularly for consumers in vulnerable circumstances; what information consumers need to help address those needs and to find the right professional help; and what the best channels for delivering that information might be.

Those channels will be many and varied. They will include the websites run by the regulators themselves, but will also embrace third-sector organisations trusted by consumers and to which they turn for help.

The point is that no one regulator can cover all the bases. We need to work together on common principles and to a shared analysis of need.

Not all regulatory challenges are, however, like public legal education.

The reality is that in many important respects the Bar is not the same as other legal professions. It is predominantly (though not exclusively) a referral profession. Its stock-in-trade is advocacy and advice: barristers do not handle client money and do not execute deals on behalf of their clients. Much of the Bar (though not all of it) is characterised by high levels of competition which gives good assurance of continuing high professional standards.

That in turn shapes the nature of the risks to the public interest we see at the Bar. As I have already indicated, we do worry about the risk that referral arrangements represent to choice for consumers and to the fair distribution of work for barristers.

We are concerned that many long-standing but unexamined practices in recruitment and in the distribution of work run counter to equality and inclusion. Many chambers are not accessible. We should like to see barristers receive more regular feedback on their performance from a range of sources, including the judiciary. We’d like to see chambers play a more prominent role in overseeing standards, equality and access.

But we see little evidence of a generalised problem of professional standards. We judge that the risks to the implementation of sanctions and to anti-money laundering regulation are lower at the Bar than in some other legal professions.

Indeed, if you told me a sanctioned individual or organisation was seeking the advice of the commercial Bar about their obligations, I would probably regard that as lowering the risk of a breach rather than the reverse.

So independence of judgment does not just mean independence of the profession. It also means independent judgments about risks to the public interest at the Bar.

Continued on page 07

We are not there simply to act as gatekeeper or disciplinarian in individual cases

Continued from page 06

confidence. The Bar Standards Board must see itself, and be seen by its stakeholders, as credible and independent.

What’s needed

That brings me to my fifth and final argument. I have placed much emphasis on the importance of independence, above all of independent judgments of the public interest and in the public interest. But that is all rhetoric. How is rhetoric turned into reality?

In fact, independent decision-making is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for success.

The Bar Standards Board must also have the operational freedom and capacity to support effective decision-making. We need both to deliver our regulatory functions efficiently and to be on the front foot in analysing risks to the regulatory objectives and in implementing appropriate responses to those risks.

Our current program of reform will deliver in both these respects.

We aim to be operationally excellent in delivering the gatekeeping and disciplinary functions which matter to the public and the profession day-to-day. We have always, quite rightly, set a high store by the fairness and integrity of our decision-making. There can be no compromise on that. But quality must be matched by speed and responsiveness.

So, we shall need people with experience of delivering and simplifying complex processes and of customer care. We shall need the kit to support them.

We shall also need outstanding analysts and researchers who have cut their teeth in regulation and understand that regulation must be proportionate to risk and evidence-based.

The Bar Standards Board must have the freedom to frame pay and other HR policies to enable us to attract and retain such people. We do not need to pay top dollar, but we do need to be competitive.

And that is not all: we also need to have in place the values, policies and behaviours to support a strong, independent regulatory culture.

Alongside operational freedom goes psychological self-

Our board models exactly that. The board has great diversity and depth of experience. Its members have always been very clear about the importance of independent judgment in the public interest.

Viewed, however, from a distance, you can see that may not always be apparent when we continue to be an integral part of the General Council of the Bar – a single organisation with two faces – sharing services and occupying the same offces.

So, yes, the Bar Standards Board and the Bar Council must have a constructive relationship and work together effectively. We shall often be collaborators, not antagonists (though we may, occasionally, be the latter).

But the relationship, to work well, must be one of equals, not a dependant relationship. Indeed, the very credibility of the Bar Standards Board – and hence its ability to regulate in the light of the specific and distinctive characteristics of the Bar – rely on being, and being seen as, robustly independent.

So there we are. That is the world according to the Bar Standards Board.

It is not a world in which we are, or should be, free of criticism. On the contrary, we value transparency and accountability. And it is not a world in which we are perpetually at loggerheads with those we regulate. There is much scope for cooperation and for the elimination of unnecessary duplication.

But it is a world where the Bar Standards Board makes independent judgments about how to take forward our regulatory functions in the light of the public interest and itself decides where its aims can best be fulfilled in partnership with the profession or with other regulators.

It is a world in which we shall sometimes decide that we must act independently of both the profession and other regulators to address risks to the public interest at the Bar or to seize opportunities.

It is a world in which the Bar Standards Board must have operational and psychological independence, as well as independence of decision-making, because we cannot take strong independent decisions without the right people and without a culture built on confidence and credibility. ■

augustachambers.co.nz | Level 9, 115 Queen Street, Auckland 1010

Julie-Anne Kincade KC and Emma Priest are delighted to announce the launch of Augusta Chambers from 1 July 2023.

Joined by Nick Chisnall KC, Susan Gray, Nicola Manning, Scott Brickell, Shane Elliott, Devon Kemp, Oliver Troon, Susan Giles, Harry Redwood, Aieyah Shendi, and Lila Tu’i, Augusta Chambers continues to offer expertise in criminal, regulatory, appellate, and civil advocacy.

Regulation became independent but also continued to be anchored in the profession itself

The tricky tightrope property lawyers walk when providing undertakings

Lawyers’ undertakings and stakeholder obligations are potentially risky for property practitioners who are required to provide them in everyday transactions for sometimes nominal fees.

Care is crucial so lawyers are not exposed when providing undertakings and assuming stakeholder obligations.

KiwiSaver providers

Lawyers commonly act for purchaser clients who need to use their KiwiSaver funds to pay the deposit. This is different from accessing their KiwiSaver funds for settlement. The deposit scenario typically requires the signing of a pre-populated undertaking (which cannot be modified) and the provision of undertakings that the deposit will be held by a stakeholder who is obliged to:

■ hold the funds while the agreement is conditional; and

■ repay the funds to the practitioner if settlement does not take place by the due date (unless noncompletion of settlement is due to the purchaser’s default).

The conflict

Property lawyers are used to requests to sign solicitor’s undertakings from banks and KiwiSaver providers, which require such forms to be unqualified and unamended. However, lawyers’ undertakings are subject to the punitive jurisdiction of the High Court and must be given only where such undertakings are solely within the lawyer’s control.

It is therefore concerning that a lawyer providing the above undertaking to a KiwiSaver provider may fall short of the obligations incumbent on the lawyer. This is because a deposit paid under an agreement will be governed by the agreement’s general terms (being separate from the KiwiSaver undertakings) and which may:

■ allow the deposit to be released to the vendor before the vendor’s express conditions are satisfied; and/or

■ allow the deposit to be released to the vendor before settlement of the agreement; and/or

■ place the purchaser in a position where the deposit has been released to the vendor under an agreement which is later validly cancelled where, say, there has been a material misrepresentation. An early release of the deposit can be risky for purchasers (and where KiwiSaver undertakings have been provided, risky for the purchaser's lawyer and to a lesser extent the KiwiSaver provider), particularly where there are outstanding sunset dates or cancellation rights under s 225 of the Resource Management Act 1991 or s 149A and 151A the Unit Titles Act 2010.

To add to the mix, KiwiSaver providers are generally unable to accept amendments to their standard form of undertakings as the wording is taken from s 8(7)(c) of the KiwiSaver Act 2006, leaving the lawyer between a rock and a hard place called the High Court and professional censure.

Stakeholder obligations

On a similar note, stakeholder obligations can also pose conflict of interest issues for lawyers.

For example, a lawyer may be in conflict where a purchaser validly cancels the contract under the RMA and requests an immediate refund of the deposit, but the vendor client opposes the termination and refund.

The lawyer will be in conflict between the client instructions and his or her obligations as stakeholder under the agreement. In addition, what happens where the deposit is held by a third-party stakeholder and a fracas develops?

Another example is where a lawyer may have assumed the stakeholder role under a sale and purchase agreement for the vendor, but the client terminates his or her instructions and proposes to transfer the file and deposit(s) to another law firm. In this case, the uplift procedure is not simple as the lawyer should obtain suitable undertakings from the new firm if it is to hold the deposit. The change will also require a variation of agreement. If there are numerous agreements, the process will be more cumbersome.

Continued on page 09

Tina Hwang

Lawyers’ undertakings are subject to the punitive jurisdiction of the High Court and must be given only where such undertakings are solely within the lawyer’s control

The lawyer will be in conflict between the client instructions and his or her obligations as stakeholder under the agreement

Continued from page 08

Lawyers acting for vendors should therefore take care when receiving deposits as stakeholder to an agreement and be aware of conflicts that may arise.

Examples of exposure

I recently acted for different purchasers to the same development project, where the clients had all signed (before my engagement) “pro-vendor” sales agreements for properties off the plans.

I think we all know the kind of situation I mean, where it is clear the purchasers did not get legal advice before signing and where they all signed at the height of the market in the FOMO (fear of missing out) rush around covid-19.

I imagine the purchasers all thought they were getting a bargain as property prices could only increase, interest rates could only decrease and everybody who could buy property was signing up fast.

Fast forward a few years later and these kinds of projects have not been completed and after being beset by numerous delays. The problem (one of many) with this particular project agreement was that the vendor’s lawyer had modified the deposit clauses so the deposits could be released to the vendor prior to practical completion, code compliance certificate and titles.

However, the stakeholder obligation clauses had not been modified correspondingly, so the vendor’s lawyer had obligations to the purchaser as the stakeholder (including obligations to immediately refund the deposit upon cancellation), yet the deposit was released to the vendor client prior to cancellation/ settlement, who then ran into financial issues.

When the purchasers validly cancelled the agreement and requested the immediate refund of the deposits, the vendor’s solicitor (as stakeholder) had an immediate obligation to return the deposit which it no longer held. The vendor’s solicitor was exposed. We

could criticise this lawyer, but was it really negligence and was this issue foreseeable?

Another example is a purchaser’s lawyer who signed the standard KiwiSaver solicitor’s undertaking pertaining to the deposit without varying the standard agreement which allows the early release of the deposit to the vendor prior to settlement.

Prima facie, the lawyer may think the client is protected as the deposit can be released only after all conditions are satisfied. But they may be forgetting about the cancellation rights under the sunset clause, the UTA and/or the RMA provisions.

Again, the lawyer would be exposed if the purchaser then validly cancelled the agreement and required the deposit refund yet could not get the refund as the deposit was no longer with the stakeholder.

The vendor client could have cashflow issues if the deposit were returned. In such cases, the vendor’s financier(s) would be a secured creditor while the purchaser would be at the bottom of the list of unsecured creditors. The purchaser's solicitor would have also breached his or her undertakings to the KiwiSaver provider.

The result

These examples paint a grim picture for property lawyers who charge, on balance, fairly modest fees for conveyancing. Parallel to that exposure is the exposure of the vendor’s solicitor, who may still be the stakeholder, to the obligation of immediately refunding a deposit they no longer hold to the purchaser. These risks are real and concerning.

For issues relating to KiwiSaver undertakings, the easy solution is to amend the agreement or to apply KiwiSaver funds only at settlement.

However, clients often come to lawyers only after signing the agreement. What then can a lawyer do about this conflict? I use that word “conflict” intentionally as this is a direct conflict as the client

would ordinarily expect to simply instruct the lawyer to sign the solicitor’s undertaking to proceed with their transaction but the lawyer now simply cannot (and should not) sign such an undertaking unless the agreement is varied to ensure the undertaking can be validly enforced and the vendor’s lawyer provides the appropriate undertakings to enable the purchaser’s solicitor to provide the required undertakings to the KiwiSaver provider.

If the lawyer is unable to vary the KiwiSaver form or the purchase agreement, or get the appropriate undertakings from the vendor’s lawyer, they should inform the client that the client cannot withdraw their KiwiSaver funds to use as the deposit or that the finance condition might not be satisfied as sufficient funds cannot be obtained on reasonably satisfactory terms. Failing that, the lawyer will be unable to act. These are not desirable solutions but maybe the only resolution to the “catch 22” in play.

It is imperative that property lawyers are prudent and vigilant when dealing with such issues to avoid exposure under the standard undertakings or standard stakeholder duties which expose lawyers to the punitive jurisdiction of the High Court should the transaction not proceed, leaving the purchaser’s lawyer unable to fulfil his or her undertaking.

Tina Hwang is a senior associate of Queen City Law and co-convenor of the ADLS Property Law committee ■

These examples paint a grim picture for property lawyers who charge, on balance, fairly modest fees for conveyancing

Lessons for lawyers from governmentempowered coercion of real estate

The Real Estate Agents Act 2008 (the Act) created the Real Estate Agents Authority (REAA) as a Crown entity for the purposes of s 7 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 (CEA) which applies to the REAA except to the extent that the REAA provides otherwise.

There is a variety of Crown entities. The REAA is a Crown agent (Part 1 of Schedule 1). The minister responsible for the Act appoints the REAA Board.

The REAA requires a licensed real estate professional to undergo continuing professional development (CPD), something lawyers are familiar with.

The REAA’s CPD requirements for 2023 include two mandatory topics. The first is the Code of Conduct. These are practice rules setting out the standard of conduct and client care that agents, branch managers and salespeople are required to meet when carrying out real estate agency work and dealing with clients, contained in the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012.

These rules, required by s 14 of the Act, are a non-exhaustive statement of the conduct expected of licensees. It seems not unreasonable that a licensee should be required to know about them as a condition of being licensed.

The second mandatory topic is different. Part of the diversity and inclusion series, it is Te Kākano

(the Seed). The only approved training provider is Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi.

Nau mai haere mai ki Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi

Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi are proud to partner with the Real Estate Authority to codevelop and deliver the first topic in the Diversity and Inclusion Series….

Overview of Te Kākano

Te Kākano consists of three modules:

■ Module 1: Te Reo me ōnā tikanga - Māori language and customs

■ Module 2: Te Tiriti o Waitangi - The Treaty of Waitangi

■ Module 3: Whenua Māori - Māori land

Course completion cost: $29 + GST The Act prohibits a person from carrying out any real estate agency work unless the person is licensed under the Act or falls within one of the narrow exemptions (eg, is a lawyer or an auctioneer).

When a licensed real estate professional (an agent, branch manager or salesperson who holds a licence under the Act) wishes to renew the licence (which has a 12-month term), the licensee must satisfy the registrar that he or she has completed any continuing education required by practice rules made by the REAA (s 52).

Section 54 compels the registrar to cancel a person’s licence if the person has failed to complete

any continuing education required by practice rules made by the REAA (under s 15 which permits the REAA to make practice rules requiring that particular continuing education be undertaken).

No choice

So, any licensed real estate professional who fails to complete Te Kākano (the Seed) with Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi as the only approved provider must be refused licence renewal if a licence has not previously been cancelled for the failure.

As Māori customary land cannot be alienated at all, and Māori freehold land cannot be alienated

Gary Judd KC

A regulator of lawyers required ‘to give effect’ to the principles of the treaty would surely be required by legal obligation to demand from lawyers at least what is demanded of real estate professionals

professionals

The point is not that a real estate professional should not take Te Kākano (the Seed) if she wants to. The point is that the REAA demands that the real estate professional does so, or she will not be permitted to work in her chosen field

Continued from page 10

otherwise than in accordance with Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 Māori Land Act 1993 (ss 145 and 146), it is difficult to see how even Module 3 might be relevant to the professional life of a licensed real estate professional.

The point is not that a real estate professional should not take Te Kākano (the Seed) if she wants to. The point is that the REAA demands that the real estate professional does so, or she will not be permitted to work in her chosen field.

If a particular real estate professional had or wanted to seek business in the Māori land area (I should think it would be a tiny number, if any at all), he or she might find it advantageous to take such a course, but REAA makes them all do it.

There is a difference in kind between the Code of Conduct and the Te Kākano (the Seed) topics.

The first concerns the way professionals should conduct themselves in their dealings with and for members of the community engaged in selling and buying property and the like, as outlined in the “scope and objectives” part of the rules.

They concern professional competence, fiduciary obligations, confidentiality, and other objective requirements relevant to the way the job should be done.

The brief description of the second, Te Kākano (the Seed), does not contain even a hint that it relates to real estate professionals’ conduct. Rather it suggests a REAA desire that attendees learn about Māori language and culture, the treaty and Māori land. What’s wrong with that? you may well ask. Nothing at all, the answer is, except: “REAA, it is none of your business; mind your own, not the licensees’”.

What an adult human real estate professional decides to learn in matters unconnected with their professional conduct is for them, not REAA, to decide.

Regrettably, as John Stuart Mill wrote in 1859, in his famous essay On Liberty:

The disposition of mankind, whether as rulers or as fellow-citizens to impose their own opinions and inclinations as a rule of conduct on others, is so energetically supported by some of the best and by some of the worst feelings incident to human nature, that it is hardly ever kept under restraint by anything but want of power…. Kindle Edition, p 19.

The Act gives the REAA power; the REAA says, we think you should do this; do it or you lose your licence.

The motivation cannot be to fulfil the purpose of the Act, of promoting and protecting the interests of consumers in respect of real estate transactions.

Obviously, it has nothing to do with that. It is to promote an REAA agenda.

Tikanga

We can tease this out a bit further before turning to its implications for lawyers, by looking at tikanga, which is the subject of much discussion at present.

The statement scheduled to the Ellis continuance decision ([2022] NZSC 114), under the heading “The nature of tikanga,” contains this:

25. The term ‘tika’ means ‘to be right’. Tikanga Māori therefore means the right Māori way of doing things. It is what Māori consider is just and correct.

26. Tikanga Māori includes all of the values, standards, principles or norms that the Māori community subscribe to, to determine the appropriate conduct.

According to the learned writers of the statement, these are for the Māori of whom the writers are speaking, “their own opinions and inclinations”, to use Mill’s words. The Māori of whom the writers are speaking are entitled to follow these values, standards, principles or norms without interference except to prevent harm to others, but there ought to be no attempt to impose them on others.

To put this in ways which have been developed over centuries and are now embodied in international conventions and domestic legislation, “the right Māori way of doing things,” “what Māori consider is just and correct,” “the values, standards, principles or norms that the Māori community subscribe to,” are matters of thought, conscience, religion, and/or belief for those who subscribe to them.

Those within the community who subscribe to them, be they Māori or non-Māori, are absolutely entitled to do so without interference (Bill of Rights, s 13). By the same token, those who do not subscribe to them are equally entitled to go about their lives without being subjected to attempts to make them do so.

Relevance for lawyers

The NZLS’s independent review has recommended the establishment of a so-called independent regulator for the legal profession, “independent” yet having a board appointed by the Minister of Justice and required “to give effect” to the Treaty of Waitangi.

Te Kākano (the Seed) is a mandatory requirement for real estate people even though the treaty is not

mentioned in either the Act or the CEA.

A regulator of lawyers required “to give effect” to the principles of the treaty would surely be required by legal obligation to demand from lawyers at least what is demanded of real estate professionals.

The reality is that because we are lawyers with far wider responsibilities, much more will be demanded, especially in relation to tikanga. And, what about Te reo Māori? Will those of us who do not speak it be compelled to learn?

Former US President, the late Ronald Reagan warned of the perils of government involvement. Some of we older ones may remember: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I'm from the government, and I'm here to help’."

The way the government has “helped” licensed real estate professionals exemplifies the accuracy of Reagan’s words. It is a warning to lawyers inclined to support the recommendation for a governmentappointed regulator.

Overreach

In 2008, the legislators may not have realised that the REAA they created would in 2023 use its powers the way it has. These so-called independent bodies the government creates enable surreptitious incursions on individual liberty immune from both democratic accountability and the parliamentary and public scrutiny attendant on legislative action.

I doubt many lawyers would have expected the NZLS the government created in the 2006 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act would in 2023 be contemplating getting government “help” to create a regulator like the REAA to take over the regulation and disciplining of the profession.

As a postscript, I note a fallacy contained in the Statement of Tikanga is the claim that tikanga is “first law”. The short point can be expressed in a sentence: tikanga is not “first law” because it is not “law,” as ought to be readily apparent from the paragraphs quoted earlier.

Nevertheless, as the Supreme Court has stated “[22] The majority judges accept that tikanga was the first law of Aotearoa/New Zealand,” the matter ought to be dealt with thoroughly.

I am preparing a thorough treatment which may be too lengthy for publication in LawNews. Following the example of retired DCJ, David Harvey’s A Halfling's View djhdcj@substack.com, which I would commend, I will be putting my analysis on a Substack, garyjuddkc.substack.com. This already contains a convenient collection of my articles, most of which have been published in LawNews, and I intend to dig out and post others. ■

The motivation cannot be to fulfil the purpose of the Act

Robodebt royal commissioner makes multiple referrals for prosecution, condemning scheme as ‘crude and cruel’

former government had to announce it would repay the money.

Former Liberal ministers come in for trenchant criticism.

Scott Morrison, who as social services minister was an initiator of the scheme, “allowed Cabinet to be misled,” the report says.

“He took the proposal to Cabinet without necessary information as to what it actually entailed and without the caveat that it required legislative and policy change,” it says.

Michelle Grattan

Robodebt Royal Commissioner Catherine Holmes has referred multiple individuals involved with the illegal scheme for civil and criminal prosecutions and other actions.

But the names remain secret. They are contained in a sealed section of Holmes’ report, released in Australia last Friday, with referrals variously being made to the Public Service Commission, the new National Anti-Corruption Commission, the Australian Federal Police, and professional bodies.

In a swingeing indictment of the scheme, the commission says: “Robodebt was a crude and cruel mechanism, neither fair nor legal, and it made many people feel like criminals. In essence, people were traumatised on the off-chance they might owe money. It was a costly failure of public administration, in both human and economic terms.”

The commissioner has not made public the names of those in the secret section so as not to prejudice future actions.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told a news conference he did not have the sealed section, but the head of his department, Glyn Davis, did.

How it worked

Robodebt, designed to raise maximum revenue, used income averaging to strike debts to recover money from welfare payments. It unlawfully raised A$1.76 billion from hundreds of thousands of welfare recipients, but many of the calculated debts were wrong. After the illegality of the scheme was exposed, the

“He failed to meet his ministerial responsibility to ensure that Cabinet was properly informed about what the proposal actually entailed and to ensure that it was lawful.”

Morrison said in a statement later: “I reject completely each of the findings which are critical of my involvement in authorising the scheme and are adverse to me. They are wrong, unsubstantiated and contradicted by clear documentary evidence presented to the commission.”

In a news conference after the report’s release, Albanese said Morrison’s defence of the scheme was, in the wording of the report, based on a “falsehood”.

The report says of the former Minister for Government Services, Stuart Robert, who argued he was obliged to defend the scheme despite his doubts about it: “It can be accepted that the principles of Cabinet solidarity required Mr Robert to publicly support Cabinet decisions, whether he agreed with them or not”.

“But Mr Robert was not expounding any legal position, and he was going well beyond supporting government policy. He was making statements of fact as to the accuracy of debts, citing statistics which he knew could not be right.

“Nothing compels ministers to knowingly make false statements, or statements which they have good reason to suspect are untrue, in the course of publicly supporting any decision or program,” the report says.

The Guardian has reported Robert saying: “I have not received a notice of inclusion in the ‘sealed section’ and I

Continued on page 13

Robodebt unlawfully raised A$1.76 billion from hundreds of thousands of welfare recipients, but many of the calculated debts were wrong

Truly dismaying was the revelation of dishonesty and collusion to prevent the scheme’s lack of legal foundation coming to light

Anthony Albanese

Photo: Fairfax Media / Getty Images

Continued from page 12

understand they have all gone out.”

Abuse of power

The commissioner says of former Human Services Minister Alan Tudge that his “use of information about social security recipients in the media to distract from and discourage commentary about the scheme’s problems represented an abuse of that power.

“It was all the more reprehensible in view of the power imbalance between the minister and the cohort of people upon whom it would reasonably be expected to have the most impact, many of whom were vulnerable and dependent on the department, and its minister, for their livelihood.”

In a Friday statement Tudge said: “I strongly reject the commission’s comments of the way I used the media and that I had abused my power in doing so. At no stage did I seek to engage in a media strategy that would discourage legitimate criticism of the scheme.” He said he had not received notification that he was one of those referred to in the sealed section of the report.

The report is highly critical of the then-head of the human services department, Kathryn Campbell, finding she stayed silent about the misleading effect of the income-averaging proposal, and the advice it needed legislative change, “knowing that [social services minister] Mr Morrison wanted to pursue the proposal and that the government could not achieve the savings which the [scheme] promised without income averaging”.

Dishonesty and collusion

In her preface to the report, the commissioner says: “It is remarkable how little interest there seems to have been in ensuring the scheme’s legality, how rushed its implementation was, how little thought was given to how it would affect welfare recipients and the lengths to which public servants were prepared to go to oblige ministers on a quest for savings.

“Truly dismaying was the revelation of dishonesty and collusion to prevent the scheme’s lack of legal foundation

coming to light.

“Equally disheartening was the ineffectiveness of what one might consider institutional checks and balances – the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office, the Office of Legal Services Coordination, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – in presenting any hindrance to the Scheme’s continuance.”

She says the sealed section “in part is intended as a means of holding individuals to account, in order to reinforce the importance of public service officers acting with integrity.

“But as to how effective any recommended change can be, I want to make two points.

“First, whether a public service can be developed with sufficient robustness to ensure that something of the like of the Robodebt scheme could not occur again will depend on the will of the government of the day, because culture is set from the top down.

“Second, politicians need to lead a change in social attitudes to people receiving welfare payments.

“The evidence before the commission was that fraud in the welfare system was miniscule, but that is not the impression one would get from what ministers responsible for social security payments have said over the years.

“Anti-welfare rhetoric is easy populism, useful for campaign purposes. It is not recent, nor is it confined to one side of politics.

“Largely, those attitudes are set by politicians, who need to abandon for good (in every sense) the narrative of taxpayer versus welfare recipient.”

The Minister for Government Services, Bill Shorten, who pursued the Robodebt issue in opposition, said the report showed “the previous government and senior public servants gaslighted the nation and its citizens for four and a half years.

“They betrayed the trust of the nation and its citizens for four and a half years with an unlawful scheme which the Federal Court has called the worst chapter of public administration.” ■

Politicians need to lead a change in social attitudes to people receiving welfare payments

Scott Morrison

Photo: Asanka Rathayake / Getty Images

Tips for lawyers when using new Landonline

The upgrade changes the way you authenticate yourself during the certify-and-sign process in new Landonline

The new Landonline dealings application launched in November last year, enabling end-to-end dealings involving simple DTM, T and M instruments. Signing, release and submit functionality is available for almost all dealing types.

We will soon reach full coverage for Notices of Change (NoCs) and are onboarding the final council. And we have recently released functionality allowing you to finalise, create or correct NoCs post-registration.

Tip: To correct an NoC, you must be from a firm associated with the original dealing.

We continue to consolidate the technology supporting the new application. A recent upgrade means you no longer need to re-login when opening another app such as Search or Requests.

The upgrade changes the way you authenticate yourself during the certify-andsign process in new Landonline. You’ll now enter your certificate passphrase first, then enter your Landonline password in a separate pop-up window.

Tip: Some browser settings will block the separate authentication window where the password is entered. Enable browser pop-ups. Follow the in-app help article on how to enable.

We have been running customer workshops about the possibility of removing functions from Legacy once they are fully supported on the new application. If we go forward with that approach, we will ensure there is ample warning and education on how these functions work in new Landonline.

Tip: You can work on the same dealing in new and Legacy Landonline. Remember to exit the dealing to release your lock before switching platforms. Further enhancements we’ve released in the past few months include:

■ All discharge/withdrawal instruments can now be prepared in the new application, such as PDM and WX.

■ View dealing details from your landing page by clicking anywhere along the row of a dealing where you want to see a summary .

■ Search by instrument in the ‘add titles’ field when creating a dealing to easily pull across some or all of its affected titles.

■ Revert/update (known as ‘restore’ in Legacy) has been added to most of our supported instruments.

■ Prepare a mortgage in complex mode such as when mortgaging part of the land or when adding specific conditions or clauses to the instrument.

■ Access requests’ application to create and manage your requests. Note that ‘withdraw instrument’ and ‘withdraw dealing’ requests are not yet available in new Landonline.

■ Product list in web search, much like the Legacy search tree, enables you to order or research multiple products more efficiently. You can now save your lists to streamline investigating the same/similar group of products again in the future. ■

Illegal car park storage could end tenancy

The body corporate manager indicated the landlord could be fined for breaching its rules, which form part of the tenancy agreement

Sally Lindsay

Two tenants who used their allocated parking space for storage have been told to remove their goods or be evicted from their Manukau home.

Kun Kourn and Dollar Williams have also been told by the Tenancy Tribunal that items stored in the car park belonging to the property owner must be returned.

Kourn and Williams have previously ignored a 14-day notice from the landlord and two tribunal hearings demanding they use their car park only for parking vehicles and not for storing personal belongings.

The tribunal first told them to remove their belongings by 19 March or the landlord could dispose of their items. Kourn and Williams failed to do so, even though the tribunal says Best in Bays could do it and charge them up to $750.

At a second hearing, where Best In Bays applied for termination of the tenancy, Kourn and Williams were given until 4 May to clear the car park.

Best In Bays says it received letters from the body corporate manager on 1 November and 17 April, saying the tenants were in breach of the body corporate rules.

The body corporate manager indicated the landlord could be fined for breaching its rules, which form part of the tenancy agreement.

The landlord told the tribunal some of the belongings in the car park – for example, a sofa and a TV – belong to the tenants, while other items, such as plastic chairs and a table, belonged to

the property’s owner and had been taken out of the unit.

Best in Bays says it is impossible to enforce the tribunal’s order and clear the car parking space simply by disposing of the tenants’ items. It made a tribunal application to terminate the tenancy.

Adjudicator M Edison says the tribunal would not usually terminate a tenancy for a breach of this nature, particularly where the landlord himself could remove the belongings from the car park.

“Here, however, there is the practical difficulty that disposal of the tenants’ belongings would still leave items stored in the carpark that are supposed to be stored in the unit.

“Further, the tenants are in continuing breach of their tenancy agreement. They are causing inconvenience to other occupants of the building by using their car park for storage and the parking space belonging to their neighbour for parking,” Edison said.

“The unit owner is exposed to possible legal action by the body corporate for breach of the body corporate rules. The tenants have ignored a mandatory tribunal order to remedy the situation.”

If the tenants do not comply with this further order, which again directs them to remove their belongings from the car park and return the landlord’s property to the unit, Edison says it would be inequitable to refuse to terminate the tenancy and has granted a conditional termination order.

The order will lapse if it is fully complied with. If the tenant breaches the order, possession of their home is enforceable for 90 days from the first breach. ■

Disposal of the tenants’ belongings would still leave items stored in the carpark that are supposed to be stored in the unit

Where there’s a will, there’s a right way

WILLS ALL LEVELS

WEBINAR

Webinar 1.5 CPD hours

Wednesday 19 July 12pm – 1.30pm

Price from $110 + GST

Presenters Alison Gilbert, partner, Brookfields and Lucy Moyle, senior solicitor, Brookfields

Cross-leases: continuity and challenges

PROPERTY ALL LEVELS WEBINAR

This webinar will teach you the fundamental skills of will preparation, from the initial client meeting through to tips for execution. The webinar will also provide a brief case law update on decisions under s 14 of the Wills Act 2007.

Webinar 1.5 CPD hours

Tuesday 25 July 12pm – 1.30pm

Price from $110 + GST

Presenters Thomas Gibbons, principal, Thomas Gibbons Law and Campbell Burrows, director, CKL Planning | Surveying | Engineering | Environmental

Cross-leases continue to throw up a mix of survey, planning and legal issues. Presented by a lawyer and a surveyor, this webinar will canvas the key areas to watch out for.

Effective participation in the criminal justice system

Livestream | In Person

CRIMINAL ALL LEVELS

SEMINAR

2 CPD hours

Tuesday 25 July 4pm – 6.15pm

Price from $150 + GST

Presenters Julie-Anne Kincade KC, Robin McCoubrey; Professor Warren Brookbanks; Dr Jeremy Skipworth and Sally Kedge

Commentator Justice David Collins

This seminar will analyse the Court of Appeal’s decision in Hanara and look at practical ways of navigating issues arising in the criminal justice system.

Chair Julie-Anne Kincade KC

Contingency plans: employment and health and safety

EMPLOYMENT WEBINAR ALL LEVELS

NZBORA: updates and uses

ALL AREAS WEBINAR ALL LEVELS

Webinar 2 CPD hours

Thursday 25 July

4pm – 6.15pm

Price from $140 plus GST

Presenter Kris Gledhill, Professor, School of Law, Auckland University of Technology

Webinar 1 CPD hour

Thursday 27 July

12pm – 1pm

Presenters Myriam Mitchell, Penny Bower and Daniel Erickson

Chair Claire Mansell

Price from $80 + GST

Extreme weather and natural disasters require an immediate and urgent response. This webinar will provide timely insights and practical learnings so your clients can prepare effective contingency and continuity plans.

Engaging with the media

ALL AREAS ALL LEVELS SEMINAR

This webinar will focus on innovative and practical ways to use the NZ Bill of Rights Act.

Chair Stewart Dalley, partner, D&S Law

Livestream | In Person

2 CPD Hours

Tuesday 1 August

4pm – 6.15pm

Price from $140 + GST

Presenters

Justice Simon Moore; Marie Dyhrberg KC; Edward Gay; Hannah Norton and Elizabeth Binning

What is the role of the media in legal cases? How should lawyers engage with journalists? What does a court do, when faced with competing considerations?

Chair Marie Dyhrberg KC

Events

Featured events

Upcoming

September

Hawke’s Bay Lawyers’ Lunch

Tauranga After 5

Wednesday 19 July 5.30pm – 7.30pm Macau Bar, 59 The Strand, Tauranga Central

Sponsored by MAS

Connecting New Zealand lawyers Learn more

South Auckland Lawyers’ Lunch

Tuesday 8 August 12.30pm – 2pm

Woodside Bar Kitchen Functions, 639 Great South Road, Manukau City Centre, Auckland

Sponsored by MAS

East Auckland Lawyers’ Lunch

Wednesday 23 August 12.30pm – 2pm Goode Brothers, Shop 36/588 Chapel Road, East Tāmaki, Auckland

Christchurch After 5

Thursday 19 October (NEW DATE) 5.30pm – 7.30pm Botanic, 126 Oxford Terrace, Christchurch Central City

Sponsored by MAS

Soon to be added:

Oct | Wellington After 5 Nov | Hamilton After 5

Big bucks for rockstar lawyers in the US

Superstar lawyers in the United States can rake in more than US$15 million a year, according to research done by The Wall Street Journal

After speaking to more than 30 “compensation experts” and lawyers, and reviewing pay data for more than 15 years, the Journal found an “elite group of partners who bring in exceptional amounts of business” were earning north of US$15m at a handful of firms including Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz, Kirkland & Ellis, and Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison. Equity partners at top law firms could make about US$3m a year – more than triple what they were pulling in two decades ago. The Journal’s findings were part of a study comparing lawyers’ pay with that of investment bankers. It found that while bankers used to make multiples of what lawyers did, the tables have turned. Investment bankers’ pay for all but the very top performers has stagnated over the past 15-20 years, with managing directors now earning an average of US$1m to US$2m a year. The Journal says top lawyers in the US are “no longer relegated to simply marking up contracts” and today’s corporate lawyers are quasi-bankers, “clashing with regulators or wrestling with thorny issues such as succession planning”. ■

Deputy Chief Executive Operations - Auckland

Are you a leader in the justice or law enforcement sector? Led significant financial crime investigations and prosecutions? Want seriously meaningful and rewarding work? Click the ad to find out more.

Offices Available

Following some barristers retiring, we have three offices of varying sizes available for rent.

The Chambers share a refurbished floor (with separate areas) with Hussey & Co., a boutique forensic and general accounting firm. There are shared meeting rooms (a formal boardroom with video conferencing facilities and a less formal meeting room), and communal entrance and client waiting area.

Telephones, internet connection, printing and secretarial services also available and some furniture available.

Cost depends on office size and range from $150 – $300 per week plus gst. No long-term commitment required.

Photographs of the Chambers can be viewed at www.hco.co.nz/gallery.

Contact: Shane Hussey for further details, Shane@hco.co.nz 09 300 5481

The Challenges Facing the Profession and Judiciary

Tues 25 July 2023, 7.30am

FREE on registering at www.legalresearch.org.nz/events

AUCKLAND CITY PRACTICE FOR MERGER

Senior sole practitioner of well-established practice with extensive client base invites expressions of interest in merger.

The firm specialises in property, business, trusts, wills, and estates.

Reply in confidence to: advertiser@adls.org.nz ref:aklaw07

The Hon Michael Kirby AC CMG

Independent Hearing Commissioner

Auckland Council is seeking candidates for the role of Independent Hearing Commissioner for the next term, 1 January 2024 – 31 December 2026. Independent commissioners are responsible for making decisions on a range of resource management matters including applications for resource consents, plan changes and notices of requirement.

Applications close on Sunday, 23 July 2023. For more information, see the council website here.

Contact Chris Wright on +64 9 373 1101 chris.wright@bakertillysr.nz

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 Ph: (09) 303 5270

HEDLEY

Grant Richard

• Late of 2845E Vista Street, Long Beach, California

• Separated

• Tugboat dispatcher

• Aged 60 / Died 03’07’222

KALAGIN

Oleg

• Late of Auckland

• Married

• Director

• Aged 57 / Died 24’06’23

Independent workplace investigations

• Licensed Private Investigators

• In-depth understanding of diverse workplaces

• Experienced HR Practitioners

Contact Chris Wright: chris.wright@bakertillysr.nz

Masterclass in Human Rights

With Paul Rishworth KC

Wed 26 July, 5pm to 6:30pm Register at www.legalresearch.org.nz/events

Light refreshments will be served

Legal Executive

MORTON TEE LTD, Takapuna, Auckland

MARINER

Agaalii

• Late of 31B Tidal Road, Mangere, Auckland

• Insulator

• Aged 54 / Died 28’03’23

About us

Morton Tee was founded in 1986 in the heart of Takapuna. We are a wellestablished small firm with a developed reputation for capability, reliability and professionalism. We have a well-established and longstanding client base. We are seeking an experienced Legal Executive to join our team and continue our high standard of client care with professionalism and approachability. Please forward expressions of interest along with CV and academic records to our Practice Manager Cristine Tee ctee@mortontee.co.nz

Qualifications & experience

• Probate and Estate administration

• Client Trusts

Tasks & responsibilities

• Property and Conveyancing

• Willingness to form excellent relationships with our clients and staff

• The ability to manage files with minimal supervision

Benefits

• A salary commensurate with skills and experience will be offered to the successful applicant

• Mentoring and ongoing professional education

• On site car parking

• Flexible working hours