YLC Advocate Autumn 2015

Advocate Autumn 2015

INSIDE THIS ISSUE:

Practical guidance for grads Tips for starting out in the workforce The Laws of Fashion Intellectual Property Rights Lawyering for Good An interview with JustSpeak Co-Chair Zsofia Hellyer

The quarterly magazine of the Young Lawyers’ Committee Wellington AUTUMN 2015 1

Australia

London

China

Middle East

Hong Kong

Singapore

New Zealand

Your next career leap – made easy by JLegal.

There are numerous roles open to New Zealand lawyers wanting to work overseas so make the move now – gain international experience, increase your earnings and travel the world!

Through our global network of JLegal offices, we recruit lawyers with the leading law firms and corporations in the Australia, UK, US, Asia, Middle East, North & South America and the Offshores (including Cayman Islands, BVI, Channel Islands, Bermuda, Luxembourg and Malta).

For a confidential discussion about making the leap overseas, contact Damian Hanna today at damian.hanna@jlegal.com. new zealand level 1, 124 willis street, wellington t | +64 4 499 5949

JLegal were formally know as Simply Legal.

www.jlegal.com find jlegal on new zealand melbourne sydney london singapore uae hong kong

YLC Advocate Autumn 2015 04 Editors’ Note 05 Convenor’s Note 06 YLC Committee and Executive 2015 07 Upcoming Events and the YLC Calendar 08 Practical guidance for grads: tips for starting out in the workforce – Will Robertson

17 We Are The Champertous: a modest proposal for funding litigation – Andy Luck 20 Lawyering for Good: an interview with JustSpeak Co-Chair Zsofia Hellyer 21 Event Report – Opening Night 23 Event Report – Grad cruise

10 The Law of Fashion: Intellectual Property Rights – Hemma Vara

Advocate Autumn 2015 Editors:

Emma Bowman & Emily Bolton

Design:

Rachel Lynch

Cover photograph by flickr user surferlisa. Reproduced using a Creative Commons licence.

flickr user sapheron

14 Debunking Misconceptions about Freshwater “Bottom Lines” – Josh McGettigan

AUTUMN 2015 03

–

Editors’ note Emma Bowman and Emily Bolton co-E DI TOR S

– Welcome back to Advocate for 2015. This first edition of the year starts the way we intend to continue – packed with fascinating legal articles on a range of topics, guidance and tips to help your professional development, and the low-down on what young lawyers are up to in Wellington.

So grab a cup of coffee, sit back (as far as your standard office chair will allow) and relax with our first edition of 2015!

Our first edition of this year has some excellent articles to keep you up to date with interesting issues in the legal world. Hemma Vara examines the application of intellectual property law to fashion, Josh McGettigan explores misconceptions around freshwater quality ‘bottomlines’, and Andy Luck looks at a proposed market for private litigation funding.

We also have advice for recent graduates on how to manage the transition from student to working life (and how to survive Profs!), and our Lawyering for Good column features a great interview with Zsofia Hellyer who tells us about her work with the organisation JustSpeak.

Skim through to page 21, and we have event reports and photos from our first two events of the year. On March 4 the YLC hosted its opening night ‘After Work Drinks’ at Chicago Bar, to kick off the year and provide an opportunity for young lawyers to meet, mix and mingle. On March 11 the Sweet Georgia was once again the host of our ‘Meet the Grads Boat Cruise’, an evening for recent graduates and newbies to Wellington to get to know each other while enjoying the sights of Wellington harbour.

For more information on the YLC, check out our website, and make sure to like our Facebook page to keep up to date with the latest YLC activities.

And if you are interested in writing for Advocate, we would love to hear from you!!

We also thank the YLC’s general sponsors: MAS and JLegal for their ongoing support of the YLC.

–

What would you like to see included in the YLC Advocate?

We’d love to hear any feedback about the magazine — especially from potential contributors! So please get in touch at emma.bowman@minterellison.co.nz 04 YLC Advocate

–

Convenor’s note Jelena Gligorijevic Solicitor at R u ssell Mc V eagh

–

The Wellington Young Lawyers’ Committee is concerned with catering to the needs of young lawyers in Wellington. Our central goal is to ensure the pathway into the profession is as enjoyable, memorable and fulfilling as possible.

It’s my pleasure to be the Young Lawyers’ Convenor this year, and I am excited about all that 2015 has to hold for young lawyers in Wellington.

Young lawyers are intelligent, collegial and social beings, and the Young Lawyers’ Committee is there to provide a network for them to socialise, pursue their interests, learn about the various opportunities that exist for them, and get the support they might need in those major, transitional years of their professional lives.

We are looking forward to holding our traditional social events this year (such as the Quiz, and, of course, the YLC Ball). 2015 will also see the Committee again hold informative events on topics ranging from managing your insurance needs, to how to tap into the wide world of career opportunity created by entering the legal profession. Our Bridging the Gap mentoring programme, matching law students with new professionals, will again feature prominently on our agenda, as will our wellness and professional development events. We will also be holding our Mooting Competition again this year, which always proves to be a fun and worthwhile challenge to all who take part. So do keep an eye out for some exciting and worthwhile events throughout the year!

Young lawyers are also innovative beings, and the Committee this year will be considering how it might hold novel, one-off events that appeal more to our collective appetite, as lawyers, for intellectual, stimulating discussion about the current state of the law and our role as lawyers in our society. Whether you would call yourself an activist, or you just care about the law and how lawyers work, we like to see young lawyers participate in discourse within the profession and outside it – including by getting in touch with any suggestions!

A little about me - this year is my third year in practice, at Russell McVeagh, where I specialise in public law and policy, and international

trade. Outside of work, my three main areas of interest in the law are constitutional evolution in New Zealand and the everyday application of constitutional law in this country; the intersection between constitutional law, media law and human rights (and especially the tension between privacy rights and freedom of speech); and current humanitarian-related developments in public international law.

I am passionate about animal welfare and interests, and about how we can improve the law so that it better recognises animals. I also care a great deal about how the profession treats its women lawyers, and what general role the law itself plays in gender (in) equality issues, in the broadest sense. I am interested in and aim to stay on top of social, cultural and political developments in southern Europe (and getting myself over there as often as possible!). I have always enjoyed being involved in theatre in some way, though these days have seen me more in the audience than part of the cast. I play tennis recreationally, and am partial to a spot of croquet as well.

Someone who plays a pivotal role in my life is a vivacious, intelligent and irresistibly handsome Bichon-Maltese-Poodle, called Piccolo. An essential member of our family, when Piccolo is not cruising on his way to Golden Bay for a bit of R&R, he makes sure all is in order in my hometown Christchurch.

As 2015 promises to be yet another successful year for us, young lawyers in Wellington can rely on the Committee to listen to them and to deliver a wide range of opportunities for young lawyers to meet and mingle with other young lawyers and professionals, and to engage in their profession in a way that satisfies their purpose for entering the law in the first place.

If you have any suggestions for the Young Lawyers’ Committee in 2015 (Piccolo-related or not), or any feedback on anything we do this year, please do get in touch.

I look forward to being part of another great year for Wellington’s young lawyers.

AUTUMN 2015 05

–

Committee Members 2015 – Andrew Row, Anna Whaley, Emily Bolton, Emma Bowman, Emma von Veh, Jelena Gligorijevic, Jennifer Howes, Jeryl-lynn Govender, Jessica Davies, Kate Driver, Maeve Jones, Matt Dodd, Melanie Jagusch, Monica Hamlyn-Crawshaw, Nicky Dalgleish, Nicole Evans, Nigel Salmons, Rachael Jones, Rebecca Garden, Richard Evans, Seamus Woods, Steven Li, William Findlay, Yemo Guo Not pictured: Catherine Zhu, Charlotte Christmas, Emma Crayton-Brown

–

–

YLC Executive 2014

About the YLC

–

–

Convenor

Jelena Gligorijevic

Professional Affairs officer

Steven Li Deputy Convenor

Rebecca Garden

Communications officerS

Secretary

Kate Driver

Jennifer Howes Charlotte Christmas

Treasurer

Marketing officer

Nicole Evans

Emma von Veh

Sponsorship Officer

ADVOCATE OfficerS

Anna Whaley

Emma Bowman Emily Bolton

06 YLC Advocate

The Wellington Young Lawyers’ Committee (YLC) is a committee of the Wellington branch of the New Zealand Law Society.

It works to support young lawyers across the Wellington region by providing networking opportunities, relevant information and training, and by advocating for their interests. The committee currently comprises 27 volunteers from a range of firms and in-house teams in both the public and private sectors. An executive of 11 is responsible for running the YLC on a day-to-day basis.

If you’d like to the join the YLC, contact the Convenor, Jelena Gligorijevic, at jelena.gligorijevic@russellmcveagh.com.

–

Upcoming Events – Keep an eye on the Facebook page and YLC website for dates and more information about upcoming events. The YLC has some great events coming up this year so check out what we’ve got on offer, and come along!

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

23 April

12 May

26–27 MAY

18 JUNE

Quiz

Bridging the Gap launch

Mooting prelims

Mooting Final

7 MAY

14 MAY

9 JUNE

MID JULY

Government Lawyers Network/ YLC Drinks

Celebrating 800 years of the Magna Carta: Cyber-law discussion panel

Mooting Semi-finals

National Mooting Final in Wellington

Event Spotlight National Young Lawyers Mooting Competition 2015

Love the thrill of appearing before judges? Want to practice your advocacy skills? Want the chance to get training and mentoring from New Zealand’s top barristers? Enter the Young Lawyers Mooting Competition 2015! After last year’s success, we are delighted to announce that the competition will be returning in 2015! The Wellington round of the competition will take place from late May to June this year, and will be open to current and past professional legal studies trainees who are not yet admitted, and young lawyers with up to 5 years’ PQE. More details coming soon!

DEC

YLC Advocate Writing Prize 2014 The YLC Advocate Writing Prize is awarded to the best article published in Advocate each year. This year our judge was Nerissa Barber, President of the Wellington Branch of the New Zealand Law Society, who was very impressed by the calibre of last year’s legal articles.

The 2014 winning article goes to Free Speech and Trade Mark Infringement: Is Dumb Starbucks a Dumber Idea in New Zealand? by Hemma Vara.

QUIZ NIGHT

The YLC is holding its annual quiz night at 6pm on Thursday 23 April at Chicago Bar. If you have a team of four with the brainpower to contend with Wellington’s brightest young lawyers, then sign up and put your wits to the test. Entry fee is $50 per team. To register a team of four, please email your team name to emma.bowman@minterellison.co.nz.

Nerissa commented that “the writer conveys complex intellectual property and human rights concepts relating to both New Zealand and overseas law extremely effectively and clearly. The article quickly gets into the heart of the issues and canvasses a complex area in a way that is readily understood. A very clever and intelligent piece of writing, which is a great fit for Advocate. A great read.”

AUTUMN 2015 07

–

Practical Guidance for Grads: Tips for Starting out in the Workforce

by William Robertson L aw Clerk at Minter Ellison R udd Watts

– For many, one of the various clerkships offered by firms around New Zealand will have provided a taste of what a working life in the law is all about. While this may have left a sweet taste, when you start work fulltime, the honeymoon period is over.

Making the transition from university to working life The start of a new career is often a nerve-wracking time. In this article I will briefly list some helpful hints to ease the transition from university to work and answer some questions that may (or may not) have crossed your mind.

Starting afresh While your academic achievement and esoteric prowess may have rendered you a star student at university, you will probably find that you are starting afresh in many areas in your new job. Feelings of uselessness are normal. Remember that those above you were once in your position.

Don’t be afraid to ask for help. Some firms employ a buddy system which is always a good place to start. Otherwise, ask your peers and juniors in your office.

You will make mistakes - it is expected. A colleague once compared starting out in a firm to swimming unassisted for the first time – you are basically trying to stay afloat as long as possible until the inevitable occurs. When you do make a mistake, it is important to tell someone.

This will give them the chance to fix it before it snowballs into something more serious.

Accountability Perhaps the biggest adjustment, if not already encountered, is that you will now be accountable for all your time. Yes, this means down to the 08 YLC Advocate

minute. No longer can you drop study materials and flee to the beach on a nice day. Your disproportionate Facebook to work ratio will be a thing of the past.

You are required to turn up to work at a time your employer decides and account for your time throughout the day (often via timers). Failing to apply yourself throughout the day will mean that you have to stay late to make up your hours. While there may be some flexibility for appointments or other obligations, do not expect your employer to bend over backwards to accommodate your needs.

Dress code You will also be expected to dress appropriately. While all workplaces have different rules, corporate attire is usually the norm. A safe way to approach dress code is to play it safe during your first few weeks and then gauge a general feel of how others in your office dress. If in doubt, ask.

If dealing face to face with a client or representing your employer in the public eye, it is better to overdress. Keep in mind that first impressions count.

Communicating work capacity In your new position, workflow may vary. Not only can it be stressful when you are frantically busy, it can be stressful when you are quiet and are worrying about how to productively account for your time.

Communicating your capacity to your team is important.

If you do not have a lot of work on, make sure that your colleagues are aware that you have capacity. If you have asked for work and have not been allocated anything to do, use your free time productively. This could include writing an article, keeping up with business news or further study of a legal topic relevant to your firm. Remember, no job is too small. Attitude is everything. Get this right and everything else will fall into place.

Health As with any major change in life, you will feel tired. This may last longer than you expect. While by the second week of work you may be looking to get an intravenous line hooked up to the coffee machine, try to resist.

It’s all too easy to neglect your health when busy and stressed. Don’t fall into this trap.

The perks of working for a commercial firm can take their toll. Often food at firm functions and free beverages are hard to resist. Don’t forget to maintain regular exercise, otherwise you may find you put on a firstyear five.

Finally, don’t forget to take some time out. While everyone is geared differently, make sure you allocate time in your life to do the things you enjoy outside of work.

Professionals – Helpful tips After enduring a torturing spell at university, spending tens of thousands of dollars in the hope of becoming the next Harvey Specter or Jessica Pearson, and just when you’ve reached the pearly gates guarding admission, profs slams the door shut in your face.

However, it is a legal requirement for any person wishing to enter the

White Workspace with MacBook | from picjumbo

Adapting to working life can be a challenge.

legal profession in New Zealand to complete an approved course in professional legal studies (a.k.a “profs”). Yes, it is a bit of a drag. No, there is no way around it. So here are some tips to help you get the most out of your experience.

Orientate yourself While I can’t speak to the IPLS course, the College of Law’s online learning portal was definitely one of the more complex ones I have encountered. Familiarise yourself with where to find the necessary course material, timetables and assessment information. Ensure that you know when and how to submit an assessment well in advance.

Leaving it to the last minute before an assessment is due to work this out is not advised.

it drilled into you at the start of the course that plagiarism is a serious offence, you should remember that you are within an inch of admission into practice and most the hard work has been done. If you are thinking of cheating – don’t. It’s simply not worth it. The horror stories are true.

Many students are caught. One poorly thought out choice can quite literally strip away any hope of a career in law in an instant.

Balancing work and profs If you are working and completing profs at the same time, you may be lucky enough to be given time off by your employer to study. Don’t waste this time. It means that you won’t have to work as much at night or in the weekends. If you aren’t given any time off, it can be difficult to balance a new job and profs. You may need to sacrifice the odd weekend day or weekend prior to an assessment or exam.

What to expect – Materials and exams Enjoy your peer group Profs is not like university. The focus of the material is on the practical aspects of practicing law. It canvasses very little case law or academic theory. It is designed to give you a small amount of practical experience of what it’s like to work in the law.

Depending on what provider you opt for, you may or may not have exams.

The examination style is very different to university exams. Questions are much more succinct and focus less on the esoteric side of the law.

Regardless of the provider, much of the course is assessed in vivo.

Plagiarism Resist the temptation of using readily available firm precedents to assist you in your assignments and assessments. While you will no doubt have

Everyone doing profs is in the same boat. I had an intake of people of all ages and backgrounds and thoroughly enjoyed my time spent with them. Many of whom I am still good friends with today. There were many laughs shared throughout the course which made it a far more pleasant experience. Make the most of an opportunity to network in a relaxed environment.

Take it seriously Finally, don’t underestimate profs. While you may have heard that it is straightforward and not particularly difficult, people still fail. Profs are the pearly gates that guard admission. Make sure you don’t get locked out. A AUTUMN 2015 09

–

The Laws of Fashion Intellectual Property Rights

by Hemma Vara – Fashion is described by Encyclopedia Britannica as “the style or styles of clothing and accessories worn at any given time by groups of people”.1 While this definition is fixed, fashion can be or mean a variety of things at any given time. It could be an expression of freedom, or a work of art. Or it could be no more than a functional approach to protect the human body from the elements (heaven forbid).

From a designer’s perspective, fashion is often the end result of a creative process where clothes are designed, manufactured, and produced as final items for sale in a store. Throughout this process, designers often “borrow” inspiration from around them. This is why fashion can be highly contentious in the eyes of the law, particularly when allegations of “copycatting” emerge. The concern is exacerbated by the industry practice of “Fast Fashion”, where upmarket designers produce seasonal runway looks which are swiftly replicated and manufactured by affordable chain stores.

Intellectual Property (IP) laws are a critical part of fostering the growth and creativity of this multibillion-dollar industry by providing designers with adequate protection, although if taken too far they can stifle healthy competition. This article will consider just some of the IP rights in New Zealand that relate to the fashion world: copyright, trade marks and design registrations.

Copyright Under the Copyright Act 1994, copyright is a property right that exists in “original works” of listed descriptions, including “artistic works”.2 Case law has found copyright to subsist in particular fashion garments and accessories, which are classified as artistic works, for example, sketches, drawings, dress patterns and sample garments.3 When contemplating the extent of copyright protection, designers should consider when a garment is original, un-original (for example, 10 YLC Advocate

a plain grey t-shirt), or whether it is comprised of both original and un-original features. In the case of a garment with both original and unoriginal features, only the original features will be afforded copyright protection. Further, in some cases the arrangement of un-original features in an original and novel way will make the garment an original work.4 Secondly, designers must appreciate the distinction between sample garments, which are prototypes, and garments made specifically for the purpose of sale. Sample garments are considered to be artistic works because they come under a sub-category of artistic works as “models”.5 As a last resort, garments made specifically for sale can receive protection if they fall within the sub-category of “works of artistic craftsmanship”.6 This will apply, for example, if the garment in question has been produced with sufficient skill, experience and effort, as was the case in Bonz Group (Pty) Ltd v Cooke [1994] 3 NZLR 216 (HC), where hand-knitted woollen jerseys were found to be works of artistic craftsmanship. It is likely that the same reasoning would apply to a oneoff haute couture ball gown or a costume entered into the Wellington

John S. Major “Fashion Industry” (7 September 2010) Encyclopedia Britannica <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1706624/fashion-industry>.

2 Copyright Act 1994, s 14.

3 Thornton Hall Manufacturing Ltd v Shanton Apparel Ltd (No 2) [1989] 1 NZLR 239.

4 At 240.

5 At 245.

6 Copyright Act 1994, s 2.

1

World of Wearable Art Awards Show7.

For clothes that have been produced on an industrial scale, the duration for copyright protection generally lasts for 16 years.8 There are many theories showing that fashion trends, like musical trends, are cyclic – they first become fashionable, then forgotten, then some time later they are re-discovered again. This may be both a blessing for designers who re-introduce garments that they still hold copyright for, and a curse for other designers who are prevented from participating in the new trend by the continuing existence of the original designer’s statutory monopoly.

Arguably, changes in fashion trends are so fast-paced that the duration of protection for fashion garments should be shortened to reflect this.

A recent example of a copyright dispute being brought before the New Zealand Courts is the G-Star v Jeans West dispute over a pair of jeans.

In February this year, the Court of Appeal upheld G-Star’s claim that Jeanswest was liable for primary copyright infringement, having infringed the copyright of G-Star’s “5602 Elwood Jean”.11 The Elwood Jean had 5 unique areas of stitching/seam design, and Jeanswest’s “Dean Biker” jean had replicated 4 out of the 5 features. At first instance, the High Court12 found Jeanswest liable for secondary copyright

Provided there are no sketches or patterns, which might otherwise receive protection.

Copyright Act 1994, s 75.

9 Copyright Act 1994, s 29.

10 Wham-O Mfg Co v Lincoln Industries Ltd [1984] 1 NZLR 641 (CA).

11 Jeanswest Corporation (New Zealand) Ltd v G-Star Raw CV [2015] NZCA 14 (17 February 2015).

12 G-Star Raw CV v Jeanswest Corporation (New Zealand) Ltd [2013] NZHC 2679 (15 October 2013).

7 8

What to wear... | Flickr user marcs-album

Copyright infringement occurs when a substantial part (or all) of a copyright work is copied without authorisation from the owner.9 It is readily inferred where there is a causal connection between the copyright work and the creation of the allegedly infringing work, or where there are objective similarities between the copyright work and the allegedly infringing work.10 Of course, each copyright case will be different and

the answer to whether infringement has occurred will not always be clear-cut.

Fashion can be highly contentious in the eyes of the law.

AUTUMN 2015 11

infringement for importing the Dean Biker, ordering them to pay G-Star the profits from all of the Denim Biker Jeans sold; a princely $325. On appeal, Jeans West were found liable for primary infringement as the Dean Biker was sold to the public, and G-Star were awarded a further $50,000 including interest, plus costs on the appeal. The size of the award should be a warning for other would-be infringers that the courts take copyright seriously, especially when the copying is flagrant13.

Trade Marks Whether you love it or hate it, Karen Walker’s “runaway girl” mark is everywhere you go, serving as an eminent example of the importance of trade marks when developing a marketing strategy.

The purpose of a trade mark is to allow a consumer to identify and distinguish one trader from another. A trade mark could be a logo or word or a combination of both, or it could even be a colour,14 as is the case in the United States where red marks the soles of heels designed by Christian Louboutin.

pass the test for registrability in respect of clothing.

It is advisable to apply to register a trade mark, as it then becomes a personal property right, granting its owner nationwide rights to use, license, or sell the mark.16 Further, a registered trade mark takes priority over company and domain names. This is something that may have been overlooked in last year’s spat involving New Zealand fashion designer turned fitness blogger Sera Lilly. The New Zealand Herald reported17 in September that Ms Lilly had followed “bad advice” by purchasing a number of domain names already used by competing blogs as titles for their Facebook pages. In doing so, Ms Lilly intended to re-direct these domain names back to her own website, fat2fitnz.co.nz. Following backlash on social media, Ms Lilly apologized and de-registered the offending domain names. While this was a desirable outcome for the affected parties involved, if Ms Lilly had continued to use the domain names, the affected companies could have pre-empted such an action

Above n 10, at [125].

Trade Marks Act 2002, s 5.

15 Trade Marks Act 2002, s 18(1)(b).

16 Section 10(1).

17 Nikki Preston ”Millie gets apology after web domain row” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, Auckland, 23 September 2014).

13 14

Karen Walker Runaway Girl <3 | Flickr user oh_darling

Importantly, a trade mark should be distinctive in relation to its related goods and services,15 rather than being descriptive or laudatory. For example, the phrases “White Shirts” or “Quality Denim” are unlikely to

A trade mark could be a logo or word or a combination of both.

12 YLC Advocate

–

“Whether you love it or hate it, Karen Walker’s “runaway girl” mark is everywhere you go, serving as an eminent example of the importance of trade marks when developing a marketing strategy.”

–

by applying to register their trade marks when they launched their pages. Once registered, they would have had grounds to make a formal complaint to the Domain Name Commission.

In the long term, trade mark registrations are reasonably cheap to maintain. On the other hand, failing to register a mark carries considerable risks. Without a registered trade mark, if infringement occurs, the designer must rely on fair trading legislation or the tort of passing off,18 which may be more difficult to prove, and as always, litigation is a costly exercise.

A designer who is well versed in trade mark disputes is New Zealand’s very own Dame Trelise Cooper. Her most memorable dispute was in 2005, when she opposed South Island designer Tamsin Cooper’s application to register a trade mark in her own name. While Tamsin had obvious grounds to do so, Dame Trelise’s lawyer explained that Dame Trelise had established reputation and goodwill in her name, and there was a “distinct similarity between the look and feel” of the two brands.19 It was later reported that the disagreement had been resolved outside of court, and Tamsin would continue to trade under her name; both designers were of the belief that customers now understood the difference between the brands.20 In 2006, the tables turned and Dame Trelise was on the receiving end of a trade mark dispute initiated by Central Otago wool farm Treliske.

The trade mark TRELISKE had been registered since 1993 in respect of clothing, and Treliske took issue when Dame Trelise registered TRELISE in the same category in 2006. While IPONZ had allowed registration of TRELISE because, in their opinion, it was unlikely to cause confusion or deception to consumers on an aural and conceptual level, Treliske was of the opinion that it would confuse confusion in the marketplace.21 Again, the parties came to a resolution outside of Court – Dame Trelise deregistered the trade mark, agreeing not to use TRELISE in relation to clothing (although it is registered in relation to footwear), and Treliske agreed not to use TRELISKE in relation to perfume or interior design products22, being products that Dame Trelise also sells under her name.

for designs which were either registered or part-way through the registration process found that only 51 designs were listed under the classification for clothing garments (not including undergarments and accessories), and most of these garments were either industrial wear, sports wear, or weather jackets.

There are a variety of reasons why this might be the case; many designers consider protection under copyright to be sufficient. Further, it is un-economical for designers to file applications for registration before the start of each season in respect of multiple garments, especially when many designers operate on the basis of 1-2, or even 3-4, seasons per year. However, a design registration may be a smart idea for a designer who repeats the shape or pattern of a garment over multiple seasons, changing only the fabric or colour, such as Karen Walker.

IPONZ also makes some cogent points in support of registering a design:24 - Without a design registration, an owner may not know if they are protected by copyright until challenged. Then, they may be unable to prove that their design was created before a competing design, or that their design is new or original.

- If a design is copied, the register makes it easy to prove ownership (and authorised use) in comparison to copyright. The register warns others that the right to a particular design is already owned, acting as a deterrent to breach the design.

Conclusion As designers explore and develop new ideas, they need to ensure that any new IP they create is identified and protected. Further, as they look to the old for inspiration or borrow from ideas around them, they must educate themselves on how they can safeguard their livelihood from allegations of copycatting. The examples used in this article only touch on the vast possibilities for disputes that could arise. Ultimately, designers cannot be complacent if they want to survive the cut-throat world of the fashion industry. A

Registered Designs In order to protect the external appearance of a manufactured article, a design can be registered, as long as it is sufficiently new or original to the register.23 A design should not be published until after an application for registration has been filed with the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ).

From a glance at the register, designs do not appear to be commonplace in the fashion industry. As of 6 March 2015, a search of the Register

Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] 1 WLR 491.

Patrick Crewdson “Trelise Cooper in trademark battle with namesake” The New Zealand Herald (online ed, Auckland, 4 December 2005).

20 Trelise Cooper and Tamsin Cooper “Cooper and Cooper reach agreement over trade marks” (press release, 3 July 2007).

21 The Independent “Treliske trounces Trelise” Stuff.co.nz (online ed, Auckland, 29 May 2009).

22 The Independent “Treliske trounces Trelise” Stuff.co.nz (online ed, Auckland, 29 May 2009).

23 Designs Act 1953, s 5.

24 Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand “Why register a design?” (19 June 2009) <http://www.iponz.govt.nz/cms/designs/why-register-a-design>.

18 19

AUTUMN 2015 13

Media coverage of these amendments focussed on certain bottom-lines requiring water quality to be maintained at levels that would only ensure secondary contact recreation is safe (i.e. wading and boating), but not swimming.

–

Debunking Misconceptions about Freshwater “Bottom Lines”

by Josh McGettigan

– Some of you may have read (or heard discussion about) the suite of amendments to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2014 (the NPSFM) that came into force in August last year. Part of the amendments related to prescriptive “bottom-lines” about water quality, which are to be implemented nationally and have been informed by the advice of over 60 of the country’s leading freshwater scientists.

Much of the political discourse and media hysteria around this aspect of the NPSFM suggested that secondary contact was an inappropriate bottom-line, and either assumed or expressly suggested that the NPSFM would allow water quality across the county to be degraded to this level.1 Such criticism misunderstands the effect of the NPSFM and unfortunately succeeds only in muddying the waters for constructive debate. This article seeks to explain the effect of the NPSFM in the context of the environmental regulatory framework, and suggests a more appropriate level at which any debate should be occurring.

What is a national policy statement?

For the uninitiated, a national policy statement is basically the secondtop dog in the hierarchy of documents that make up the New Zealand environmental regulatory framework. Without going into too much detail, the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA) is at the top, national policy statements come next, below them are regional policy statements, and regional plans and district plans are at the bottom, which are the documents that can permit or require that consent be applied for in relation to particular activities. If the government really wants, it can also prepare a national environmental standard, which operates more like a plan in that it has specific standards that directly regulate activities, but it does this on a national basis.

The key point for understanding the role of national policy statements for current purposes is that it is not to directly regulate activities, but rather provide national policy guidance about that, which is then implemented into documents that apply in regions and districts based on more local considerations. The RMA requires that national policy statements are “given effect to” in regional policy statements, regional plans, and district plans.2 Given the high level policy role of national policy statements, it is actually surprising that it was the tool chosen by the Government to implement bottom-lines. National policy statements have traditionally been used to provide, as their name and role would suggest, policy guidance rather than express standards. A national environmental standard would have been the more obvious choice if the government wanted the bottom-lines to be applied as standards. However, the use of a national policy statement instead (and the creation of various exceptions and qualifications to the bottom-lines) reflects a policy intent to have greater flexibility.

What do the bottom-lines apply to? Do they apply to water bodies directly?

The bottom-lines do not apply directly to water bodies immediately, they apply to regional councils and how they go about developing their regional plans. They are not really directly relevant to particular water

See generally Alecia Rousseau “Do you want to swim in our river” Wanganui Chronicle (online ed, 22 January 2014, New Zealand) and Jamie Morton New national standards for lakes and rivers, New Zealand Herald (online ed, 3 July 2014, Auckland).

2 RMA, ss 62(3), 67(3)(a), 75(3)(a).

1

14 YLC Advocate

Very Old Rowboat | from picjumbo

Improvements in freshwater quality may take generations.

bodies (and activities that affect their quality) until they are incorporated into regional plans.

This time delay will allow for regional and local circumstances to be considered in the implementation of the bottom-lines. This would include considerations such as:

So the NPSFM provides for long time lags in achieving bottom-lines.

Furthermore, bottom-lines do not need to be incorporated into regional plans until the end of 2025 – and even if they are not fully implemented by then, regional councils can still grant themselves an extension until the end of 2030.3 The bottom-lines are accordingly a long way off being an immediate or direct requirement.

(a) what water bodies are valued for; (b) what their current level of quality is, and (c) whether efforts should be directed towards managing the water to: i. the bottom-line; ii. a higher level of quality; or iii. if an exception applies, a lower level of quality.

Even accounting for the expressly envisaged time delays, there are also exceptions carved out in the NPSFM for requiring bottom-lines to be met within any timeframe. These are relatively narrow, and only apply in situations where low water quality is caused by “naturally occurring processes,” contributed to by specified existing infrastructure, or on a temporary basis if negotiated with the Government.

What do the bottom-lines mean? Are they really “bottom-lines”?

What does the swimming bottom-line say?

Not really, no. The term “bottom-line” was undoubtedly employed in the NPSFM to feed into a narrative around the government taking tough action on water quality. It sounds good. However, the use of a term such as “target” or “long-term goal”, while perhaps not feeding into the story as well, would more accurately reflect their effect.

One of the compulsory values, in relation to which objectives must be set in regional plans, is secondary contact recreation. It has numerical bottom-lines that are designed to protect it. The value is described as:4 As a minimum, the freshwater management unit will present no more than a moderate risk of infection to people when they are wading or boating or involved in similar activities that involve only occasional immersion in the water. Other contaminants or toxins, such as toxic algae, would not be present in such quantities that they would harm people’s health.

Time-delays for the bottom-lines to be met are expressly envisaged by the NPSFM. The preamble of the NPSFM neatly encapsulates the regulatory effect of the bottom-lines, and the thinking behind them, in terms of timing: National bottom lines in the national policy statement are not standards that must be achieved immediately. Where freshwater management units are below national bottom lines, they will need to be improved to at least the national bottom lines over time…

Where changes in community behaviours are required, adjustment timeframes should be decided based on the economic effects that result from the speed of change. Improvements in freshwater quality may take generations depending on the characteristics of each freshwater management unit.

The description falls short of guaranteeing anything less than a “moderate” risk of infection through secondary contact and occasional immersion. This has perhaps been perceived as cold comfort for communities who have water bodies they value for recreational use.

Particularly if they like to go boating without getting sick.

3 4

NPSFM, Policy E1(ba).

Appendix 1.

AUTUMN 2015 15

Does it allow water quality to deteriorate so we can’t go swimming anymore?

Absolutely not. The suggestion that having a bottom-line lower than “swimmable” means that all water can be degraded to this state has no basis. The NPSFM is quite clear (and was before the 2014 amendments) that the overall quality of freshwater within a region needs to be maintained or improved.5 With the minor caveat on what “overall” means (i.e. whether it would allow degradation of one water body if another is improved), the allegation that the NPSFM would allow existing water quality to deteriorate at all is misconceived.

The more relevant question is perhaps what the current water quality state is, and what that water body is valued for. If it is already above a bottom-line, that state is the more relevant “bottom-line.” The RMA also provides for regional councils to manage water quality for higher states where appropriate (including for swimming), and many already do this in their current regional plans.

Is it acceptable to have a long-term goal that will still allow for some (or some parts) of our freshwater bodies to probably make you sick if you swim in them?

The question that really considers the effect of the NPSFM is whether all low quality freshwater ought to be brought up to such a level that it can eventually be waded in, or so that it can eventually be swum in. This is a much more refined question than is usually considered, but it is the question that is relevant to any critique of this aspect of the NPSFM.

JetSurf Watersports Sunset | from picjumbo

If all low quality freshwater were required to be improved to a swimmable level on a national basis, this would have significant impacts for community-based discharges that go to freshwater, such as treated wastewater. Requiring stringent bottom-lines to be met could in these instances be imposing significant costs on communities, and/ or diverting funding from other causes that the community may value higher. It could also potentially be passed onto consumers if applied in other instances, such as through the price of dairy products. Whether it is

Should all freshwater be of swimmable quality?

16 YLC Advocate

acceptable for freshwater quality to be degraded by such activities comes back to the largely philosophical question of whether it is permissible to allow water quality to be degraded for economic reasons.

That question also operates in a context where a community may value different water bodies for different reasons. Poor access to certain water bodies may mean it would have little recreational value in any event.

Some communities may value the capacity of a low amenity, difficult to access, freshwater body to assimilate contaminants as a valuable resource. In such situations, requiring costly treatment upgrades to allow for the water body to be of recreational water quality may be of little value.

The question may be framed as whether a freshwater resource’s natural state should be conceived of as its highest value state, or whether deviation from this state is of higher value and acceptable depending on the reasons for that degradation. In any event, the argument that all freshwater should be of swimmable quality becomes harder to make when you appreciate the context within which the practical aspects of the argument have to operate.

Rather than asking whether, as a blanket rule, these largely philosophical questions have absolute answers, the more appropriate response may be considering the body and level by which this decision should be made in particular instances. Given the persons that decision affects in terms of recreational enjoyment of the resource, the uses for which it is valued, and the costs and benefits of allocating the resource for a particular use, leaving this as a decision to be made at a regional level may well be a better option than dogmatically requiring a minimum level of quality that communities may not consider appropriate or of particular value.

However, misconceptions about the NPSFM, political rhetoric, and unhelpful terminology have meant that this question is rarely the one to which attention is directed. A

5

Objective A2.

–

We Are The Champertous: a modest proposal for funding litigation

by Andy Luck Stou t S treet C hambers

– Suppose an investor (A), is considering whether to invest in a company which promises eye-popping returns. A takes advice from three experts – B, C and D. B smells a rat, C suggests cautious optimism, and D says to go all in. A invests, primarily on the strength of D’s advice. Soon after, the company collapses. A loses the investment, the savings, the house and the plot. Can A recover from D?

No, because A is stone broke and has no way to pay a lawyer. That is not to say whether A does or does not have a valid claim; that will turn on issues like the scope of D’s duty, causation and the reasonableness of A’s reliance. But without funds A has no way of testing the claim and, by extension, no path to recovery. And D escapes legal liability not because the advice was sound, or because it did not cause the loss, but simply because the advice was given to someone who (now) has shallow pockets.

Situations like these are commonly cast as failures to enable access to justice, but in truth they are failures of the system of justice itself; the rule of law relies on the fair and equal access to the courts so that citizens can vindicate their legal rights.1 There is no singular solution to this problem.

For instance, pro bono work has been described as “the right thing for a profession sworn to uphold the rule of law to do”,2 but in practice the availability of pro bono assistance tends to rely on the intellectual and personal sympathies of the lawyer. And while representative (and class) actions are useful for upholding the rights of large numbers of disaffected claimants, they are necessarily less effective in responding to isolated instances of harm. While both options – pro bono work and representative actions – have their limitations, they are still useful planks in the bridge towards justice for all.

The purpose of this article is to provoke discussion on which planks might also belong on that bridge. To that end, I have set out my own offering - a proposed protocol for private litigation funding - below. But first, some context.

The history of private funding The law has long regarded those who might fund litigation from the

side-lines with suspicion, and rightly so. There are serious concerns that widespread funding will lead to a deluge of litigation, will result in victims accepting pittances from unscrupulous funders, and will reduce the victim’s role in the proceedings to a mere proxy for the funder’s profiteering ambitions.

Given those concerns, the Law Commission had every reason to be sceptical. In its 2001 report ‘Subsidising Litigation’ the Commission rejected calls to abolish the torts of maintenance (intermeddling in proceedings in which one has no interest, typically by paying for the costs of litigation) and champerty (a form of maintenance where the maintainer directs the litigation and is promised a share of the proceeds).

That said, the reaction against funded litigation has softened since the Commission’s report. A number of recent cases have found that the mere fact an agreement is champertous will not be sufficient to grant a stay of proceedings on the basis of an abuse of process.3 Other cases have held that since the rule against champerty has its origins in public policy, the rule should only continue to operate where there is some public policy reason to apply it.4 And the practice of litigation funding has

See David Neuberger “Justice in an Age of Austerity” (Tom Sargant Memorial Lecture 2013, 15 October 2013), <www.supremecourt.uk/docs/speech-131015.pdf>.

2 Helen Winkelmann “Access to Justice – Who Needs Lawyers?” (Ethel Benjamin Address, 7 November 2014), <https://otagowomenlawyerssociety.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/helen-winkelmanns-2014address2.pdf>.

3 Houghton v Saunders (2008) 19 PRNZ 173 at [179]; Saunders v Houghton [2009] NZCA 610, [2010] 3 NZLR 331 at [79](b).

4 Auckland City Council as Assignee of Body Corporate 16113 v Auckland City Council [2008] 1 NZLR 838 at [43]; Contractors Bonding Ltd v Waterhouse [2012] NZCA 399 at [60].

1

AUTUMN 2015 17

–

“To allow no funding is to oppress plaintiffs, to allow too much is to oppress defendants. To enlist the support of wealthy patrons can improve access to justice; to enlist too much support is an invitation for abuse. The goal must be to strike a balance.”

–

become widespread internationally – especially in Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. As French J described these developments in Houghton v Saunders:5 …in more recent years there has been a dramatic change in attitude, with some jurisdictions abolishing the tort of champerty altogether and Courts generally adopting a much more liberal and relaxed approach, to the point where many authorities appear actively to support litigation funding as a matter of public policy.

That “dramatic change in attitude” is particularly stark when viewed in light of the early history of the tort.6 Champerty arose in late-medieval England in response to, as the Law Commission put it, “unruly nobles whom judges were reluctant to defy” who “frequently employed as a method of oppressing the vulnerable the systematic promotion of lawsuits, ‘suits fomented and sustained by unscrupulous men of power’”.7 Those two historical concerns – to protect the vulnerable and to curtail the influence of the powerful on the system of justice – remain at the heart of the modern objections to champerty.

But there are two sides8 to any history. The less frequently cited side is that champerty emerged during a period of increasing tension between the landed aristocracy (old money) and the merchant/capitalist class (new). Before the rise of the merchants, a tenant was unlikely to sue their landlord; even if they had a valid cause of action, few tenants had the means to sue and fewer still could compete with the landlord’s superior resources.9 The power to assign causes of action challenged that dynamic; if a merchant purchased the action, then the aristocrat would be forced to defend the case against an individual of similar prestige and economic status. Viewed in that light, the prohibition against champerty also operated to preserve the aristocratic status quo.

Taken together, the two sides of that history illustrate the concerns that any system of litigation funding must address. To allow no funding is to oppress plaintiffs, to allow too much is to oppress defendants. To enlist the support of wealthy patrons can improve access to justice; to enlist too much support is an invitation for abuse. The goal must be to strike a balance.

18 YLC Advocate

The proposal In essence, the proposal is to establish a market for assigning causes of action, coupled with a number of procedural safeguards. The market approach is not new; there are a number of (particularly North American) authors who have advocated for a similar approach.10 So in the spirit of intellectual freedom, I’ve pinched some of their better ideas and worked them into my own suggestion.

Suppose you have four participants: the plaintiff, the litigation exchange, the funders and the defendant. The plaintiff approaches the exchange with their claim, providing full particulars up front and further information where required. The plaintiff pays the exchange a filing fee; low enough so that it does not discourage the disadvantaged from filing an important claim, but high enough so that it does discourage the vexatious from filing multiple frivolous claims.

The exchange then considers the information provided and determines a reserve price for the action. The reserve price would be set at the lower end of their likely recovery; that is, the amount they stand to gain multiplied by their prospects of success.

At [176].

For a fuller analysis of this history, see Max Radin, “Maintenance by Champerty” (1938) 24 Cal L Rev 48; P H Winfield “The History of Maintenance and Champerty” (1919) 35 LQR 50 and The History of Conspiracy and Abuse of Legal Procedure (1st ed, Cambridge University Press, London, 1921) (available online at archive.org).

7 Law Commission Subsidising Litigation (NZLC R72, 2001) at [1], citing Lord Mustill in Giles v Thompson [1994] 1 AC 142 at 153.

8 At least.

9 Through most of its early history, champerty arose in connection with actions involving land. The word itself comes from the Old French champart, a feudal lord’s share of a serf’s produce.

10 See, for instance, Isaac Marcushamer “Selling Your Torts: Creating a Market for Tort Claims and Liability” (2005) 33:4 Hofstra L Rev 1543; PC Choharis “A Comprehensive Market Strategy for Tort Reform” (1995) 12 Yale J on Reg 435; Ari Dobner “Litigation For Sale” (1996) 144 U PA L Rev 1529, TE Luthy “Assigning Common Law Claims for Fraud” (1998) 65 U Chicago L Rev 1001; Paul Bond “Making Champerty Work: An Invitation to State Action” (2002) 150 U Pa L Rev 1297; Michael Abramowicz “The Law and Markets Movement” (1999) 49 AM U L Rev 327.

5 6

Themis | Flickr user raeallen

Private litigation funding may be a way to increase access to justice.

The exchange then discloses the basis and particulars of the cause of action to the funders. The cause of action goes up for auction, and the highest bid takes the day. The plaintiff and the funders execute a standard form contract under which the plaintiff assigns the cause of action to the funder and agrees to have an ongoing role in proceedings as required.11 The funder then writes to the defendant identifying themselves,12 explaining that they have purchased the cause of action, providing details of the action, and outlining how much was paid at auction. Under the protocol, the funder would then be obliged to offer to settle the claim with the defendant on the basis of the price paid at auction, plus a small premium for risk and research – no more than, say, 10%. The defendant can then choose whether to settle the action on that basis. Otherwise, the action proceeds as it normally would, except that it is directed by the funders rather than the plaintiff.

extract an extortionate settlement.

Admittedly, the procedure will not be appropriate for all cases, and nor is it perfect. There would need to be enough money involved to gain the attention of funders, and the plaintiff cannot be under an obligation to direct the conduct of the case themselves.13 The protocol would also undoubtedly require amendments to a number of existing statutes.14 Even so, it might well have a place as one of a number of options for enabling access to justice; a plank, not a panacea.

At any rate, you might have your own ideas. Why not write about them? A

Including things like filing affidavits and appearing as a witness.

Unfortunately for Australian-based would-be funders, “Cham Pty Ltd” has already been taken.

13 As is the case for certain proceedings conducted by a liquidator. The courts have upheld funding agreements where the liquidator’s discretion remains unfettered (Re Nautilus Developments Ltd (in liq) [2000] 2 NZLR 505; Re Gellert Developments Ltd (in liq) (2001) 9 NZCLC 262,714), but not where the liquidator ultimately has to share control of the proceeding with the funder (AMP Capital Investments No 4 Ltd v IBS Group Ltd (in liq) [2009] NZCCLR 19).

14 Probably including provisions of the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013.

11

12

At its heart, the system aims to protect the interests of the prospective plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff receives some degree of compensation for their loss - and much sooner than they would through issuing proceedings themselves – and avoids being low-balled by a powerful funder. The defendant has the opportunity to settle at a reasonable cost, avoiding the risk that bullying funders might seek to

AUTUMN 2015 19

–

Lawyering for Good An interview with Zsofia Hellyer J u st S peak C o-C hair

–

This edition of Lawyering for Good is brought to you by Law for Change Wellington.

We’ll be writing the Lawyering for Good column now that Althea Carbon has moved to Sydney, but would like to thank Althea for all the hard work she put in last year.

For those of you who haven’t heard of Law for Change, our mission is to empower young New Zealanders to use their legal skills in the public interest. If you’d like to know more about what we do, send us an email at lawforchangewellington@gmail. com or find us on Facebook. In this edition we hear from JustSpeak Co-Chair Zsofia Hellyer about what she does, how she got involved, and what advice she’d give to someone wanting to use their legal skills to make a difference.

What does JustSpeak do?

We’re an organisation advocating for change in the criminal justice system. We want to see a justice system that is informed by evidence and experience; underpinned by the values of empathy, respect and human dignity; and geared towards long-term thinking. Building a strong community of JustSpeakers who feel empowered to speak out and up about how to make Aotearoa more just is an important part of our kaupapa. It’s important to us to actively include people from all walks of life and value the interest, knowledge and experience that different people bring with them. What we’re aiming for is open and informed discourse about what works in the criminal justice sector, and how we can effect positive change.

JustSpeak started in 2011 and since our beginnings in Wellington, we’ve expanded to Auckland and most recently Christchurch, too. We’re very proud of what we’ve achieved so far, and excited about what lies ahead. Our past major projects have included a number of reports such as Māori and the Criminal Justice System – A Youth Perspective and our recently-launched Unlocking Prisons: How we can improve New Zealand’s prison system report, both of which are available online; and a nationwide theatre tour of theatres, schools and prisons, performing two well-known criminal justice themed plays. We’ve organised camps, forums and other events; drafted submissions on proposed legislation; 20 YLC Advocate

and collaborated with a number of like-minded organisations from around the country. We like to think imaginatively and innovatively about how we can spark dialogue on criminal justice issues.

Why and how did you get involved in JustSpeak?

I was in the fourth year of my law degree, sitting in a Youth Justice class learning about how New Zealand, unlike most comparable international jurisdictions, tries 17 year-olds in adult courts rather than youth courts.

The more I thought about it, the less it made sense. After that, I started noticing other areas of our criminal justice system that didn’t seem quite right. Two years later I was overseas and my Facebook started filling up with updates about JustSpeak – a new network of young people who were passionate about these issues and agitating for positive, evidencebased changed. I was thrilled! When I landed back in the country I headed along to a forum and since then JustSpeak has been part of my life.

What advice would you give for someone wanting to join/start/ get involved in a public interest law group or organisation such as JustSpeak?

I think the most important thing is to be there, talk to people, and be willing to say yes. It’s so easy to think “I’m too busy”, “not tonight” or “I won’t know anyone there anyway”. Beyond all those thoughts there are exciting, like-minded people ready to engage and work together.

Everyone has a valuable skill to contribute and can make the time (whether it’s a lot or just a little, it’s worth it). Go to the events, join the mailing lists, chat to the people driving the waka about how you can join in. I think these are the sorts of projects we’ll look back on in the future with a particular pride and sense of achievement. If you’d like to get involved in JustSpeak, like our Facebook page for information about upcoming events, or send me a line at zsofia@justspeak.org.nz. We’d love to hear from you. A

–

Event Report: Opening night – Approximately 100 young lawyers and other young professionals lured by the promise of free drinks gathered at Chicago Bar on the 4th of March.

An innovative drink voucher game encouraged attendees to meet new people. Jelena Gligorijevic, the 2015 Convenor of the YLC, gave a punchy speech about the coming year. Even Wellington’s infamous wind and rain gave way to the sun which set over the harbour while the bar was alight with lots of talking and laughing.

Thanks to Chicago Bar for their ongoing support and providing us with a wonderful waterfront venue, serving up great food and drink. And many thanks to MAS and JLegal for generously supporting the event. A big thank you to everyone who came – the turnout was a sign of great things to come in 2015.

We look forward to seeing you at other YLC events throughout 2015!

AUTUMN 2015 21

AFTER AN ACCIDENT, WE LOOK AFTER THE MOST VALUABLE ASSET FIRST. YOU.

At MAS, we have an outstanding reputation for resolving claims quickly, but our primary concern is you.

So, if you’re unfortunate enough to have an accident, first we’ll make sure you’re ok and then we’ll get you back on the road by ensuring your car makes a speedy recovery.

To find out more about MAS Motor Vehicle insurance, email us today at info@mas.co.nz or call 0800 800 627.

Call us today:

0800 800 627 Visit us online at mas.co.nz

22 YLC Advocate Terms and conditions and normal underwriting criteria apply.

–

Event Report: Grad Cruise – Recent law graduates, young lawyers, committee members and friends had a great night on the YLC’s annual Harbour Cruise on Wednesday 11 March 2015.

It was a fantastic opportunity for new graduates of the Wellington legal scene to come together, make new friends and swap stories of their experiences so far in the ‘real world’ as a graduate.

There was a full turnout for the event, which attracted attendees from a wide-range of workplaces. Despite a daunting weather forecast, the torrential rain never made an appearance and attendees were able to enjoy the sunset and stunning views of the city from the outdoor decks of the Sweet Georgia. The crew provided us with a delicious dinner and the delectable homemade desserts (provided by the skipper’s wife) disappeared before most people even knew they existed!

Members of the Committee enjoyed meeting and getting to know some new graduates and young lawyers who we hope to see again at our future YLC events in 2015. The Cruise set the standard pretty high though, as to top the evening off, the YLC saved the day with the crew of the Sweet Georgia assisting two stranded sailors whose motor had failed, meaning that they needed help getting back to shore. Who knows what future YLC events will bring (and what other good deeds we may do) this year!

AUTUMN 2015 23

www.younglawyers.co.nz 24窶ズLC Advocate