Advocate Autumn 2014

Advocate

Autumn 2014

INSIDE THIS ISSUE:

Where the context otherwise requires Statutory interpretation and the courts Lawyering for Good Interview with LawSpot Waifs and Estrays An Overview of Bona Vacantia Free Speech and Trade Mark Infringement Is Dumb Starbucks a Dumber Idea in New Zealand?

The quarterly magazine of the Young Lawyers’ Committee Wellington AUTUMN 2014 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 2014

04 Editors’ Note 05 Convenor’s Note 06 YLC Committee and Executive 2014 07 Upcoming Events and the YLC Calendar

08 Lawyers in London: Part II – Tips and Tricks for the Big OE ASTER THACKERY

10 Free Speech and Trade Mark Infringement: Is Dumb Starbucks a Dumber Idea in New Zealand?

HEMMA VARA

12 Waifs and Estrays: An Overview of Bona Vacantia EMILY BOLTON

14 Lawyering for Good: How LawSpot is amplifying the good through technology ALTHEA CARBON

15 Event Report: YLC/GLN Drinks RICHARD EVANS

16 Where the Context Otherwise Requires TIHO MIJATOV

18 Event Report: Mooting Competition

19 Spotlight on Nicky Dalgleish 19 Event Report: Bridging the Gap launch NIKKI FARRELL

23 Fashion Page: Knit Picking ANI CHAN

22 Event Report: Quiz Night CHARLOT TE CHRISTMAS

RICHARD EVANS

mycrazymind | flickr

Advocate Autumn 2014 Editors:

Leah Hamilton & Jess Davies

Design:

Rebecca Walthall

Cover photograph by Neal Jennings | flickr.

Reproduced under a Creative Commons licence.

AUTUMN 2014 03

–

Editors’ Note Leah Hamilton and Jess Davies CO- EDI TOR S

– Welcome to our Autumn edition of Advocate for 2014! As things are starting to get colder in Wellington, snuggle up inside and read the fantastic new articles we have for you.

In this edition, we have some excellent pieces on property law, public interest law and statutory interpretation. First, on page 8 Aster Thackery moves on to “Part II” of her series about working as a lawyer in London.

She looks at how the economy in London is tracking and the effect this has on the legal market, as well as the types of jobs you can expect to get, and what you need to do before you go. Next, on page 10 Hemma Vara examines the interesting case of “Dumb Starbucks”, and what happens when you use the intellectual property of Starbucks to prove a point – in particular, she looks at how the “Dumb Starbucks” prank would play out in New Zealand. Then Emily Bolton explores the fascinating concept of bona vacantia, or “ownerless property”, and how the Treasury in New Zealand deals with it – find this article on page 12. Last but not least, on page 16 we have Tiho Mijatov addressing the problem of statutory interpretation in the courts, and the phrase “unless the context otherwise requires”.

We are also pleased to say that we have a repeat of Althea Carbon’s excellent column on “Lawyering for Good” on page 14. Althea’s column in this edition is an interview with LawSpot, and covers what LawSpot does, how it works, and how you can get involved. The “Lawyering for Good” column will be featured in all four editions of Advocate this year.

How well do you know your Young Lawyers’ Committee? Check out our interview on page 19 with Nicky Dalgleish, a Solicitor at Buddle Findlay, who talks about her role in the Committee, being Kendrick Lamar’s rap protégé, and some books that she would highly recommend.

Not only does this edition have the fantastic articles above, but we also give you the lowdown on the events coming up for the rest of 2014. There have already been some awesome YLC events this year. Over the last few months we have had the Mooting Competition, which had some excellent participants and top-quality performances – read about the results on page 18. On May 29 we had the “Bridging the Gap” programme launch, with a great turnout – see page 19 for an event report. The YLC/ GLN event was held on 8 May – check out page 15 for the lowdown on how it went. Finally, see page 23 for the report on the quiz night that was held on 28 May, which was a great success!

Other events we’ve got in the pipeline are the Bridging the Gap dinner, the much-anticipated annual YLC Ball, and an Art Gallery evening – the calendar can be found on page 7.

For more information check out the YLC website, and make sure to join our Facebook page to keep up to date with the latest YLC activities. > www.facebook.com/younglawyerscommittee We are currently interested in taking on some new members for the Committee, so if you’d like to join the YLC, contact Nikki Farrell, > nikki.farrell@justice.govt.nz.

We also thank the YLC’s general sponsors: MAS and JLegal. A

04 YLC ADVOCATE

–

Convenor’s Note Richard Evans SOL IC I TOR AT T HE T R E AS U RY

–

Bridging the Gap is now underway for 2014.

This is a mentoring pro¬gramme run by the Young Lawyers’ Committee (YLC) and Victoria’s Law Students Society (VUWLSS).

Bridging the Gap matches law stu¬dents with young lawyers who, over the course of a few months, provide support and perspective as students evaluate their options and approach what’s often the most consequential (and stressful) decision-point that they have faced.

Bridging the Gap is a great expression of both the profession’s collegiality and the YLC’s mission.

More prosaically, it’s a practical and useful service. For every job option that students evaluate, there’s typically a young lawyer actually doing it, and who is happy to share their experience. By partnering with VUWLSS, we can help to make these connections.

Additionally, lawyer-student mentoring is an important supplement to the received wisdom and preconceptions students rely on when making career deci¬sions. We’re all aware of such received wisdom – that the public sector won’t instil a strong work-ethic; that big firm grads begin their careers photo¬copying; that tax is boring; that small firms provide a greater diversity of hands-on experience; that big-firm experience is a prerequisite to work abroad … the list goes on.

There’s truth to some of these myths, but the reality is more complicated and, frankly, more random. Some government departments are big on work-life balance, while others aren’t. Litigators may do heaps of photo-copying, while banking and finance lawyers may not (in any case, some would argue that document management is a core skill for junior law¬yers). Some international recruiters say big firm experience is crucial, while for others it’s transactional experience that counts … and so on.

said, a labour market is exactly that – a market – and many practice areas could up their game in selling themselves to law students. In that regard, I’m particularly excited about the work that the Government Legal Network is doing to promote legal jobs in government.

My point is that students are vulnerable to being misled by received wisdom and preconceptions that are wrong, irrelevant, or don’t take full account of the options. Even with just a year or two of experience, practising lawyers have a better sense of what’s out there, can chal¬lenge students’ assumptions and help them distil what matters so that students can ask the right questions. Bridging the Gap facilitates this process. It’s particularly pleasing to have such a diverse range of men¬tors – judges’ clerks, in-house and private practice lawyers, public sector lawyers and lawyers from firms big and small.

I’ve also been reflecting on the enthusiasm with which young lawyers have volunteered to get involved as mentors, curious as to what motivates them.

Admittedly there’s a degree of personal satisfaction in mentoring others.

It’s flattering to think one has wisdom that others could ben¬efit from.

We all chew over past decisions, identifying things we know now and that we wish we’d known then. The temptation to share these reflections is irresistible and, before you know it, they’ve snowballed into mustknow theories of life, to be ranted at whoever will listen. Of course, ranting is not mentoring. Mentoring is listening, testing and sharing – with the students’ own interests and ambitions always front of mind. This note of caution aside, Bridging the Gap is a rewarding and (we hope) useful initiative that we’re proud to support. Thanks to all of our lawyer mentors who make it happen.

For fear of ranting myself, I’ll leave my thoughts there.

Further, students aren’t presented with an accurate overview of the opportunities available. Careers in criminal law, public law, family law and other fields are very often obscured by aggressive recruitment cam¬paigns. The quality of a prospective employer’s advertising and hospi¬tality doesn’t always correlate with its calibre and culture. That

No doubt we’ll see you soon – whether for the ball, or an evening of wine and cheese appreciation. As always, we’re keen to hear your thoughts as to how we can better serve you. Feel free to contact me at richard.evans@treasury.govt.nz. A AUTUMN 2014 05

–

Committee Members 2014 – Althea Carbon; Amberley James; Charlotte Christmas; Emma Bowman; Emma Currie; Hadleigh Pedler; Helen Arathimos; Jelena Gligorijevic; Jessica Davies; Kristen Wong; Leah Hamilton; Liz Babonnick; Matt Dodd; Monica Hamlyn-Crawshaw; Natalie Pierce; Nicky Dalgleish; Nigel Salmons; Nikki Farrell; Penelope Skinner; Rebecca Garden; Richard Evans; Sam Mossman.

–

–

YLC Executive

About the YLC

–

–

CONVENOR

Richard Evans

PROFESSIONAL AFFAIRS OFFICER

Natalie Pierce DEPUTY CONVENOR

Amberley James

COMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS

SECRETARY

Nikki Farrell

Emma Currie Hadleigh Pedler

TREASURER

MARKETING OFFICER

Nigel Salmons

Jess Davies

SPONSORSHIP OFFICER

PUBLICATIONS OFFICER

Althea Carbon

Leah Hamilton

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 26 volunteers from a range of firms and in-house teams in both the public and private sectors. An executive of 10 is responsible for running the YLC on a day-to-day basis.

If you’d like to the join the YLC, contact the Secretary, Nikki Farrell at nikki.farrell@justice.govt.nz.

–

Upcoming Events – The YLC has some great events coming up this year – check out what we’ve got on offer, and come along! This calendar will be updated throughout the year, so please check back for further updates or changes to dates.

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

22 JULY

18 SEPTEMBER

YLC Annual Wine and Cheese Night

Art Gallery evening

JUN

8 OCTOBER 24 JULY

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

Event Spotlight IPANZ NEW PROFESSIONALS CONFERENCE

Bridging the Gap final event

Bridging the Gap wellness event 11 OCTOBER 7–8 AUGUST

Oktoberfest

IPANZ New Professionals conference

30 OCTOBER

14 AUGUST

YLC and Government Legal Network Event

Bridging the Gap dinner DATE TO BE CONFIRMED

YLC Ball

Event Spotlight RUSSELL MCVEAGH/YLC WINE AND CHEESE NIGHT

Come along and join us for a night of drinking wine, eating cheese, and listening to some jazz music from the amazing jazz trio, Jetset. Tickets are only $25. See www.younglawyers.co.nz for more information/to buy tickets.

Where: Wine Loft, 73 The Terrace When: Tuesday 22 July, 5.30pm–8pm Cost: $25

The IPANZ New Professionals are running a conference on 7 and 8 August 2014 in Wellington that we hope will be of interest to YLC members. Registrations are open now and there is a fantastic line-up of speakers. Visit www.ipanz.org.nz/npconference to view the preliminary programme.

The Keynote speakers will address the conference on global changes and how these reflect in a New Zealand context: • Distinguished Professor Paul Spoonley, Pro-Vice Chancellor, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Massey University • Gabriel Makhlouf, Chief Executive, The Treasury • Jacki Couchman, General Manager, Veteran’s Affairs and Secretary for War Pensions at New Zealand Defence Force On day two conference delegates will have a choice of three seminar sessions where presenters will look at current big projects and issues in New Zealand with a long-term future impact.

• Auckland - Mai Chen • Christchurch - Kaila Colbin • Wellington - Fran Wilde Where: Mac’s Function Centre, 4 Taranaki Street, Wellington When: Thursday 7th and Friday 8th August 2014 RSVP: Early bird registrations open until 11 July Cost: Early Bird with IPANZ Membership: Early Bird without IPANZ Membership: Standard with IPANZ Membership: Standard without IPANZ Membership:

$645 $745 $745 $845

AUTUMN 2014 07

Last issue, we touched on reasons to move to London, the types of work visas available, and the kinds of work you might expect. This article will look more closely at the job market for lawyers in London and what you can do to put yourself a step ahead.

–

Lawyers in London: Part II – Tips and Tricks for the Big OE Aster Thackery L EG A L A DVI SER AT SOUTHWA R K COUNCI L, LONDON

– You’re still thinking about whether to move to London. Right now, it’s summer in the UK. Music festivals, sports events and weekend trips to Europe are just some of things that I am looking forward to.

Many Kiwis simply move to London for an adventure. It’s fine to arrive with nothing but a work visa and your law degree; the temporary and contract job markets are buoyant, and you shouldn’t have trouble securing a role. However, if career progression and salary are important to you then it is best to spend some time planning. >> What is the London job market doing?

In line with the recovering economy, the London legal job market is picking up. Surveys have found that the UK services sector is growing at its fastest rate since 2003.1 According to recruitment specialists LAW Absolute, now is a particularly good time for New Zealand qualified lawyers looking for work in the UK – both on a temporary and a permanent basis.

“Antipodean* candidates are in particularly high demand at the moment, to the extent we are managing to secure interviews for them prior to their arrival, which hasn’t been the case in the last couple of years.”

– Suzie Parsons, Principal Consultant, LAW Absolute.

If you are serious about your career progression, it is worth researching the market to find out what kinds of roles will be available to you based on your experience and visa status. Bear in mind that the London market is huge compared to New Zealand, and that opportunities to specialise exist in areas you may never have heard of.

Private practice – if you have 2+ years of post-qualified experience (PQE) and a UK passport or the ability to apply for an Ancestry visa, it is worth applying for private practice roles prior to leaving New Zealand.

In 2012–2013 LAW Absolute observed a 30% increase in placements in the private permanent market. Property law (all areas) and commercial litigation have experienced the most growth since 2012, while banking and finance have been slower to pick up.

In-house (commerce and industry) – again, this sector has grown since 2012. In 2011–2012 firms were hiring to replace staff; now firms are hiring to expand. Growth areas include IT and telecommunications, professional services and insurance. There has been less movement in FMCG (fast moving consumer goods) as well as retail, intellectual property and media firms. Typically, there is plenty of work for those with experience in financial services – including regulation, compliance, risk and corporate transactions.

In-house solicitors can expect to earn from £40–150k per annum, with financial services lawyers earning the highest salaries.2 If you want to work in-house, be clear about the relevant experience you have and approach recruiters who recruit for those industries – it is no good meeting with a recruiter who specialises in oil and gas recruitment if you want to work in media.

The interim (temporary/contract) market – due to the trend towards employing temporary and contract staff, the interim legal market is big in London. If you are on a Youth Mobility visa it is likely that you will start (and probably remain) in this market.

Opportunities are available both in private practice and in-house.

Usually, you will be offered a fixed-term contract (FTC). It may be extended, or you may be made permanent (in which case, your employer 1 Angela Monaghan “Britain’s economic prospects brightest in more than a decade, survey finds” The Guardian (United Kingdom, 30 May 2014).

2 Hudson Legal UK Legal Salary Survey 2012.

08 YLC ADVOCATE

in a good firm and, again, an Ancestry visa or a UK passport. If you plan on staying in the UK long-term, then it would be worth looking into the Qualified Lawyers Transfer Scheme (QLTS) to find out how to convert your New Zealand qualification into one that is recognised in England and Wales.

Diliff | Wikimedia Commons

If you were recently admitted to the bar in New Zealand and have little experience, you will be viewed as NQ (non-qualified) when you arrive in the UK. Lawyers at this level often do paralegal work (discussed above), which is relatively common but may be rather limiting if you hope for career progression.

You may also wish to consider opportunities outside of London. If you are making a career move, or resuming work after a career break, there are many good opportunities in firms outside of London. You may also get swifter career exposure and a better work-life balance.

A typical, sunny Saturday afternoon on Oxford Street

Before you leave NZ:

will sponsor your Tier 2 visa). It is common to temporarily work as a legal consultant, as you cannot officially practice as a solicitor without a UK practising certificate.

Securing a good role in the interim market is a matter of being in the right place at the right time. It is best to wait until you are in the UK before you apply for roles, as it is likely that you will interview and be asked to start within the week.

Paralegal work / document review – for those with less experience, there is plenty of paralegal work. This is a result of the large scale transactions and litigation taking place in London. Work includes document review and due diligence, and often runs on a project basis. There is plenty of international work available, which usually means long hours (on an hourly rate) in a big firm. New Zealanders are favoured for this kind of work as they are less likely to have conflicts of interest. >> What type of role can YOU expect to get?

In general, standards are high and recruitment is swift. If you are flexible about where you work, more opportunities will be open to you. Search sector-wide – in private practice, in-house, charities, local authority, central government, regulatory bodies and so on – and keep an eye on websites to see what kinds of work are available.

As explained in my article in the previous issue of Advocate, the type of work visa that you arrive on will influence the type of work that you can get.

Temporary vs Permanent – The market for New Zealand lawyers seeking permanent work has “never been better” – as long as you have a UK passport or can apply for the UK Ancestry visa.3 Sponsorship, that is, arriving on a Youth Mobility (temporary) visa and converting to a Sponsored (long-term) visa is still challenging. Only around 35% of LAW Absolute’s placements who start in temporary work are made permanent.

The best option for those arriving on a temporary visa is to start in a temporary or FTC role. This is an easier way into the market and will provide valuable UK experience.

“If candidates can prove their worth in a temporary role first it makes sponsorship much easier.”

– Suzie Parsons, Principal Consultant, LAW Absolute.

Non-Qualified vs PQE+ – Generally, if you are looking for a qualified role, you should have at least 2+ years of PQE (post-qualified experience) 3

1. Apply for a visa so that you can work in the UK (see the previous issue of Advocate for information on visas) and have your visa ready to show recruiters and potential employers when you arrive.

2. Make copies of your academic record and qualifications.

3. Obtain and bring hard copies of your references.

4. Obtain the contact details of your previous 3 employers – as recruiters will want to verify the dates that you worked in your previous roles.

5. Ask around and search for recruiters who recruit in the legal market and, once you have an arrival date, send your CV and arrange for an interview. >> When you arrive:

DO: 1. Have an idea of the TYPE of role that you are looking for and your salary expectations.

2. Open a bank account (note: most banks require proof of address).

3. Update your CV with your new contact details.

4. Contact recruiters and set up/confirm meetings.

5. Apply for a National Insurance number (NINo) for tax purposes.

DON’T: 1. Waste your time meeting with every recruiter you find on Google – stick with the ones who specialise in your field or who have been recommended to you.

2. Feel pressured to accept a role just because it has been offered to you – recruiters will often try to push you into a role; ultimately, it has to be the right role for YOU. 3. Lose track of where you have sent your CV – it is not a good look if you send your CV to the same company twice because you failed to communicate with one of your recruiters.

4. Be persuaded to sign up with any “all-inclusive” UK placement organisations – the services they provide are often unnecessary or can easily be done yourself.

Whatever your motivation is for moving to the UK, make the most of your qualifications and your New Zealand reputation. Kiwis have an excellent reputation in the UK as good workers. Moreover, appreciate that the exposure that you will get to large projects and transactions will fast-track your career when you return to New Zealand. A

*” Antipodean” – word used by people in the UK to refer to people (and things) from New Zealand and Australia.

Suzie Parsons, Principal Consultant, Law Absolute, 30 May 2014.

AUTUMN 2014 09

–

Free Speech and Trade Mark Infringement: Is Dumb Starbucks a Dumber Idea in New Zealand?

Hemma Vara – When a “Dumb Starbucks” coffee shop appeared in Los Angeles, it was the talk of the town. It was designed to look like a real Starbucks, although everything was preceded by the word “dumb” – from the dumb espressos to the dumb Norah Jones CDs, right down to the inclusion of “dumb” in the infamous twin-tailed mermaid logo.

Dumb Starbucks in Los Angeles

The shop, set up by satirist Nathan Fielder, caught the attention of the real Starbucks, but was shut down soon after it opened by health inspectors. While this may have been a blow to the satire, the closing of Dumb Starbucks was not all bad; the coffee was reportedly awful.

Satire is defined as a comical, imitative and critical form of humour. As such, it has significant social value, particularly in light of the already high value placed on freedom of speech. Satire is alive and well in New Zealand, including in publications like The Civilian and displayed by worldwide success stories such as the Auckland Law Revue’s “Blurred Lines” parody.

Dumb Starbucks claimed that its use of the Starbucks logo for marketing purposes fell under the exception of “fair use” and therefore did not amount to trade mark infringement. This is in line with the pre-eminence accorded to free speech in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is reflected in United States trade mark law.

However, in New Zealand no such exception is available. So to what extent is satire protected under current New Zealand law when that satire potentially infringes upon trade marks?

It is also necessary to consider whether the law in New Zealand concerning trade mark infringement should be amended to adopt a “fair use” exception, given that similar amendments to copyright law have been mooted in other jurisdictions. While this article will not debate the merits of a potential amendment to New Zealand law, any change ought to balance the right to freedom of speech with the intellectual property rights of the trade mark owner.

The existing position in New Zealand for trade mark infringement is set out in s 89 of the Trade Marks Act 2002, which provides that: 89 Infringement where identical or similar sign used in course of trade (1) A person infringes a registered trade mark if the person does not have the right to use the registered trade mark and uses in the course of trade a sign— (a) identical with the registered trade mark in relation to any goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered; or

10 YLC ADVOCATE

Shelby Asistio | Flickr

(b) identical with the registered trade mark in relation to any goods or services that are similar to any goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered, if that use would be likely to deceive or confuse; or (c) similar to the registered trade mark in relation to any goods or services that are identical with or similar to any goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered, if that use would be likely to deceive or confuse; or (d) identical with or similar to the registered trade mark in relation to any goods or services that are not similar to the goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered where the trade mark is well known in New Zealand and the use of the sign takes unfair advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the mark.

(2) Subsection (1) applies only if the sign is used in such a manner as to render the use of the sign as likely to be taken as being use as a trade mark.

Not all parodies using marks similar or identical to that of a registered trade mark would amount to infringement under s 89, especially if they are not used in the course of trade. While Dumb Starbucks’ coffee was free, the Starbucks marks were arguably used “in trade” in a different sense; namely as marketing materials for the second season of Fielder’s hit series Nathan For You. Further, in relation to s 89(1)(d) – the dilution provision – the owner of the mark would need to establish that specific criteria are met, including that the mark is “well known”.

The existing framework is arguably suitable for parody works that are obviously fake, for example when the public are not likely to be deceived or confused, or there is no relevant dilution. For example, in the United States, a Las Vegas company produced a line of dog toys under the brand “Chewy Vuiton”. Louis Vuitton sued, but the Court held that it was unlikely consumers would be confused into thinking that the high-end handbag manufacturer was producing a line of dog toys.1 Therefore, the more obvious the spoof, the less likely it is that the work will attract civil liability.

The law regarding parodies and possible trade mark infringement in New Zealand was considered by the High Court in Solid Energy New Zealand Ltd v Mountier, although the Court’s reasoning is somewhat frustrating.2 The Save Happy Valley Coalition created a mock report that was highly critical about the activities of Solid Energy. The report used Solid Energy’s trademarked name and logo, and Solid Energy made an interim application to restrain the Coalition’s use of its marks. Chisholm J considered that s 10 of the Trade Marks Act 2002 – which sets out that the owner of a registered trade mark has the exclusive right to use their mark – provided an arguable basis to restrain the Coalition’s use of the trade marks. I would argue that this result was premised on a misreading of the Act, since s 10 is contained in the purposive section and is entirely distinct from the infringement section. By reaching this conclusion, the Judge felt it unnecessary to consider s 89. Hopefully future cases will consider how and when the elements of s 89 are applied in relation to parodies in the course of trade.

Turning to the position on copyright law and satire in New Zealand, the Green Party have proposed that s 42 of the Copyright Act 1994 – which deals with criticism, review and news reporting – be amended so that copyright is not infringed if the purpose of the work is for parody or satire. However, no further action has been taken to date. Copyright reform is currently being discussed in the United Kingdom,3 and the reforms may incorporate parody and satire as exceptions to copyright infringement. Australian copyright law already includes a similar provision, and the United States has a defence for both trade mark and copyright infringement.4 While future discussions on the protection for parodies may well focus on copyright law, it is pragmatic to also look at the issue from a trade mark perspective. This is due to the overlap between copyright and trade mark protection: copyright can exist in a logo that is also a registered trade mark. Therefore, if copyright laws were amended in New Zealand without amending the Trade Marks Act 2002, this would give rise to the unusual case where a work of parody was protected under copyright law but still attracted liability for trade mark infringement. By including a provision that works of satire and parody would not amount to trade mark infringement, the law would provide greater clarity for budding parodists. However, in order to protect the rights of the trade mark owner, limits on any fair use defence may have to be considered. On the other hand, it is arguable that the laws of defamation, injurious falsehood, fair trading and passing off already provide adequate protection for rights holders.

Looking to the future, it will be interesting to see whether pre-emptive changes are introduced into trade mark and copyright law in New Zealand. Given the position in Australian and the current debate in the United Kingdom, New Zealand should pay close attention to avoid lagging behind.

In the meantime, I’ll be musing on the “what ifs” over a long black at Mojo. I just can’t bring myself to drink another dumb Frappuccino at some dumb Starbucks. A

2 3 4

1

Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007).

Solid Energy New Zealand Ltd v Mountier HC Christchurch CIV-2007-409-441, 26 July 2007.

Intellectual Property Office “Changes to Copyright Law and Guidance” (2014) Intellectual Property Office Types of IP http://www.ipo.gov.uk/copyright-exceptions.htm.

Copyright Amendment Act 2006 (Australia), ss 41A & 103AA; Copyright Act 1976, s 107 (United States).

AUTUMN 2014 11

–

Waifs and Estrays: An Overview of Bona Vacantia Emily Bolton SOL ICI TOR AT TH E TR EA SURY

– It is quite possible that you have never heard the Latin expression bona vacantia.

You’re forgiven – most lawyers starting at the Treasury have never heard of bona vacantia either. Even within the Treasury the few members of the legal team that deal with bona vacantia are the only staff members in the organisation that know anything about it.

>> Where does bona vacantia come from?

Bona vacantia translates to “vacant goods” or, more naturally, “ownerless property”. This does not include property where the owner cannot be found or is not contactable. The origins of law on this subject are medieval. Legislation from the time of Canute and William the Conqueror covers the situation where a person dies without a will (intestacy).1 In the Duchy of Normandy, a person who died without making a will was kindly named a “desperate” and his property was forfeited to the Duke.2 It is likely that William the Conqueror brought this custom to England after 1066. Soon after the conquest the custom was handed over to the Church – probably because dying intestate was seen as akin to dying without confessing one’s sins.3 The Magna Carta of 1215 provided for the relatives of the intestate to receive property under the supervision of the Church. The role of the Church seems to have been administrative rather than beneficial. If the intestate had no relatives, the residue of the estate went to the public revenue. This is backed up by mid-fourteenth century evidence which suggested that if a layman was to die intestate the property would go to the public revenue.4 The modern form of bona vacantia was solidified in the eighteenth century. The eighteenth century courts were persuaded by the Crown’s arguments that the property of a dissolved corporation or a failed trust was bona vacantia and should vest in the Crown. The Crown’s right to bona vacantia in New Zealand continues in statute rather than common law.5 >> What does the Treasury do?

In England and Wales, excluding the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, the Treasury Solicitor is the Crown’s Nominee for the collection of bona vacantia. New Zealand has continued with this practice despite the divergence in the roles of the Treasury and the Treasury Solicitor’s Department in the United Kingdom. The Prince of Wales’ duchy of Cornwall and the Queen’s duchy of Lancaster collect their own bona vacantia. And in Scotland the privilege belongs to the magnificently titled “Queen’s and Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer”.

Most of the bona vacantia that the Treasury deals with arises from companies being struck off the Register of Companies while still owning property. The Crown receives the property of struck-off companies by virtue of s 337 of the Companies Act 1955 and s 324 of the Companies Act 1993. The Treasury commonly deals with mortgages, resource consents, encumbrances, trademarks and other types of property that are held in the name of a struck-off company. Land is not as common. Bona vacantia land is often the likes of driveways and pedestrian access ways that have been used for years with no one realising they were held in a struck-off company’s name. The Treasury does not seek out bona vacantia property. Instead members of the public have to make an application for the Treasury to deal with the property. The most common source of bona vacantia applications is house sales where titles are found to 1 2 3 4 5

12 YLC ADVOCATE

Noël D Ing Bona Vacantia (Butterworths, London, 1971) at 13.

At 14.

At 13.

At 15.

Bona vacantia continues in statutes such as Administration Act 1969, Companies Act 1955, Companies Act 1993, Incorporated Societies Act 1908, Property Law Act 2007, Public Finance Act 1989, and others.

Illustration: Rebecca Walthall

Illustration

Vacant goods.

have long-forgotten mortgages or other encumbrances. Bona vacantia is therefore not a significant source of revenue for the Crown.

In addition to struck-off companies, the Treasury also has the power to deal with the property of people dying without wills, failed trusts, and obsolete unincorporated societies. The latter two are so unusual that the Treasury does not have records of ever dealing with property in these categories. Intestate property is also very unusual as s 77 of the Administration Act 1969 provides for the property of intestates to go to the family members listed in the Act. Very few people who die without leaving a will have no living family members. Where there are no surviving relatives as listed in s 77 of the Administration Act 1969 the Treasury will receive the property of the deceased as bona vacantia. However, the Crown may at its discretion provide for dependants and other persons whom the intestate may have been expected to make provision for. >> What about the title?

You may be wondering about the relevance of the title of this article. The title refers to a statement made by the eighteenth century Blackstone in his Commentaries where he attributed to bona vacantia the monarch’s right to claim the “revenues of royal fish (whales and sturgeon), shipwrecks, treasure-trove, waifs (property thrown away by thieves) and estrays (stray animals without an owner)”. Today although the royal fowl (swans) and fish and other items are still the property of the Queen in England, it is not through the right of bona vacantia.

The Queen continues to exercise her prerogative in regards to swans.

Every year “swan uppers” conduct the “swan upping” on the Thames in boats bearing the Queen’s flag and the livery of the Vintners and Dyers. The swan upping counts the number of swans on a section of the Thames. Swan upping was originally done to remind residents of the monarch’s rights to the tasty swans. More recently the tradition has been used for scientific and educational purposes. A AUTUMN 2014 13

–

Lawyering for Good: How LawSpot is amplifying the good through technology Althea Carbon SOL ICI TOR AT CH A PMA N TR I PP

– Public interest law is a growing field. More and more lawyers are becoming interested in how they can help meet unmet legal needs in the community. LawSpot makes it easy for lawyers interested in getting involved in public interest law and using their skills for good.

>> LawSpot

LawSpot answers New Zealanders’ legal questions for free through an online Q&A website. Its goal is to make the law accessible for New Zealanders by providing an easy way for people to access legal information. LawSpot helps those people who don’t have the time or means to visit a community law centre or lawyer.

LawSpot is an empowerment tool. It empowers kiwis by providing them with a free and easily accessible platform for finding out about the law and their rights, explained in plain terms. It also empowers lawyers by providing them with an easy way to volunteer and help their communities. >> How it works

First, a question can be submitted to LawSpot’s website by anyone with Internet access. Submitters can ask questions on a wide range of topics such as consumer, employment and human rights law. Because LawSpot is aimed at meeting unmet legal needs in the community, LawSpot does not answer questions about conveyancing or property leasing, or questions from landlords, business ventures and employers.

The question is then reviewed by an independent team of question-vetters to ensure that the question is generalised, anonymised and written in plain English.

Afterwards, the vetted question is made available for volunteer lawyers to answer. Lawyers can browse through the unanswered questions, pick which questions they would like to answer, and submit a draft answer.

Finally, a senior lawyer reviews the draft answer before it is published on to the website by either Community Law Wellington and Hutt Valley (CLWHV) or one of LawSpot’s partner law firms.

The question and its answer are available for anyone who visits LawSpot’s website to see, so future visitors can look for similar questions and consider how the answer might apply to his or her own problem. This empowers the public and saves doubling-up on volunteer lawyer time for common legal questions. >> Why lawyers should get involved

LawSpot provides an easy but very rewarding opportunity for lawyers to use their skills for good. An hour spent answering a question makes a huge difference, not only to the submitter, but also to other people who face similar problems.

In addition, lawyers can answer questions online and in their own time.

This fits perfectly with the unpredictable workloads of lawyers and is suitable for those lawyers who can’t commit to volunteering on evenings or weekends.

Finally, it is also beneficial for lawyers who are interested in up-skilling and learning more about different areas of law. For example, as a corporate lawyer volunteering for LawSpot, I tend to pick questions on human rights and immigration law – two areas I am passionate about outside of work. For other volunteers, they may prefer to answer questions on topics they specialise in.

14 YLC ADVOCATE

–

Event Report: YLC/GLN Drinks Richard Evans S OLIC I TOR AT T HE T R E AS U RY

Gaetano Gandolfi | Wikimedia Commons

–

Allegory of Justice

>> How to be involved

Lawyers (and law firms) can get involved by: • drafting answers; • reviewing the work of LawSpot’s junior volunteer lawyers; and/or • publishing answers to the website (in the name of a lawyer or law firm); or finally • getting involved with the LawSpot executive and the administration of LawSpot.

On 8 May the Young Lawyers’ Committee and Government Legal Network hosted drinks at Dockside for young lawyers working in and around the public sector.

Those present heard from Kevin Riordan, a barrister and former Chief Legal at the New Zealand Defence Force, and Michael Heron QC, Solicitor-General. Kevin Riordan outlined the challenges encountered when public lawyers, concerned with good process and the rule of law, face ‘men and women of action’ in a military context wanting to get on with their missions. The Solicitor-General made some predictions as to future of the legal profession, noting in particular the developing role of the Government Legal Network for young public sector lawyers.

The Young Lawyers Committee is very grateful to the Government Legal Network for its support in hosting the event – the second time we’ve partnered to do so, and hopefully not the last. The Government Legal Network is an initiative of the Attorney-General, led by the Crown Law Office, linking more than 800 lawyers across the core-Crown to share training, resources and experience.

LawSpot is an exciting organisation that amplifies the good that volunteer lawyers and the CLWHV are doing through technology.

If you (or your law firm) are interested in getting involved, contact >recruitment@lawspot.org.nz or visit their website at >www.lawspot.org.nz. A

Thank you to Nick Mereu and Alison Hamilton for giving an interview on behalf of LawSpot.

AUTUMN 2014 15

–

Where the Context Otherwise Requires Tiho Mijatov – There is no escaping the phrase, “In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,––”. Though we customarily skim over it whenever we even bother to delve into an interpretation section, in fact this formulaic phrase appears in nearly every piece of legislation in New Zealand and in many interpretation sections across the English-speaking world.1

Its existence has even been implied into a statute that omitted the phrase.2 It seems strange, then, that such a commonly deployed phrase is more commonly overlooked. After all, every syllable of an Act is a purposive use of words; every word enjoys the force of law that comes with being part of an Act of Parliament.3 This article therefore explores the point and past uses of the phrase in examining just where the context might otherwise require. >> Humble beginnings

A good account of the orthodox explanation for the existence of the phrase in question was proffered in our courts nearly a hundred years ago: it helps “make a consistent enactment of the whole statute”.4 Prefacing a long list of statutory definitions with “unless the context otherwise requires” recognises the simple fact that the “general meaning of a word is not necessarily the same as the meaning of the particular sentence or paragraph in which it appears”.5 The meaning of a word depends on its context, and this hallowed phrase is a reminder that a statutory definition can be flexible where required.

Such orthodox usage of the phrase appears in Dye v Auckland Regional Council.6 The provision in question required a consent authority to have regard to “any actual and potential effects on the environment”; the trouble was that “effect” was earlier defined as including many actual and potential effects. The Court ignored the statutory definition because “it would have the awkward consequence that [the section] would be dealing with actual potential effects and potential potential effects”.7 The Court of Appeal on that occasion sensibly invoked the qualifier in the interpretation section to hold that context did require otherwise than use of the defined term. The phrase “unless the context otherwise requires” therefore plays an important role in reminding us that context drives meaning.

The more popular explanation of the phrase, however, is unfortunately more cynical. It is fashionable to accuse the parliamentary counsel of laziness: the Law Commission clinically puts the continued existence of the phrase down to a lack of “careful checking”,8 while others more angrily accuse the phrase of “shuck[ing] the burden of writing”9 and see it as a “cop out”.10 However, this name-calling does little to rebut the notion that context generates meaning. Moreover, on the rare occasions where parliamentary counsel have spoken out, their writings make it clear that they see their role as constitutionally too important for laziness to be a very convincing explanation of the continued existence of the phrase.11

2 3 4 5

1

J F Burrows and R I Carter Statute Law in New Zealand (4th ed, LexisNexis, Wellington, 2009) at 421; N J Jamieson “The Tradition of Free Expression in Australasian Legislative Drafting” (1980) 9 NZULR 1 at 20 and 22.

16 YLC ADVOCATE

Strathern v Padden [1926] JC 9 (HC Scot).

Jamieson, above n 1, at 10.

Thompson v Wakapuaka Drainage Board [1929] NZLR 548 (CA) at 557.

Reed Dickerson The Interpretation and Application of Statutes (Little, Brown & Co, Boston, 1975) at 64.

6 Dye v Auckland Regional Council [2001] NZRMA 513 (CA).

7 At [41].

8 Law Commission Legislation Manual (NZLC R35, 1996) at [105].

9 David Mellinkoff “The Language of the Uniform Commercial Code” (1967) 77 Yale LJ 185 at 187.

10 David Mellinkoff Legal Writing: Sense and Nonsense (Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1982) at 24.

11 D A S Ward “The Preparation of Acts of Parliament” (1968) 1 Otago L Rev 294 at 299–300; N J Jamieson “Would a Parliamentary Counsel By Any Other Name Be More of a Law Draftsman?” (1982) Statute L Rev 13.

Illustration: Rebecca Walthall

The Judge’s ruling

>> Past use

Whatever the proper place of the phrase in our statute books, it is undeniably prevalent and here to stay, so it is useful to now briefly explore judicial exegesis of just what it means. The leading case has to be Police v Thompson, in which the Court held:12 ... a Court of construction should commence its inquiry by assuming that the Legislature intended the word or phrase to have its statutory meaning. … [The Court] is entitled to [depart from that meaning] only if the language of the section under construction requires a different meaning.

And on some occasions courts have upheld this tight account of the phrase.13 On others, as in Kirk v Electoral Commission, the Court has held that context “can include the policy of the Act, the history of the legislation and the consequences of a given interpretation”.14 This is a broader conceptualisation of “context”. It has enabled decisions where the phrase is invoked so that “no injustice will be done”,15 or to bring “a more reasonable result”,16 though the court has stopped just short of using the phrase to take better account of the effect of a statutory definition on overseas companies!17 The definition sometimes applies and sometimes not, according to shifting circumstances,18 now that non-text has been confused for context. >> Conclusion

Two things are notable about the ratio of Thompson, in order of ascending interest and importance. The first is that the Court seems to adopt a “rebuttable presumption” approach to reading the phrase “unless the context otherwise requires”. This is useful for those wishing to use the phrase in argument, because we are pretty familiar with how rebuttable presumptions operate. Second, the Court was careful to contain the phrase’s potential power. It speaks of a Court “of construction”, it uses the narrow formal logical concept of “only if”, and it stresses that it is only the language of the section that might require a statutory definition to be ignored. These are all clues that “context” as used in the phrase means “internal context” rather than anything broader. And this is a sensible approach, given that invocation of the phrase empowers a Court to ignore a definition set out by Parliament.

12 Police v Thompson [1966] NZLR 813 (CA) at 818, per North P.

The unassuming phrase “In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—” has earned its place in the statute books, but the broader view of “context” leaves parliamentary sovereignty (Parliament does, after all, direct courts to apply the statutory definition) vulnerable to whatever can be crammed into the concept of “context”. But a less curmudgeonly, and even more important, conclusion is that it pays to look into every word, phrase and sentence of our statutes because it is “of these simple elements that the whole law consists”.19 A 13 Older decisions do adopt in substance the strict construction approach: see Munro v R [1971] NZLR 122 (CA) at 124 (rejecting a broad submission that the context requires otherwise than applying the defined word).

14 Kirk v Electoral Commission [2008] 3 NZLR 125 (HC) at [16], cited with approval in Peato v R [2009] NZCA 333, [2010] 1 NZLR 788 at [29]–[30].

15 Auckland City Corporation v Guardian Trust and Executor Co of New Zealand Ltd [1931] NZLR 914 (SC) at 919–920.

16 London Corporation v Cusack-Smith [1955] AC 337 (HL) at 363, per Lord Reid.

17 Saba Yachts Ltd v Fish Pacific Ltd HC Auckland CIV-2006-404-441, 21 November 2006 at [28]–[29].

18 Fairpo v Humberside County Council [1997] 1 All ER 183 (QB) at 190d–e.

19 George Coode Legislative Expression (2nd ed, London, 1852) at 377.

AUTUMN 2014 17

–

Event Report: Mooting Competition Richard Evans SOL ICI TOR AT TH E TR EA SURY

– The New Zealand Law Foundation Mooting Competition has concluded for 2014, with the final moot held in Wellington’s Old High Court on the evening of Thursday 19 June. The moot was presided over by the Honourable Justice Dame Susan Glazebrook and the Honourable Justice Sir William Young, both of the Supreme Court.

As Law Foundation Chair Andrew Butler commented at the prize giving, the mooting competition is a rare and valuable opportunity for junior practitioners to develop their advocacy skills – whatever their particular field of practice. The competition was organised by the Wellington Young Lawyers’ Committee (a committee of the Wellington branch of the New Zealand Law Society). It was generously funded by the New Zealand Law Foundation and supported by the New Zealand Bar Association. The Auckland Young Lawyers’ Committee expects to run a similar competition later this year. A 18 YLC ADVOCATE

Photos courtesy of Lamp Studios Ltd

The moot judgment was drafted by Tim Cochrane (currently a Pegasus Scholar at Blackstone Chambers in London) and featured an application for the judicial review of a decision made under the Electoral Act 1993 as to whether particular newspaper content fell within that Act’s exception for “editorial” content. Twenty young lawyers from a range of Wellington firms took part, with preliminary and semi-final rounds culminating in a final between appellants Jennifer Howes and Anna Whaley and respondents Andrew Pullar and Andy Luck. The respondents were announced winners at the ensuing prize giving function at Thorndon Chambers.

–

–

Spotlight on Nicky Dalgleish

Event Report: Bridging the Gap launch

–

Nikki Farrell What’s your role on the Committee?

I am a general member of the Committee. I try to help out where I can.

How long have you been on the YLC and why did you join?

I have been a member of the YLC since the beginning of this year. A representative from Buddle Findlay was resigning and I thought it would be a good opportunity to get involved in some non-work related activities and that it would be a good chance to meet a wider group of young lawyers in Wellington.

What do you do outside of the Committee?

I’m a solicitor in Buddle Findlay’s banking team. Outside of work I catch up with friends, watch high and low quality television (in equal parts) and I’m currently training for my first half-marathon with a couple of friends from Buddle Findlay.

S OLIC I TOR AT OF F IC E OF LE G AL C OU N S E L, M I N I S T RY OF JU S T IC E

– On Thursday 29 May, the 2014 IPLS Bridging the Gap mentoring programme was launched for its third year. This programme involves young lawyers mentoring students in their final years of study at Victoria University and is run in conjunction with the YLC and the Victoria University Law Students’ Society. It is a great opportunity for students to ask a lawyer about what papers they should study, what Professional Studies entails, and how to find a job. The YLC is proud to support senior law students before they become members of the profession.

The launch was a great opportunity for networking over drinks and delicious nibbles at Bin 44 and everyone had a great evening. Special thanks go out to our awesome sponsors, IPLS, for their ongoing professional relationship with (and support of) the YLC, and to Bin 44 for being fantastic hosts. There will be a few more great events throughout the year for more networking and support opportunities for those participating in the programme. Take a look at the Convenor’s Note by Richard Evans above on page 5 for more discussion of the Bridging the Gap programme. A

If you could have dinner with three famous people, who would they be?

Spencer, Jamie and Lucy Watson of Made in Chelsea fame.

If you could be famous for something, what would you want to be famous for?

It’s a three way tie between: founding SnapChat and/or Tinder; being Kendrick Lamar’s rap protégé; and superseding Donald Sterling as the owner of the L.A Clippers. I would also settle for being a Grand Slam champion.

Are there any books that you have been reading recently that you would recommend to others?

Does Look Mum I’m a Lawyer count? Otherwise, Hyperbole and a Half: Unfortunate Situations, Flawed Coping Mechanisms, Mayhem, and Other Things That Happened from the blog Hyperbole and a Half (the story ‘Motivation’ is a highlight) and The March by E.L. Doctorow for more serious readers, which follows Game of Thrones’ approach of killing off characters you thought were supposed to be the main characters. A

AUTUMN 2014 19

Knit Picking Winter x Essential + Materials = Knitwear Ani Chan Case Officer, Supreme Court www.ahintofchic.wordpress.com

A perfect knit is essential in every woman’s winter wardrobe. It can bring style and colour into an outfit, comfort when you need it, and most importantly it keeps you snug on a cold winter’s day. Here is a miniguide to the common materials for knits of today.

ANGORA is from cute little Angora Rabbits and is well known for its soft, thin, and fluffy texture. It is warmer and lighter than wool due to their hollow coned fibres.

ALPACA fibres are fine, silky and famous for their lustrous quality. It is similar to sheep wool but warmer and less prickly making it one of the perfect materials for a winter knit.

CASHMERE is the fine hair undercoat fibres of a Kashmir Goat and is recognised for its fine, strong, silky and light qualities with excellent insulation properties.

COTTON grows in a ball around the seeds of a cotton plant. It is 100% natural and non-allergenic so most ideal for those with sensitive skin. It is a soft and breathable textile making it very comfortable to wear.

MERINO wool has great breathability and is remarkable for regulating temperature. It draws moisture away from the skin providing warmth without overheating the wearer.

MOHAIR comes from the Angora Goat.

Notable for its higher lustre and sheen than the Merino, it is also moisture wicking and a great insulator. It is lightweight, durable, does not stretch and tends to be non-pilling.

What more could you ask for in a knit?

Marcs Stripe Crew Knit, $195

Liam Comfy Sweater, $329

Topshop, $95

Trenery Cable Tunic Knit, $199

Country Road, $169.90

Sass and Bide, $400

Decjuba Elise Furry Knit, $140

Cue Animal Print Sweater, $105

20 YLC ADVOCATE

We all have that one favourite knit in our wardrobe that we tend to wear over and over again (hoping that nobody notices). You may be suprised by the number of different looks you can actually achieve with that one favourite knit.

Just take a look at the ones below! Surely these four diverse looks would throw anyone suspicious, off your track.

Chic

Sports Luxe

H&M leatherette pants $45, Kate Sylvester cape $625, Mi Piaci boots $270, Country Road gloves $44.90, Superette wallet $59, Karen Walker chain necklace $55, Boh Runga earrings $183

Cameo stripe top $130, Ruby beanie $29, Vans $129.99, Moochi pants $219.99, Beats by dre $499, Deadly Ponies bag $495, Karen Walker leather cuff $45

Preppy

Evening Country Road, $169.90

Country Road Shirt $109, Kathryn Wilson Loafers $299, Ruby Lux Jean $169, Marc Jacobs watch $370, Karen Walker clutch $220

Meadowlark earrings $97, Clare Vivier clutch $299, M.A.C lipstick $40, Karen Walker bracelet $40, Mi Piaci heels $280, Boohoo leatherette skirt $32

AUTUMN 2014  21

–

Event Report: Quiz Night Charlotte Christmas GR ADUAT E AT R U S S E LL MC V E AG H

– Last month, on the 22nd of May, 40 teams of four headed down to Chicago bar on the waterfront for the annual Wellington Young Lawyers’ Committee Quiz. The promise of cheap drinks and free food were probably contributing factors to this extremely popular event selling out.

Organised by YLC member Jelena Gligorijevic, the night ran smoothly as the teams went head-to-head in a battle of the minds for a chance to win a piece of an impressive prize pool.

MC Seamus Woods was integral to the success of the night, not only helping quiz participants navigate 10 rounds of brain-teasing questions but also providing some comic relief. Any team who thought it would be clever to have a name that played on the word “quiz” (notable mentions going to Quizteam Aguilera and Kim Quizdashian and Quizye West) were subject to the MC’s entertaining wrath, being awarded spot prizes for their “terrible” team names.

Tony Abbott’s Budget Smugglers proved to be the victorious team on the night, winning by a significant margin. Spot prizes were also awarded throughout the quiz for some of the more “creative” answers.

Thanks must go to Crane Brothers, Cuckoo, Astoria, Les Mills, The Body Shop, Dockside, Pandoro, Freyberg Pool, Nicholas Jermyn, Habitual Fix, Ka Pai, Mojo and Russell McVeagh for their generous contributions to the sizeable prize pool. Thank you to Chicago bar who provided a fantastic venue for the night – a night that would not have been possible without the support of the Young Lawyers Committee’s key sponsors JLegal and MAS. Thanks must also go to all those who came along and got quizzical! A

22 YLC ADVOCATE

YOUR FRIENDS WILL CALL IT LUCK. YOU CAN CALL HIM GRAHAM.

Luck? A disciplined, pragmatic approach is usually more reliable when it comes to financial success.

That’s why we believe in regular face-to-face conversations about your insurance, loans, savings and investments as the best way to help you achieve your financial goals.

At MAS, our advisers are always happy to meet with you to help you make plans for your financial future.

To organise a personal review, just pick up the phone. And start picking our brains.

Call us today:

0800 800 627 Visit us online at mas.co.nz MAS is a Qualifying Financial Entity (QFE) under the Financial Advisers Act 2008. Our QFE disclosure statement is available at mas.co.nz or by calling 0800 800 627.

AUTUMN 2014  23

www.younglawyers.co.nz