COUNCIL BRIEF Council Brief Advertisingadman@paradise.net.nz

Reynolds Advertising

ISSUE 416❑ President’s Column

By Mark Wilton

New Branch President looks forward

AUGUST 2012

The monthly newspaper of theWellington Branch NZ Law Society

• John Morrison 3

• Property Law 4

• Lower Hutt dinner 6

• WWLA 25th 8

In this issue:

G R E E T I N G Sand salutations towhat promises tobe both a chal-lenging and ex-citing year aheadfor the BranchCouncil.With our AGM

already behind us and our firstCouncil meeting under our belt, Ifeel honoured and privileged tolead such a dynamic and engagedcollection of our members whoare relishing the opportunity tostart or continue contributing tothe Society.

My congratulations are ex-tended to all re-elected members ofCouncil, I thank them for their con-tinued commitment and dedication.

This year we have five newfaces on Council. I welcomeQuentin Lowcay (Partner at MinterEllison), Patricia Green (Partner atMinter Ellison), Fleur Rowe (Asso-ciate at Tripe Mathews and Feist),Chris O’Connor (Partner Strachan

O’Conner), and Wairarapa Presi-dent Ainslie Hewton to the Counciltable.

It is important for the professionand for the continued relevance andvalue of our Society that memberstake their turn to step up and serve.I thank all those of you who haveanswered our call and put them-selves forward to contribute to ourBranch committees. We appreciatethat commitment.

Committees are the life blood ofthe Branch. The quality of work andtime given by our members to thosecommittees is truly significant.

August sees our Council headover the hill to the Wairarapa to holdour next Council meeting inCarterton and then join our countrycolleagues at the their 60th annualbar dinner. We are aware prepara-tions are well underway and we lookforward to the celebrations that MarkHinton (Partner at WCM Legal) andhis team have in store for us.

We are in the process of settingour business plan for the year and

WELLINGTONlawyer PeterDengate Thrushhas recently be-come executivechairman of TopLevel DomainHoldings Ltd(TLDH), a pub-

licly traded holding company onthe London stock exchange.

From 2007 to 2011 Mr DengateThrush was chair of the board ofICANN (Internet Corporation forAssigned Names and Numbers) thenot-for-profit corporation that coor-dinates the unique identifiers thatmake the global internet possible.

The “generic top-level domains”– the endings used in internet ad-dresses, such as .com or .net – willbecome much more varied from2013. Around 1900 applications fornew domains have been madeto ICANN, 116 of them in non-

Latin script. ICANN approval isnecessary to ensure that theintegrity of the internet is protected,not to favour any particular names.

Among the domains already ap-proved or being evaluated are .kiwi,.rugby, .pizza, .movie, .whiskey,.lol and .lawyer.

Top Level Domain Holdings(TLDH) is one of the main appli-cants for new generic top-level do-mains and is the parent company ofwholly owned subsidiary Minds +Machines, a provider of registryservices for domains applied for byTLDH.

When Mr Dengate Thrush wasinterviewed recently on BBCWorld, he said the provision of thenew domains marked a majorchange in internet history. “What’sdramatic is that the new domainsare the result of market demand,what people think will be popular,”he said.

Peter DengateThrush

2012 Shirley Smith AddressThis year’s Shirley Smith Address will be presented by

Professor Hilary Charlesworth AM

Professor Charlesworth is a world leader in international and human

rights law. Among her many roles she is the Director of the Centre

for International Governance and Justice at the Australian National

University. In 2011 she was judge ‘ad hoc’ to the International Court

of Justice in the Whaling in the Antarctic case (Australia v Japan).

She is also considered the pioneer in feminist international law

scholarship.

Tuesday 21 August 2012, 5.30-7.00pm

GBLT1, Victoria University Law School

ON 11August, as we do every year,the Young Lawyers’ Committeehosts the annual Young Profess-ionals Ball for all young profession-als in Wellington. The theme of thisyear’s event is “Mad Men” (the TVshow, that is – not merely adescription, as some might think, ofcertain members of our legalprofession). This year we aim toattract 400-500 guests from acrossthe Wellington young professionalscommunity.

Why, you might ask, is a commit-tee for young lawyers organising aball for young professionals?Because I believe that a goal as im-portant as ensuring Wellington has astrong and supportive group ofyoung lawyers is making sure thatthose young lawyers engage withthose outside the legal profession.

One downside of the noble andvenerable traditions of the legal pro-fession we inherit is that we lawyershave a tendency to be rather insular.We’ve all heard the lawyer jokes*.It’s a tradition that starts as early onas law school, where all the lawstudents tend to congregate togetherat law school, sipping their lattes andchatting about how they can’tBELIEVE how badly they did in the

expect to confirm this at our nextmeeting. I can indicate that our gen-eral resolve is to continue to focuson the four areas of Practising Well,Professional Development andEducational Services, Collegialityand Communication. On the Prac-tising Well front considerable workhas been achieved already by ourtwo Vice Presidents Rachel Dewarand Aaron Martin who led a team tofacilitate and present a seminar onwork/life balance. This event washeld at the offices of Minter Ellisonon 26 July and was sold out. It pro-vided an excellent forum to discussthe various pressures and compet-ing interests in our lives to achievethat elusive work/life balance.

Finally, I take this opportunity tothank our past President, NerissaBarber, for her sterling two years’service. Her contribution was enor-mous and I congratulate her andwish her well for her new role as theVice President (Wellington) on theBoard of the New Zealand LawSociety.

FROM 14 to 17 August, the annual Bell Gully Wellington Law Revuereturns to the stage at the VUW Kelburn Memorial Theatre. As well as theusual array of comical skits satirising current events, politics and popculture, this year’s show promises a darker twist, with the main storylinefeaturing a murder mystery theme.

Our young heroes, Charlie and Trevor, are invited to a party by a group ofwealthy torts lawyers to celebrate the 85th anniversary of the Donoghue vStevenson judgment, but all is not as it seems and before long a mysteriousdeath has shocked the assembled guests. With the bodycount rising rapidly,Charlie and Trevor must figure out who is behind the murders – and why –before they themselves are implicated.

Cast and crew have been working hard for many weeks to learn dances,songs and skits and create an energetic and hilarious show. Musical numbersinclude hits from Chicago and the Rocky Horror Show. Director DavidTurner promises that this year’s show will be “the best law-themed musicalcomedy murder mystery you’ll see this year. Or at least in the top three…”

Tickets can be bought online from Dash Tickets or the VictoriaUniversity Law School office from Monday 30 July.

Nerissa Barber stepped down after two years as Wellington BranchPresident at the Branch annual meeting on 27 June. New PresidentMark Wilton paid tribute to Ms Barber’s ‘enormous contribution …and sterling service’ to the work of the Branch over her term. NerissaBarber referred to progess in the development of the role of theWellington Branch of the NZ Law Society, as the ‘One Society’model evolved. She said that the three-year strategic plan developedin 2009 had been invaluable in helping to focus the work of theBranch on the key areas of Practising Well, ProfessionalDevelopment and Education, Collegiality and Communications.

Interview with Hilary Charlesworth Page 2

WillNoticeson page 12

in this issue

Law Revue on the boards again

Local lawyer leads internet company

By David Turner

❑ Young Lawyers

❑ Continued page 5

‘Having a ball’ for allYoung Professionals

Page 2 – COUNCIL BRIEF, AUGUST 2012

WELLINGTON BRANCH COUNCIL 2012

2012 SHIRLEY SMITH ADDRESS

1. Could you give a briefintroduction into the topic for the2012 Shirley Smith Address youwill give on 21 August?I plan to consider how argumentsbased on culture have beendeployed in internationalinstitutions to challenge claims ofwomen’s rights. For example,many State reservations to theConvention on the Elimination ofall Forms of Discrimination againstWomen are based on assertions ofnational or religious culture. I willexamine the negative and positiveaspects of protection of cultures atthe international level, arguing fora broad account of culture that isconsistent with universal standardsprotecting women’s human rights.

2. What attracted you to the field ofinternational human rights law?What are you working on at themoment?I was attracted by its idealism andalso the complexity of itsjurisprudence. It deals with some ofthe big issues of life: for example,what are the elements of a lifethat’s worth living? I was alsoimpressed by the idea ofinternational law as a type of safetynet for the gaps in the AustralianConstitution.

When I first encountered thesubject at law school, what wasmost interesting was the way thatpolitics was so much to the fore ininternational law. While the rest ofmy law subjects were taught as ifthere were an objective legal

reality, which could be divinedsimply by the application ofrational thought, the substance andprocesses of international law had aclose, if complicated, relationshipto international politics. … At thesame time, international lawseemed to depend on the hope oftransforming the arena ofinternational relations from one ofbrute force to one of principle. Thisstrange mixture of apologeticrationalisation of power andutopian principles (I am using thevocabulary of the Finnishinternational lawyer, MarttiKoskenniemi here) was intriguingas well as puzzling. Internationallawyers could be both sophisticatedand savvy world travellers whilealso retaining some idealism andoptimism. Trying to understand thistension between apology andutopia in international legal thoughtremains fascinating for me.

My enthusiasm for internationallaw was tamed, or perhaps refined,during the three years I spent atHarvard Law School in the 1980s.Seeing international law throughAmerican eyes was a shock. … Iwas amazed by the great confid-ence of American internationallawyers that their advice couldinfluence political decisionsdirectly. The sidelined marginalsubject I had encountered inAustralia seemed to be a source ofconsiderable power and prestige inthe United States. Politics wasalways in the background, but there

was much more enthusiasm aboutcodifying the rules of internationallaw so that they would seem justlike domestic law.

Currently, I’m working on theway democracy is understood andpromoted in international law andalso a new project on strengtheningthe international human rightssystem.

3. You co-authored the ground-breaking book ‘The Boundaries ofInternational Law: A FeministAnalysis’ in 2000 – what promptedyou to write a book about this area?It took me a long time to see thebias built into international law. Ofcourse there are many biasesinherent in such a system, soclosely tied to international politics,but the fact that women have beenso little involved in its developmenthas skewed the interests of itsinstitutions. I think a feminist lensallows us to understand not onlythat women are largely excludedfrom the making of internationallaw, but that many of its doctrinesare gendered. A feminist lensencourages us to push for change.

The most influential discoveryfor me during my time at Harvardwas feminist legal theory, a topic I

had not encountered in my studiesin Australia. Frances Olsen, afellow SJD candidate, gave aseminar on her work on the familyand the market which gave mesome tools to make sense of mystudies and work in the law, and theway that the law constructs womenand their lives. I remember thinkingthat feminist theory had great valuein analyzing national legal systems,but that it could have littlerelevance in international lawwhere the main actors were theabstract entities of states.

It was not until some years laterthat lengthy conversations with myfriends and colleagues, ChristineChinkin and Shelley Wright, thenboth at the University of Sydney,allowed me to see that feministtheories had something to say tointernational lawyers. Together,we began exploring feminist ideasand their implications forinternational law. One aspect ofthis exploration was to identify theroles women were assigned in theinternational legal system. In 1991,when we wrote our initial article,women were almost invisible in thepublic world of international law-making; there were no women onthe International Law Commissionor the International Court ofJustice, although women weresprinkled through the UN humanrights treaty bodies. Another aspectof our argument was that thenormative development ofinternational law, for example itscreation of public and privatespheres, reinforced partial,gendered perspectives.

4. What challenges have youexperienced working in your field?

At first, it was hard to persuade

colleagues that human rights hadany legal content or significance. Adifferent type of challenge is thathuman rights and international laware often taken as providing theanswers to major issues ofinjustice, whereas in fact they canonly ever provide very partial andinadequate answers or solutions.

5. What would you say to youngwomen starting out in the field ofinternational law?It is a wonderfully interesting areaof law. Don’t specialise too earlyand try to get a broad appreciationof the field. Being well-versed inyour own national legal system willalways be valuable. Try and getexperience in international law inother countries, for instance,through study or work.

Professor Hilary Charlesworthwill present the 2012 ShirleySmith Address , ‘Keeping Womenin their Place: Women’s rightsand the question of ‘culture’ ininternational law’ – Tuesday 21August, 5.30-7pm, venue GBLT1at the Victoria University LawSchool.

The Wellington Branch NZ Law Society Council for 2012. From left: Chris O’Connor, Catherine Rodgers, Melanie Baker, Rachael Dewar (Vice President), David Turner (Young LawyersRepresentative), Amanda Courtney, Fleur Rowe, Mark Wilton (President), Ainslie Hewton (Wairarapa Representative), Aaron Martin (Vice President), Patricia Green, Quentin Lowcay,

Briar Gordon. Inset, left: Annette Gray, right: David Dunbar.

PRACTISING WELL

Chaplain, Julia Coleman, 027 285 9115

Professor HilaryCharlesworth

Crossword SolutionsFrom page 10

Across: 1 Balanced diet; 7 Debar; 8 Coach; 9 Eve; 10Schematic; 11 Dodgem; 12 Cosmos; 15 Night robe;17 Lei; 18 Erato; 19 Chaps; 21 Ironing board.

Down: 1 Heart-rending; 2 Rue; 3 Entomb; 4 Stability;5 Orbit; 6 Decentralise; 7 Glare; 10 Crescendo; 13Globe; 14 Forget; 16 Relax; 20 Ado.

Cryptic Solutions

Quick SolutionsAcross: 1 Hypertension; 7 Guest; 8 Amble; 9 Tea;10 Committee; 11 Eleven; 12 Midget; 15 Directory;17 Ova; 18 Nylon; 19 Graze; 21 Extortionate.

Down: 1 Ballet dancer; 2 Nub; 3 Earthy; 4Decompose; 5 Exact; 6 Thick-skinned; 7 Dread; 10Sweet corn; 13 Miles; 14 Toucan; 16 Glair; 20 Alb.

Professor Charlesworth sets the scene for her Shirley Smith AddressAnswering questions put to her by the Women-in-Law Committee

COUNCIL BRIEF, AUGUST 2012 – Page 3

Criminal, Traffi c Accident InvestigationsFile/Case Analysis

TELEPHONE 021 663 236WELLINGTON: PO BOX 30080, LOWER HUTT, NEW ZEALAND

CENTRAL NORTH ISLAND: PO BOX 7168, WANGANUI, NEW ZEALAND E-MAIL: bass@clear.net.nz WEBSITE: www.paulbass.co.nzpaul@paulbass.co.nz

OBITUARY

John Bentley Morrison – 1 July 1930-10 July 2012JOHN MORRISON was describedby Sir Michael Hardie Boys, whodelivered the eulogy at John’sfuneral, as “A true Renaissanceman, a man of great humanity, ofutter integrity, a man committed tothe service of others, a man ofmany talents and wide interests, alover of truth and beauty…”

John Morrison had a long andsuccessful legal career, and alwayslived life to the full – that he died asthe result of a heart attackfollowing a vigorous game oftennis typifies the man.

The youngest of six children, hewas born in Timaru and grew up inAuckland where he attendedKing’s College.

He studied full-time at VictoriaUniversity and took a job as a lawclerk at the then firm of YoungCourtney Bennett and Virtue. Hewas admitted to the Bar in 1955and after gaining some workexperience joined the firm ofHardie Boys Scott & Haldane,thenceforth called Hardie BoysScott and Morrison.

“And so from 1 April 1957 …there began a partnership betweenus that continued over almost aquarter of a century,” says SirMichael. “It was more than anordinary business arrangement. Itwas very much a meeting of mindsand a sharing of values. We

became the closest and best offriends, best man at weddings,godfathers to firstborns,” SirMichael said.

John Morrison worked in theconveyancing side of the partner-ship and built up a strong practiceof loyal clients based on his knowl-edge, integrity and his tenacity insafeguarding their interests.Although he retired from thepartnership, which finally becameMorrison Kent, in 1996 after 40years, he remained as a consultantuntil 2003, continued to go into theoffice after that and was in factthere the Friday before he died.

A number of commercial andcommunity interests grew out ofhis legal career. He was a directorof National Mutual Life for13 years, was chairman of itssuperannuation fund, and remainedin that post after it became AXA;he was deputy chairman of NZPermanent Trustees, a director andtrustee of Bowen Hospital and adirector of his nephew Lloyd’sMorrison & Co.

After retirement he took out apractising certificate as a barristerand began to accept appointmentsfrom the Family Court to representpeople whose affairs needed othersto manage them. Sir MichaelHardie Boys says this was timeconsuming and sometimes difficult

work, but he enjoyed it. “Howmany knew that for 20 years heregularly spent Sunday nights onduty at the City Mission’s NightShelter, or that he became involvedwith Sir Michael Fowler in thework of Bruce Stewart’s Tapu teRanga Marae at Island Bay.”

He served his profession too,and for four years was chairman ofthe costs and conveyancing com-mittee of the New Zealand LawSociety, one of its most seniorpositions. He was one of thosehonoured at a Wellington Branchdinner in 2010 for members inpractice for 50 or more years.

John Morrison was an enthusiastat everything that he tried. SirMichael said that next to his wifeDiana, his children and raspberrybuns, was his love of the music ofWagner. He was a driving force onthe local committee of the WagnerSociety and saw and heard the RingCycle performed eight times, four ofthem at Bayreuth. In a wider appre-ciation of music he was on the boardof Wellington Opera and itssuccessor NZ Opera, a trustee ofLloyd Morrison’s music trust,member of an advisory committeeof the NZ School of Music, andchair of the Wellington Sinfonia. Hehad been a trustee of the NationalMuseum and Art Gallery, and wasinstrumental in ensuring thatMorrison Kent was a generoussupporter of the arts.

John Morrison had a lifelong in-volvement in the Anglican Churchand was for a considerable timetime Chancellor of the Diocese, themost senior legal position in thechurch, and a member of theDiocesan board of trustees. Inrecognition of his services to theCathedral and the Diocese, he wasgiven the rare honour CanonEmeritus of the Cathedral.

He was for 24 years the DanishHonorary Consul in New Zealandand for this was awarded that coun-try’s Knighthood of the Danneborg.

He was created an Officer of theNew Zealand Order of Merit in2001 for service to the arts.

Former Morrison Kent partnerIan Stewart, who was overseas atthe time of the funeral, emailed thefollowing comments:

“John was simply one of themost remarkable people I had theprivilege to know and to work with.His loyalty and friendship to mewere unstinting. He could alwaysbe counted on for a word of supportor genuine concern. He made mefeel that my efforts were meaning-ful even if I was grappling clumsilywith the most trivial matter. He wasanxious to know that I was strivingto achieve justice for the firm’s cli-ents whoever they were, but that Iwas making enough time for myown family.

“John’s sense of decency to-wards people became a touchstonefor us all at the firm and withoutparticularly meaning to, he inspiredus to strive towards the highest pro-fessional standards. As I observedat one of his ‘retirements’, it hasbeen a real privilege to be entrustedwith the work of John’s Church;his family and his numerousfriends. My memory of his 80thbirthday celebration is vivid. Icount myself fortunate to haveearned his trust and friendship, andwill miss him dearly…”

AFGHANISTAN is a countrythat few New Zealanders knowmuch about. This is not the casefor Marianne Elliott. In 2006Marianne, a human rights lawyerfrom New Zealand, was postedby the United Nations to Herat,Afghanistan.

In May this year, the Womenin Law Committee had thehonour of hosting Marianne andhearing about her experiencesand her book Zen Under Fire.

Marianne’s desire to serve oth-ers formed when she was a child.Her early memories are of livingin Papua New Guinea, where herparents served as missionaries.

At 26 years old Marianne wentto Gaza in her first posting as ahuman rights lawyer in the field;there she monitored the conflictbetween Palestinians and Israelisoldiers and settlers.

After two years, Marianne re-turned to Wellington and workedin policy-based human rightsroles; she assisted the NewZealand government and thegovernment of East Timordevelop their human rightsstrategies.

After five years Marianne wasback in a conflict zone, this timein Afghanistan. Marianne’s firstrole was with a network of NGOsundertaking human rights workin Kabul. Nine months later,

Marianne gave up the flexibilityof working for NGOs to take up arole for the United Nations inHeart; a role Marianne describedas her ‘dream job’. The workinvolved documenting humanrights cases and facili tatingworkshops for local police andprosecutors dealing with suchcases. In the final six months,Marianne was charged with es-tablishing a UN office in theGhor province.

Only a month into her UNposting in Herat, Marianne wasasked to cover for her boss whilehe went on holiday to see hisfamily. Marianne, although

concerned with self-doubt,unwillingly accepted the hugeresponsibility. As her boss left,he reassured her: “as long as noone kills Amanullah Khan you’llbe fine”. A mere few hours later,Marianne received the news thatAmanullah Khan had been killedin a revenge attack. Mariannewas charged with trying todiffuse the situation and broker apeaceful solution amidst tribalwarfare. In the aftermath,Marianne was also responsiblefor investigating the killings andinterviewing the loved ones ofthe deceased. This experienceand the isolation plunged her into

a dark place and she sufferedsevere symptoms of depressionand post-traumatic stress.

Marianne conceded that shewasn’t really ‘battlefield’material; being a sensitive personand susceptible to the suffering ofothers has been a double-edgedsword through her life.

Marianne’s deep passion forAfghanistan was clear as shespoke. She described anAfghanistan that we don’t hearabout in the media. Mariannestressed to us that the media-driven image of Afghanistan ismisleading. There are goodpeople doing great things there.

During her t ime inAfghanistan, Marianne met manygreat Afghan women. Oneparticularly great ‘woman in law’was Maria Bashir who was

appointed the nation’s firstfemale chief prosecutor in 2005and prosecuted high-level cor-ruption cases. To be a good‘woman in law’ in Afghanistan,Maria had to be tough and makebrave decisions. She also had tocontend with a constant barrageof abuse and regular deaththreats.

Marianne related that she hadbefriended a female police officerwho was later charged with cor-ruption by Maria. The officer hadallegedly required a female in-formant of domestic violence tobuy phone credit cards before shewould process her claim. Despitethe comparatively low level ofcorruption, Maria took a hard lineagainst the female officer con-cerned as she saw this as a major

By Sarah Cates, Solicitor and member of the Women in Law Committee

Marianne Elliott – human rights lawyer

❑ Continued page 4

Marianne Elliott signing books after a lunchtime address to lawyers recently.

Page 4 – COUNCIL BRIEF, AUGUST 2012

THE ADLS standard sale and pur-chase agreement has been amendedyet again to cover off legislationchanges and evolving conveyancingpractice. The key changes relate tothe following:• After the Purchaser’s name “and/

or nominee” is added. The inclu-sion of “and” would seem some-what superfluous.

• In the conditions component onthe front page, apart from whetheror not a LIM Report is required, anew addition is whether or not abuilding report is required. Thisdoes not include an engineeringreport. Where reference is madethat a building report is to be re-quested then it must be preparedin good faith by a “suitably quali-fied building inspector”. It wouldhave been useful to have includedthe term “independent buildinginspector”.

• As a consequence of the issue ofnew practice guidelines theADLS agreement now gives con-tractual force to the settlementprotocols in the new Guidelineseffective from 9 July 2012. Herethe most important feature is thepresumption that payment on set-tlement is to be made by the SameDay Cleared Payment Systemthrough the Reserve Bank unlessthe parties have mutually agreedto make payment by bank chequein situations such as where thePurchaser’s lawyer reasonablyconsiders that the time deadlinefor payment may not necessarilybe achieved, or where there maybe a computer outage (see Guide-lines paragraph 6.5). The move toSame Day Cleared funds willpresent practical problems for set-tlements in arranging both mort-gage funds and balance settlementfunds, particularly from differentbanks where banks have differentcut-off times to request same daycleared funds. In this regard,banks differ as to their cut-offtimes for submitting payment re-quests. Kiwibank for example is3.45pm while BNZ and others is4.30pm, and ASB is 4.00pm. It isa pity that there is no adoption of astandard time for all banks.

· In any event, it seems that practi-tioners will need to be well organ-ised to complete settlementmatters early in the day ratherthan leave matters to later in theday, otherwise effective settle-ment would not be completed un-til the next business day.

• The distinction between posses-sion date and settlement date hasbeen removed. Effectively there-fore under clause 3 the possessiondate will be the settlement date.For long term agreements specialprovisions will need to be insertedinto the standard agreement.

• The procedures now that remotesettlements are made compulsoryunder the revised standard agree-ment are expanded with the inser-

THE PROPERTY COLUMN

Property Law Update – ADLS 9th Edition and PropertyLaw Se stion Practice Guidelines July 2012

tion of new clauses 3.6, 3.7, 3.8and 3.10. Clause 3.7(2) refers topre-validation but nothing in thestandard agreement or indeed inthe Guidelines covers what if pre-validation fails.

• In the Notices section reference isadded to include lawyers agreeingto subscribe to the same secureweb document exchange by wayof a secure website. Also, it isimportant to note under clause1.3(d) that in terms of servicewhere “emails” are generatedautomatically, that does not consti-tute an acknowledgement, so onecan only achieve deemed service ifusing email where there is an ac-knowledgement by the party or bythe lawyer orally or by returnemail or otherwise in writing.

• Provision is inserted that wherethe day nominated for settlementis not a working day, the day forfulfilment of the settlement dateor condition is the last workingday before the date so nominated.

• There are a number of necessarychanges made as a consequenceof the unit titles legislation. Herefor deposits, a number of provi-sions are applicable from the UnitTitles Act in precluding an earlyrelease of the deposit. These in-clude the need for any depositpayment to be held in escrowpending the issue of a certifiedpre-settlement disclosure state-ment under section 147 of the Act,and the sending of any additionaldisclosure statement under sec-tion 148 of the Act, if requestedby the purchaser. Also, if timecan be extended in providing thedisclosure statements or if thepurchaser gives notice undersection 149(2) of the Unit TitlesAct to postpone the settlementdate until such time that disclo-sure statements have beenprovided, or where a purchaserelects under section 151(2) of theUnit Titles Act to cancel the saleagreement, or waives that right tocancel by giving notice or byactually completing settlement,then in all these cases the depositis retained. Maybe a morecommonsense approach given allthese possibilities is that for unittitle settlements deposits shouldbe held pending completion ofsettlement and an overridingprovision inserted into the stand-ard agreement.

• A new provision is inserted inclause 4.2(2) so that where partialdamage occurs (viz if the propertyis not untenantable on the settle-ment date), and to the extent thatthe destruction or damage can bemade good, then the purchaseprice should be reduced by sumequal to the diminuation andvalue of the property to cover thereasonable costs of reinstatementor repair. Here the opportunityhas been missed to deal with theinelegant term of “untenantable”,

and of course one size does not fitall when considering the range ofproperties and their type whichmay see a very unfair outcome ifclause 4.2(2) is accepted by con-tracting parties.

• Any disputes under clause 4.2(2)as to compensation will followthe same procedure as set out inclause 7.4.

• A new clause 6.3 warranty is in-serted to cover off the complianceschedule and warrant of fitnesswarranties where the property be-ing sold forms part only of abuilding.

• It is important to note the insertionof new clauses 8.4 and 8.5 con-cerning unit titles, that if costs areowed by the purchaser with thevendors having to produce an ad-ditional disclosure statement thensuch costs may be deducted fromthe deposit if the purchaser be-comes entitled to a refund of thedeposit on cancellation or avoid-ance of the agreement, and if set-tlement proceeds, such costsbecome payable on settlement.

• More clarity is provided regard-ing the schedule to GST statementwhich forms an inset to the 9thEdition.On balance, one wonders whether

a better system for settlement wouldbe that adopted overseas whereescrow settlements are the normproviding that the documentation issatisfied before the paymentobligation which typically followsthe next day.

The need to constantly change theADLS sale agreement brings intosharp focus why in New Zealand wedo not have a generic vendor disclo-sure package and key statutoryimplied terms in all property sale

agreements. With only a two-pagestandard agreement, special condi-tions have to be inserted since,although there are terms relevant tomost sales, the fact is there is a broadrange of types of properties and ven-dor and purchaser special considera-tions.

Finally, with regard to the newProperty Law Section Guidelinesjust a few random comments:• In the introduction, the Guidelines

are suggested to be reflecting“recommended practice” and soare not necessarily best practice.Also, mention is not made in theintroduction that the Guidelinesare subject to Court rulings whichcan ignore or override suchGuidelines.

• Under Guidelines 1.9 and 1.10 notethe point that where there is atransfer subject to a mortgage thatthe mortgagee’s consent is required;

• Guideline 1.17 reminds practi-tioners that in dealing in the elec-tronic environment they areeffectively de facto registrars andthat signing off certificates ascorrect is more than just confir-mation that the clerical details ofthe form have been properlycompleted – see Registrar-Gen-eral of Land v Marshall and pages318 to 320 in an article from theRegistrar-General of LandsRobbie Muir styled “ElectronicRegistration” in the text Torrensin the 21st century;o Under the Guidelines,when acting for a vendor, an im-portant omission is the need to notonly look at obtaining a LIMReport, but also where there is nounitary council to make enquiriesat regional councils, particularlyfrom the point of view of contami-

nation and water permits. Also, Iwould have considered that theconflict check referred to in Guide-line 2.24 should be made up frontrather than much later on in theGuidelines. Similarly, no conflictcheck is referred to in the Guide-lines when acting for a purchaserwhich is an important omission;o Under Guideline 3.15, con-cerning acting for a purchaser indealing with Maori land, note thatalthough the Maori land recordsare being put into electronicformat at long last, there are stillisolated cases where the sameland is registered in differentMaori Land Courts but withdifferent owners!o Under Guideline 3.21omissions include the possibleneed to obtain a survey report,particularly where perceivedboundary issues may arise, andthe need to enquire whether thereare any encroachments whichshould show up in LIM Reports ifthere are Council encroachments;o Under Guideline 3.25 bothvendors and purchasers need tolook at the implication of risk andinsurance; this remains importantand probably more so in thecurrent insurance market; perhapsbest practice for purchasers is toarrange cover immediately anagreement is declared uncondi-tional and to look more carefully atclause 4 in the standard agreement;o Under the Guideline 3.60concerning what happens aftersettlement, it would have been use-ful to provide that a full settlementreport should be sent to clients.

impediment to women seekingjustice for domestic violence.

Marianne said she often ques-tioned how an outsider could beuseful in culturally complex situ-ations. She realised that as anoutsider her ability to understandcomplex situations would alwaysbe limited by her lack of deepcultural perspective.

On the topic of Afghan men,Marianne said that she befriendedmany good Afghani men andfound them very respectfulof her; she said that most Afghanmen want what all men want fortheir daughters: education andopportunities.

Afghanistan is a place of tran-sition as governments around theworld withdraw their forces.Marianne urged New Zealand tocontinue to support Afghanistan

in the transition phase,emphasising that New Zealand’sglobal influence outweighed itssize. Marianne said thatAfghanistan was full of peoplewho are champions for theircountry’s future and arecommitted to better l ives,services and education. Hermessage was ‘don’t abandonAfghanistan’.

Despite the seriousness of thetopics she discussed, Mariannewas a delightfully funny speakerand conveyed wonderful warmthtowards the plight of others.

Her book is a fantastic read,which I highly recommend.

Zen Under Fire is available forsale in Wellington at UnityBooks and Marsden Books (RRP$34.99).

MADESIGNm

© Mark Gobbi 2011

Answers: See page 10

1 Determine what I am:(a) Transporters that are

mark-less:(b)Workers who are short of

fasteners:(c) Organisations that are

little less than sore toes:(d)Escorts who are subpar

dealers:(e) Friends who are gem-less:

2 This position arose in a 1960contest between Krilov(white) and Tarassov (black).It is white’s turn to move.What should white do?

❑ From page 3

Marianne Elliott…

Devil’s Own Golf – Manawatu Golf Club14-17 September – www.devilsown.org.nz

By John Greenwood

COUNCIL BRIEF, AUGUST 2012 – Page 5

Candidates admitted to the Bar on 15 June 2012Thomas Mark AllenJeremy David AnsellSusan Jennifer ArcusAlysia Michelle Anne BartlettSamantha Jean BrennanJane Maragaret BrownEmilia ChristoforouRichard James ChiuDavid Joseph CorryHannah Louise CoullAlexander Peter DyeAbigail Ruth Van EchtenAllex Dana Evans

Seth John FraserSladjana FreakleyOwen Andrew GibsonDr Brendon Mark GrayEcho Isobel HarongaTsara Emelia HawijHeather Elizabeth HayDavid James HendersonFrederick Henry Graeme HillsRachel Elizabeth LaingVai Paula LeavaiseetaShanelle Renee LovegroveTimothy Richard MacLean

Fiona Louise McCarthyHarold Gregory MillardNeil MistryBianca MuellerAshley James MuirMark Leslie MulhollandDavid Patrick NeildNaomi NguyenHannah Karen NimotMaria OnSimon John PigouAndrew Craig PineChristopher Harvey Ross

ADMISSIONS

WELLINGTON BRANCH AGM

Paul Barnett and Christine Grice.

Ruth Nicholls and new Council member Fleur Rowe.

Marion Sanson and Judith Fyfe.

David Murphy, a former President, new PresidentMark Wilton, and Christine Batt.

Nancy Watters and Margaret Barnett-Davidson. Aaron Martin and Rachael Dewar.

Librarian Robin Anderson and a formerPresident, Richard Fowler.

A bouquet for Nerissa Barber from new President Mark Wiltonas she steps down from the Presidency.

Young Lawyer rep DavidTurner, soon to be on his

way to Harvard Law School.

Applicant Abigail van Echten (right) wasadmitted to the Bar, and Briar Charmley

was her moving counsel.Richard Chiu with his parents Marion and Richard.

David Corry with his father and moving counselChris Corry.

Nerissa Barber speaks to the admittees and their guests atthe social function following the admission ceremonies.

Shanelle Lovegrove with her father and moving counsel, Judge Lovegrove.

last property test. And thingsgenerally only get worse as you leavelaw school – I don’t think I’ve everlived in a flat that didn’t contain amajority of law students.

Socialising with those outside thelaw can open your eyes to newopportunities, new ways of seeingthings and teach you that not every-body who’s interesting and worthtalking to has LLB at the end of theirname. And they might also turn out tobe your future clients! Hence why, on11 August, we throw the doors opento our fellow doctors, engineers,accountants, public servants and

others who care to join us for anevening of food, drink and dancing.So if you’re a young professional inWellington who’s somehow pickedup this copy of Council Brief, comejoin us! Tickets are on sale fromwww.younglawyers.co.nz. I hearthere’s even talk of a Mad Men whis-key bar, just quietly.

*My favourite? A lawyer woke upafter surgery to find all the blinds inhis hospital room drawn. “Why?” heasked the surgeon. “Because there’s abig fire across the street”, the doctorreplied, “and we didn’t want you tothink the operation had been afailure.”

❑ From page 1

Young Lawyers continued

Laura Jane ShieldsPenelope Julia SkinnerAlistair Wallace StewartChristina Marie TayJason John TaylorJames Brannan ThomasKay-Anne Van ZylRyan Pierce VintenTheresa Catherine VonDadelszenDiane Frances WhiteMichael Thomas WittKit Ying Wong

Photos: Hannah Grant

Photos: Rachael Breckon

Page 6 – COUNCIL BRIEF, AUGUST 2012

LOWER HUTT ANNUAL BAR DINNER

Typing pleadings • Opinions • CorrespondenceTranscribing hearings, arbitrations, interviews

Concept Secretarial has the facilities to receive and transcribe

digital voice files via email

CONCEPTSecretarial Services Limited

LEGAL WORD PROCESSING • SECRETARIAL SERVICES

LEVEL 14, 89 THE TERRACE, WELLINGTON Telephone (04) 473-0277 Fax (04) 471-0672

Email: concept.sec@clear.net.nz

Council Brief Advertisingadman@paradise.net.nz

Janine Bonifant and Louise Brown.

Their Honours Judge Walker and Judge Walsh. Her Honour Judge Thomas, Amanda Courtney and Barbara Hunt.

Mark Wilton and Leona McWilliam.

Sheryl Robinson and Rebecca Dickie. Clare Murphy, Amy Scott, Natalie Missen and Gemma Easton.

Rachael Dewar and Eugene Collins.

John Tannahill, Aaron Martin and David Butler.

Rhys Williams, Jennifer Wademan andEdward Cox.

Sarah Sorsby, Sarah Ineson and Nisha Dahya.

Karen Pearce, Joanne Davies, Sam Walkerand Siobhan Simpson.

Ian Avison and Gerard Dewar.

Mark Wilton and Sue Shone.James Young and David Robinson.

Greg King and Rod Gillespie.Paul Logan and Ben Davie.

Nathan Burke, John-Wayne Howell, Chris Nicholls , Michael Moohan.

Pauline Zumbach, Fiona Butland andGareth Round.

Photos: Catherine Mills-King

Gareth Round, Liam Collins, Chris Pointer,Lili-Marina Stanley and Shanna Bolland.

COUNCIL BRIEF, AUGUST 2012 – Page 7

YOUNG LAWYERS

THERE were bears, blind kiwis, lowhumour and high amusement at theannual Young Lawyers’ ComedyDebate hosted at Chapman Trippoffices on 28 June.

The affirmative team of GregRobins, Rachel Ward and MarceloRodriguez-Ferrere tried gamely, de-spite committed histrionics fromMarcelo, to persuade the audiencethat New Zealand should just give up,turn the lights off, and head overseas.

On the other side, MichaelDobson, Nikki Kaye and TomHallett-Hook set the standard fortruly unbearable puns. No oneescaped with dignity intact but plentyof funny bones were tickled pink.

VICTORIA University teams wonboth the Mooting and the ClientInterviewing competitions heldrecently at the Australian LawStudents’ Association Conferencein Melbourne.

Victoria sent teams in all fourmajor competitions – Mooting,Client Interviewing, Negotiationand Witness Examination.

Victoria was the only universityat the conference to have more thanone team in the finals and, bywinning them both, were the onlyuniversity at the conference to winmore than one competition.

The Mooting team consisted ofAlexandra Sinclair, CampbellHerbert and David Hills. The ClientInterviewing team was AdeleTaylor and Elisabeth Perham.

Dean of Law, Professor TonySmith, said Victoria sent over anintelligent, dedicated andpassionate group of young men andwomen. “Credit goes to thecompetitors – aside from beingtalented, they were committed torepresenting the university well.”

Comedydebate

Success for VUWlaw students

Page 8 – COUNCIL BRIEF, AUGUST 2012

Kate Jamieson, WWLA committee members Elizabeth Chan and AliceKranzich, Sarah Jacobs, WWLA commiittee member Catherine Coup,

and Kristen Bunn.

Elizabeth Welson, Hon Susan Glazebrook, Pauline Zumbachand Jane Meares.

Tracey Peters, Robin Peters and Andrea Evans.

Some of the original committee with the Chief Justice: Margaret Powell,Hon Marion Frater, Dame Sian Elias, Ann Wilson and Mary Jeffcoat.

Hon Marion Frater and Ann Wilson.

WELLINGTON WOMEN LAWYERS’ ASSOCIATION

Rae Mazengarb, Helen Cull QC who played a major part in launching theWWLA, Amanda Courtney and Sue Shone.

Leah Johnston, Emma Colligan and Kate Thompson who play together frequently at functions and in theVector Wellington Orchestra. Leah is a member of WWLA.

Grace Rippingale, Maddy Conway and Mary Jeffcoat.

Pauline-Jean Luyten andMadeleine Laracy.

NZ Law Society Library, WellingtonPhone: 04 473 6202

Fax: 04 471 2568

email: wellington@nzlslibrary.org.nz

NZ Law Society – Wellington BranchStaff Directory

Branch Manager: Catherine Harris

Administrator: Claudia Downey

Librarian: Robin Anderson

Research Librarian: Barbara Keenan

Technical Services Librarian: Liz Oliver

Library Assistant/LINX: Julie Kirkland

PO Box 494, WellingtonPhone: 04 472 8978

Fax 04 471 0375

Email: Catherine.Harris@lawsociety.org.nz

Website: www.lawsociety.org.nz

Alexandra Mills-Wallace, Clare Stanley, WWLS committeemember Stephanie Edwards, 2012 WWLS scholarship winner

Fa’alagilagivinna Tuimavave, and Alison Mills.

WWLA convenor Nancy Watters, Mary Scholtens QC andthe Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias.

Pam Davidson and Vicki Owen.

Robin Peters, Margaret Powell and Tracey Peters.

Celebration cake.

A dinner to celebrate 25years of incorporation ofthe Wellington WomenLawyers’ Association

was held at Wharewaka,Wellington, on 20 July.

COUNCIL BRIEF, AUGUST 2012 – Page 9

Professor Tony Smith

By Professor Tony Smith,Dean of Victoria University’s Law School

Victims as ‘experts’ – and the ‘public interest’

VUW LAW FACULTY

Thompson v Commissioner of Inland Revenue – SC 52-11 – Elias CJ; Blanchard;Tipping; McGrath; and William JJ – 10 May 2012GOODS AND SERVICES TAX - deregistration for GST, on the basis taxable suppliesfor succeeding 12 months would be under the registration threshold of $30,000 –cancellation of de-registration by CIR and assessment for output tax on sale of property -whether proceeds of future land sales were required to be taken into account in assessingprospective turnover – s52 Goods and Services Tax Act 1985GOODS AND SERVICES TAXUunsuccessful appeal against decision of CIR setting aside appellant’s deregistration forGST purposes and assessing appellant for output tax on land sales – background –appellant became registered for GST purposes in relation to his then business activitieswhich included the leasing of a property he owned at Rolleston, near Christchurch –appellant de-registered with effect from 30 Nov 1999, on the basis his taxable supplies forthe succeeding 12 months would be under the registration threshold, which was then$30,000 - between Dec 1999 and Sept 2000 appellant disposed of the Rolleston propertypursuant to three sales, two of which were to an associated company - on the basis of hisde-registration, appellant did not account to CIR for output tax on these transactions –CIR subsequently cancelled Nov 1999 de-registration and assessed Mr Thompson foroutput tax on the three sales – appellant’s challenge to CIR decision was successful beforethe Taxation Review Authority, partially successful in the HC, and completelyunsuccessful in the CA – on appeal to SC, appellant accepted that the first of the sales hadbeen “planned” by30 November 1999 and, as such, the CIR was entitled to set aside the30 November 1999 de-registration – appellant maintained that as at 9 February 2000,neither of the remaining sales were “planned” and, as such, the anticipated proceeds ofsale had no bearing on appellant’s entitlement to de-register – appellant also argued that,as at 9 February 2000, the rent to be received over the next 12 months was less than thethreshold - appellant complained about the way in which CA dealt with rental issues - CAsaw appellant as being on the horns of a practically insoluble dilemma in that, at allmaterial times, including as at 31 July 2000, his prospective turnover for the next 12months was either going to exceed $30,000 in rent or as a result of such transactions he

would have to take to divest himself of that rent - whether at the two possible de-registration dates postulated by appellant (namely 9 February and 31 July 2000), theproceeds of future land sales were required to be taken into account in assessingprospective turnover - Lopas v Commissioner of Inland Revenue considered - HELD:s51(1) of the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985 (GST Act) imposed a requirement toregister for GST in relation to a taxable activity when supplies over a 12 month periodexceeded a specified threshold (then $30,000) - those whose supplies were less than thethreshold might become (or remain) registered on a voluntary basis - under s52, theentitlement to de-register rested on a forward-looking assessment that the taxpayer’ssupplies for the succeeding 12 months would not exceed that threshold - business assetsretained by the taxpayer at de-registration were subject to output tax pursuant to s5(3) - inthe case of assets (such as the Rolleston land) which were acquired before 1 October1986, when the GST Act came into effect, output tax was calculated on the lesser of theircost price or open market value under s10(8) – under s6(2) anything done in connectionwith the commencement or termination of a taxable activity was deemed to be carried outin the course or furtherance of that taxable activity – in relation to rental, appellantaddressed the GST practicalities of his relationship with his tenant by issuing the tenantwith GST invoices in the name of another company which, in June 2000, he retrospec-tively interpolated between himself and the tenant - if this retrospective interpolation wasto be allowed for, the actual rent appellant derived for the 12 months following 9February 2000 was the net rent (exclusive of GST) for which that company accounted tohim personally and which was less than $30,000 - CA was wrong in its dilemmaapproach to de-registration as at 31 July 2000 – however, there was rather more difficultyin relation to appellant’s argument for a 9 February 2000 de-registration date - nojustification for an effective de-registration date which preceded Mr Thompson’s June2000 regularisation of his GST affairs - CA in Lopas had held that a proposed disposal ofassets which, in that case, had actually been “planned” at the de-registration date wasrelevant to the s52(2) assessment - on the approach favoured by HCJ, and urged on theCourt by the appellant, the CIR must exclude from the s52(2) assessment the proceeds ofall future land sales, no matter how likely they were to occur, unless they had been

Case summaries based on those written for LINX database. Copies of thejudgments are available from the NZLS High Court Library:

wellington@nzlslibrary.org.nz 64 4 473-6202 o 0800 FORLAW– 0800 36 75 29

THERE hasbeen a growingtendency of latefor the victimsof crimes, theirrelatives andsupporters tobe treated ashaving somespecial insight

into the law’s defects, and whosecalls for reform are worthy ofparticular weight as a result of theirexperiences. The parents of SophieElliott, murdered as the jury foundby Clayton Weatherstone, are anexample of this phenomenon. Thatparticular trial and its aftermath wasthe catalyst for a change – theabolition of the partial defence ofprovocation. This development had,it is fair to say, been mooted inofficial circles for some time, so thatan articulate critic of the law waspushing on an open door so far as theMinister of Justice at the time(Simon Power) was concerned. Lessconvincing are the views of theanguished relatives of a 10-year-oldboy killed as a result of the carelesscustody of firearms who, whenquestioned by the press, expressedthe anguished view that the lawought to be changed to tighten thegun control laws. I fail to see thepoint of this sort of journalism.

More troubling, to me at least,have been the calls for the“abolition” of the right to silence thathave attended the “not guilty”verdict in the trial of EwanMcDonald for the murder of hisbrother-in-law, Scott Guy. I am allfor having an informed and rationaldebate about matters such as these.But I am not sure that this isadvanced by coverage such as theDominion Post story that trumpeted

the results of a vox pop surveypurporting to show what the generalpopulation thought about theinnocence or otherwise of MrMcDonald. What possible publicinterest can there be in ascertainingthat a large percentage (but nothinglike a majority) of the general NewZealand public thought that thedefendant was guilty? These peoplewould have had knowledge of thecase at second and third hand,through the press. The 11 peoplewhose view really counted, and whohad seen the whole of the evidence asit unfolded before them, subject tocareful direction on its significanceby an experienced trial judge,thought otherwise, and that shouldbe an end of the matter. To attempt toundermine the verdict of the jury insuch a way was disappointingjournalism, to say the least. Equallyworrying is the suggestion that, sincethe police have indicated that theyare not pursuing any further leads,the Sensible Sentencing Trust mightdo so, on behalf of the grievingwidow.

I have been watching from adistance the proceedings of theLeveson inquiry into the phonehacking at the News of the World. AnMP at the centre of the concurrentparliamentary inquiry (before whomthe Messrs Murdoch made such verymemorable appearances, has writtena book about the conduct andshortcomings of the press: TomWatson, with Martin Hickman, DialM for Murdoch (2012). It hasbecome abundantly clear that thewrongdoing was not confined to thetwo individuals who were originallyjailed for the hacking, as NewsInternational insisted. Criminalwrongdoing was rife, throughoutmuch of the Fleet Street (London)

press. And hacking was not the halfof it. It has also become apparent thatbribery of public officials (the policein particular but also prison officersand others) was also a routine part ofthe journalistic stock-in-trade.Journalists routinely hired privatedetectives, and it was seizure of theunbelievably detailed records of oneof them (Glenn Mulcaire, who wasone of the two to be jailed so far) thateventually brought the whole edificecrashing to the ground.

The Director of PublicProsecutions has issued an interimguideline to public prosecutors on“assessing the public interest in casesaffecting the media”, which pointsout that there are eight statutes ofwhich journalists might fall foul intheir newsgathering activities, andtwo common law offences. The titleof the paper hints at the real problemthat Lord Justice Leveson faces.Sometimes, investigative journalismis of such importance that the publicinterest is actually served when thelaw is evaded or even broken,certainly the civil law, when privacyis invaded, for example. “Hints”because, in my view, the language of“public interest” is potentially verymisleading in this context. Thepublic is often very interested in thematrimonial affairs of “celebrities”,and newspapers sell well on thestrength of that sort of tittle-tattle.Lawyers know that this is not whatwe mean by the “public interest”, butlay people (and journalists) may wellnot see the fine distinctions that arenecessary.

In New Zealand, the DefamationAct uses the expression “publicconcern”, and I suggest that thequestion of the legal boundaries offreedom of speech and the presswould be far more sensibly

discussed by employing thatterminology, qualifying it perhapsby some word like “legitimate”. Isthe issue that a publication seeks toraise and in the name of which thelaw is stretched or possibly broken,really a matter of legitimate publicconcern? The abuse by Members ofParliament of their expenses, forexample? It would be surprising,given what we now know, if some ofthe laws mentioned in the DPP’sconsultation document were notbroken in the course of that inquiry.But that really was a case where thepublic were entitled to know what

was going on. It was a matter oflegitimate public concern and thelaw should be framed in such a waythat it does not discourage that sortof journalism.

Some of these issues will becanvassed in this year’s Robin CookeLecture, when Lady Justice DameMary Arden is the speaker. The lectureis to take place at the usual venue, theOld Government Buildings, at 5.30pmon Thursday the 13th of December,after which the imminence ofChristmas will be acknowledged in thecustomary way. I hope to see a goodmany of you there.

“planned” - HCJ misinterpreted the judgment in Lopas - although that judgment used theword “planned”, this was in the context of a sale which was planned at the time of de-registration - approach favoured by HCJ did not give effect to the statutory language, apoint which was of controlling significance - under s 6(2), asset sales “in connection withthe ... termination of a taxable activity” were taxable supplies - the disposition by appellantof his Rolleston property was undoubtedly “in connection” with the termination of histaxable activity associated with the leasing of that property - appellant was thus onlyentitled to be de-registered if the CIR could be satisfied that, for the period of 12 monthsfollowing any postulated de-registration date, his turnover, including the possible proceedsof sales of the Rolleston property, would be less than the threshold - on any possibleapproach to the s 52(2) test, it could not be predicated as at 31 July 2000 that there wouldnot be a sale of the land within the next 12 months – it followed appellant was not entitledto be de-registered as at that date and he was rightly assessed for output tax - de-registrationdepended on CIR being “satisfied” that taxable supplies for the next 12 month periodwould not be more than the threshold - it was appreciated that, as a result of Lopas and thisjudgment, de-registering taxpayers would usually take good care that retained assets werenot disposed of until 12 months had elapsed from de-registration- for this reason, therenormally would be, at the date of de-registration, a settled intention that there would be norelevant asset disposals for at least 12 months - and, in at least the general run of cases, itwould be perfectly clear that other taxable supplies would not exceed the threshold - thatsaid, a few comments might be of assistance should issues arise in the future as to theapplication of s52: (a) s52 meant what it said and there was not much point in trying toparaphrase it; - (b) s52 required the CIR to be satisfied as to a negative (that turnover wouldnot exceed the threshold) - this involved an objective, forward-looking assessment, not onecontrolled by hindsight; - (c) the test would not be satisfied when transactions which wouldresult in the turnover being exceeded were either (i) being implemented at the proposed de-registration date, or (ii) planned to occur (or contemplated as likely to occur) in the courseof the succeeding 12 months; - (d) the test would probably be satisfied only where thetaxpayer could show a settled intention that such transactions would not take place – appealdismissed.

THE QS World University Rankings by Subject has placed Victoria’sFaculty of Law as the highest for law in New Zealand, 5th in Australasia and23rd in the world.

The ranking features over 600 universities from 27 countries in the world.With over 50,000 responses from academics and employers, it is the largestsurvey of its kind to date.

The methodology behind each of the 29 subjects ranked is based onacademic reputation, employer reputation, and citations per paper. Theweighting of each criterion varies according to the individual subject ranked.

VUW Law Faculty ranked best in NZ

Page 10 – COUNCIL BRIEF, AUGUST 2012

You can use this diagram for either the Quick or Cryptic Clues, but the answersin each case are different. This month’s solutions are on page 2.

Cryptic CluesDOWN1. She has to be on her toes in her job (6,6)2. The point of a hairstyle being put up (3)3. Awfully hearty, but coarse (6)4. Break down like Coe’s moped perhaps (9)5. Precise former law (5)6. Insensitive to criticism of new kitchen

sink drama at first (5-7)7. Fear upsetting an adder (5)10. Wore scent made from a variety of maize

(5,4)13. A long way to go for a man (5)14. A number able to hear a bird (6)16. Said to look like egg white (5)20. A pound for a priest’s garment (3)

ACROSS1. An edible cat cooked as part of a regi-

men (8,4)7. Exclude bread perhaps (5)8. Train or part of a train (5)9. Find a girl the day before (3)10. New catechism in the form of a plan (9)11. Terribly odd jewel found on a bumper

car (6)12. A man’s universe (6)15. Bothering to order some bedwear (5,4)17. A Hawaiian garland or the French one

(3)18. Taking an age to find a muse (5)19. Leather overalls for men (5)21. Evening clothes accessory (7,5)

COUNCIL BRIEF CROSSWORD

Quick CluesDOWN1. Distressing (5-7)2. Regret (3)3. Inter (6)4. Balance (9)5. Eye-socket (5)6. Spread-out (12)7. Dazzle (5)10. Ever louder (9)13. Orb (5)14. Neglect (6)16. Repose (5)20. Fuss (3)

ACROSS1. Great stress (12)7. Visitor (5)8. Stroll (5)9. Beverage (3)10. Guild (9)11. Team (6)12. Dwarf (6)15. List (9)17. Eggs (3)18. Thread (5)19. Scrape (5)21. Exorbitant (12)

Will Notices page 12in this issue

COMMUNITY LAW CENTRE

THERE have been big changes tothe way Community Law works inthe Hutt Valley. We need you tohelp us by:• Giving us feedback and

suggestions• Letting us know if you would

like to volunteer for CommunityLaw, including at RimutakaPrison

• Publicising the changes.Please read on to find out what is

new and how you can help.On 1 July 2012, the Hutt Valley

Community Law Centre mergedwith the Wellington CommunityLaw Centre. To reflect our newjoint operations, we have a newlogo (which mirrors the nationalCommunity Law brand), and a newname: Community Law Wellingtonand Hutt Valley. We have onewebsite: www.wclc.org.nz, and acohesive programme of in-houseand outreach free legal adviceclinics.

Now, about a month into ournew and improved joint services,we’re thrilled to announce that thefull range of community legalservices are up and runningthroughout the Hutt Valley, that allstaff are now on board, and that ourtwo offices have established a closeand positive working relationship.

Our governing board hasrepresentatives from both theWellington and Hutt Valleycommunities, and our singlemanagement structure aims toenhance efficiency and consistencyfor community legal servicesacross both areas. The Te AwaKairangi office is still operating at59 Queens Drive, Lower Hutt, withoverall management services beingprovided from Wellington.

This merger was partly inresponse to the Ministry ofJustice’s decision that in the nearfuture, free community legalservices, which are funded by theMinistry, must go out forcompetitive tender. We hope that astronger regional grouping willbetter position Community LawWellington and Hutt Valley tosecure our place in this newcompetitive environment.

Introducing new staffWe acknowledge all the

previous staff, volunteers andmanagement who provided legalservices to the Hutt ValleyCommunity Law Centre.

We are excited to announce thatthe Maori Legal Service teamwhich has been working from theWellington office has beensignificantly expanded, allowingKaupapa Maori legal services todevelop freely and equally betweenWellington and Te Awa Kairangi.Staff in this team working from theTe Awa Kairangi office are:Everard Halbert, Kaiako HaporiCommunity Education Worker(Rongowhakaata)

Everard will be coordinating anddelivering Kaupapa Maori legaleducation across Te Awa Kairangi.Everard has nearly completedprofessional legal studies, and hasseveral years experience inworking with at-risk youth in theWellington region and Hutt Valley.Vicki Te Wano, Kaiako HaporiCommunity Education (TeAtihaunui-a-Paparangi, NgatiRaukawa, Ngati Tuwharetoa)

Vicki comes to the Te AwaKairangi office with an extensivebackground working withvulnerable families as a socialworker. Vicki has been workingamong other communities for over13 years before moving toWellington for this role.Nadine Warbrick, Roia HaporiCommunity Lawyer (Te Arawa,Tuwharetoa)

Nadine was previously workingwith the Hutt Valley CommunityLaw Centre and has lived in theHutt Valley her entire life, as haveher parents and grandparents.Nadine brings her experience fromprivate law firms, public andprivate organisations.

We also have staff working ingeneralist legal services:Rosie Jimson-Healey, VolunteerCoordinator and AdministrativeSupport

Rosie is our highly proficientvolunteer coordinator andadministrator. She has experiencein advocacy for human rights and is

passionate about working for theHutt Valley community.Hannah Northover, ManagingLawyer

Hannah has come from her roleas community lawyer at theWellington office, and before thatworked at Chapman Tripp. Inrecent years she has coordinated theWellington Prison roster, and nowin Te Awa Kairangi she is keen towork with others to make free legaladvice more available at RimutakaPrison.Kate Scarlet, Community Lawyerand Community Education Worker

Kate is an experienced advocatefor youth, employees and theenvironment. Kate was a volunteerand then part-time advocate at theWellington office. Among otherprojects, Kate helped establish avolunteer team to support studentsfacing suspension and expulsion atschool, and brings this same driveto her work at Te Awa Kairangi.

All staff are excited aboutworking together with Hutt Valleycommunity organisations, to bringearly resolution, preventativeservices and more legal educationfor Hutt Valley whanau andcommunities.

New in-house and outreach freelegal advice clinics

We have adjusted the way legalclinics operate in the Hutt Valley.

Previously, clients had to calland book an appointment. Now,

clients do not need to book – thesessions operate as ‘drop-insessions’ – and clients do need tocome within these times in order toreceive the appropriate legalservices. We also encourage peopleto call in advance, to help ourlawyers prepare for the interview.

Hutt Valley free legal adviceschedule:General Free Legal Advice services(in-house at 59 Queens Drive)

• Monday 10am-12pm• Tuesday 5pm-7pm• Wednesday 12pm-2pm• Thursday 12pm-2pm

Specialist Free Legal Adviceservices (in-house at 59 QueensDrive)

• Family: Monday 10-12pm• Employment: Tuesday 5-7pm

and Thursday 12-2pm• Refugee and Immigration:

Wednesday 12-2pm• Advice for Women: Friday 12-

1pm• Parents Legal Information on

School Issues (PLINFO), andSuspension Support Team: 24hours (0800 499 488)

• Advice for community groups:By appointment

Outreach Free Legal Advice• Upper Hutt

Upper Hutt Library, 844Fergusson Drive, Upper Hutt.Every Monday, 2-3pm

• NaenaeNaenae Library, Hilary CourtEvery Tuesday, 2pm–3pm

• WainuiomataWainuiomata CommunityHouse, Queen St. EveryWednesday, 11am–1pm

• Seaview, Lower HuttKokiri Marae (Maori LegalServices), 7-9 Barnes Street,Seaview, Lower Hutt. 1st and3rd Thursday of every month,9.30am-12pm.

The Te Awa Kairangi office willalso continue and expand our legaloutreach to Rimutaka Prison.

The Te Awa Kairangi office isready and available to provide legaleducation to the community. If youhave a client or know of acommunity group in the Hutt

Valley who would benefit fromlegal education, please feel free torefer them to the Te Awa Kairangioffice.

We need help promoting thesechanges to the services available inTe Awa Kairangi. Please check outour websites:www.communitylaw.org.nz andwww.wclc.org.nzand include us in any panui yourorganisation sends out to peoplewho may benefit from theseservices.

We need you in the Hutt!There are fewer lawyers in the

Hutt Valley than in Wellington,and, as far as we can tell, just asmuch need for community legalservices. If you practise in the HuttValley, we are keen to meet you, assomeone to refer to and/or as avolunteer. If you commute fromthe Hutt Valley, please considerwhether you could volunteer at anevening session. And if you workin Wellington and are willing tomake a 10-minute drive atlunchtime, come to visit us andcheck out the Dowse. Weencourage volunteers at any stageof their study/career (legal andnon-legal) at the Te Awa Kairangioffice. We would particularlyappreciate volunteer supportduring clinic times, but we are alsointerested in hearing from lawyerswho can provide ad-hoc assistance.Please email rosie@wclc.org.nzfor more information.He aha o koutou whakaaro? Wewant to know what you think.

Ongoing and extensivecommunity consultation will bevital to ensure services remaineffective and relevant. We are veryinterested to hear frompractitioners and other communitymembers to find out what isworking and what you think couldbe working better. Email:hannah@wclc.org.nz with yourcomments, questions or ideas.

-

MADESIGNm

Answers for puzzles from page 4

1 (a) cars being a letter less thanscars (which is a kind of mark):

(b) crews being a letter less thanscrews (which is a kind offastener):

(c) unions being a letter less thanbunions (which is a kind of soretoe):

(d) ushers being a letter less thanpushers (which is a kind ofdealer):

(e) pals being a letter less thanopals (which is a kind of agem).

2 1 QxRg8+ KxQg8 2 Rh8+ KxRh8 3Bf7#

Te Awa Kairangi office opens! Community Law in the Hutt Valley

-

-

- - --

-

-

-

-

-

-

COUNCIL BRIEF, AUGUST 2012 – Page 11

COUNCIL BRIEFThe monthly newspaper of theWellington Branch NZ Law Society

Advertising Rates: casual or contract rates on application. Telephone Robin

Reynolds, Reynolds Advertising, Kapiti Coast (04) 902 5544, e-mail:

adman@paradise.net.nz. Rates quoted exclude GST.

Advertising Deadline: for the September 2012 issue is Monday August 20, 2012.

Circulation: 3150 copies every month except January. Goes to all barristers and

solicitors in the Wellington, Marlborough, Wairarapa, and Manawatu areas. Also

goes to many New Zealand law firms, to law societies, universities, judicial officers,

and others involved in the administration of justice.

Will Notices: $57.50 GST inclusive for each insertion.

Subscriptions: Annual subscription $46.00 incl. GST. Extra copies $5.00 each.

Subscription orders and inquiries to: The Branch Manager, New Zealand Law Society

Wellington Branch, P.O. Box 494, Wellington.

Editor: Chris Ryan, telephone 472 8978, (06) 378 7431 or 027 255 4027

E-mail: chrisr@wise.net.nz

Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the NZ Law Society Wellington Branch or the Editor.

Council Brief is published for the NZ Law Society Wellington Branch

by Chris Ryan, and printed by APN Print, Wanganui.

THE WIZARD OF ID

NEWS

Conferences10 August 2012 – Tiger Parents? The Politicsof Chinese foreign direct investment in theEuropean Union, Wellington. NZ Centre ofInternational Economic Law, VUW 9.00am-12.30pm.

August 23-25 2012 – Doing Justice forYoung People – Issues and Challenges forJudicial Administration, Australasian Insti-tute of Judicial Administration, Brisbane.www.aija.org.au

August 24-26 2012 – New Zealand Bar Asso-ciation Annual Conference, Melbourne.www.nzbar.org.nz

August 29-31 2012 – Law and Culture 2012:Pacific Law and New Zealand/Aotearoa,Law Faculty, University of Auckland.law-pacific-conference@auckland.ac.nz

September 6-9 2012 – World IndigenousLawyers’ Conference, hosted by Te Hunga RoiaMaori o Aotearoa, University of Waikato, Ham-ilton. www.maorilawsociety.co.nz

September 12-16 2012 – Criminal Law2012: 13th International Criminal Law Con-gress, Queenstown. www.crimlaw2012.com

September 23-27 2012 – 21st InternationalSymposium on the Forensic Sciences,ANZFSS, Hobart. www.anzfss2012.com.au

September 30-October 5 2012 – IBA An-nual Conference, Dublin. www.ibanet.orgOctober 3-5 2012 – Australia and New Zea-land Education Law Association, Rotorua.www.anzela.edu.auOctober 17-19 2012 – Australian and NewZealand Sports Law Association (ANZSLA)conference, Perth. www.anzsla.comOctober 26-27 2012 – Christian LawyersConference, Parliament Buildings, Welling-ton. http://christianlawyers.org.nzNovember 14-16 2012 – 10th WorldConference of the International OmbudsmanInstitute, Wellington. www.confer.co.nz/wcioiNovember 18-21 2012 – 25th LawasiaConference, Bali, Indonesia.http://lawasia.asn.au/lawasia-conferences.htmNovember 22-24 2012 – Inaugural Asia/Oceania Travel, Tourism & Hospitality LawConference, Perth. www.lawconferences.com.auNovember 25-27 2012 – 3rd Asia PacificRegional Forum Conference, IBA AsiaPacific Regional Forum, Kuala Lumpur.www.ibanet.orgApril 14-18 2013 – Commonwealth LawConference, Cape Town, South Africa.Commonwealth Lawyers Association.www.componwealthlaw2013.org

The Law and Economics Association of New Zealand Association(LEANZ) recently presented scholarships for study in law andeconomics. Sarah Leslie of Crown Law (top picture) was awarded aFriedlander Foundation Scholarship to assist with her LLM studies atColumbia. Katrina Winsor (lower picture), was awarded a C WMaughan Senior Scholarship to study law and economics. Katrinahas an LLM from the University of Auckland and is a PhD student atVUW Law Faculty and undertook a further LLM level paper in lawand economics taught by Dr George Barker at the University ofAuckland. The patron of LEANZ, The Rt Hon Sir Ivor Richardson,congratulated both winners.The association awards scholarships of up to $10,000 to membersundertaking study in law and economics with a view to teaching inNew Zealand. LEANZ also holds regular evening seminars inWellington and Auckland. See www.leanz.org.nz

Graduating Wellington-based legal executives were presented with their certificates recently by Hon Justice Kós. From left:Lynette Rogers, Arama Eruera, Jennifer Hanson, Elizabeth Masterton, Alice Greer, Kim Alexander, Lauren-Beth Miles, Shona

Russell, Hon Justice Kós, Jasmine Barley, Hope Johnson, Amanda Persen, Liz Newton, Ruth Paton and Elaine Carr.

Top Wellington graduate, Hope Johnson, was presented with a NZ Institute ofLegal Executives prize by Hon Justoce Kós. Hope was also awarded a certificate

for achieving top mark in the country for business law and practice.

Tiger Parents? Thepolitics of Chinese

foreign directinvestment in

the European UnionA symposium presented by theNew Zealand Centre ofInternational Economic Law onthe above subject will be heldon 10 August at the VUW LawSchool.

The keynote address will bepresented by Sophie Meunier,research scholar in theWoodrow Wilson School ofPublic and International Affairsat Princeton University and co-director of the European UnionProgram at Princeton. She is theauthor of Trading Voices:The European Union inInternational CommercialNegotiations (PrincetonUniversity Press, 2005) andco-author of The FrenchChallenge: Adapting to Global-ization (with Philip Gordon,Brookings Institution Press,2001), winner of the 2002France-Ameriques book award.

Other contributors include:Amokura Kawharu, Universityof Auckland, DanielKalderimis, Partner, ChapmanTripp, Penelope Ridings,Director Legal Division,Ministry of Foreign Affairs andTrade, and Monique Egli Costi,Victoria University VisitorsProgramme.

The symposium will be held inLecture Theatre 3, RutherfordHouse, 23 Lambton Quay,Wellington, on 10 August 2012from 9.00am to 12.30pm.

Christian Lawyers ConferenceThe 2012 Christian Lawyers Conference will be held atParliament Buildings, Wellington, on the afternoon of Friday 26and all day Saturday 27 October 2012.

The theme of the conference will be ‘Recovering the CommonGood’

Speakers from New Zealand and Australia will take partincluding Tim Costello, Baptist minister and CEO ofWorld Vision Australia, Rob Harley and Rod Oram.

The conference is to be co-hosted by The ChristianLawyers Association (Wellington) and the OtagoSchool of Theology and Public Issues.

Look out for news on internet booking over the nextmonth or so.

Tim Costello

Council Brief Advertisingadman@paradise.net.nz

Page 12 – COUNCIL BRIEF, AUGUST 2012

Council

Brief

Advertising

adman@paradise.net.nz

FORTUNE, Gordon TrevorLate of 14A Gascoigne Strreet,Blenheim. Single. Age 61.Journalist and photographer.Born 26 January 1950.Died at Blenheim 10 August 2011.Public Trust (Michele Cairns)PO Box 31446, Lower HuttDX RP42084Tel 04 978 4872 Fx 04 978 4931Michele.Cairns@publictrust.co.nz

HOBBS, Michael AlanLate of 79 Wyndrum Avenue,Waterloo, Lower Hutt.Died on 4 July 2012.O’Regan Arndt Peters & Evans(Tom Peters)PO Box 5176, Wellington 6145DX SP22515Tel 04 473 7700 Fax 04 473 0022tompeters@oreganarndt.co.nz

HOLYOAKE, MaryLate of 34 Barber Grove,Moera, Lower Hutt.Retired. Divorced. Age 93.Born 18 September 1918.Died at Lower Hutt 30 May 2012.Public Trust (Jessica Williams)PO Box 31446, Lower HuttDX RP42084Tel 04 978 4849 Fx 04 978 4931Jessica.Williams@publictrust.co.nz

KUPA, Merry Miliama (née Baker)AKA: Merry Miliama Baker-Kupa &Mary Miriama KupaLate of Stokes Valley, Lower Hutt.Died on 12 May 2012, aged 40.Collins & May Law (Amy Haste)PO Box 30 614, Lower Hutt 5040Tel 04 576 1412 Fax 04 566 5776amy@collinsmay.co.nz

■ The charge for publishing a will noticeis now $57.50 including GST. Pleasesend payment with your notice.

■ Will notices should be sent to the BranchManager, NZ Law Society WellingtonBranch, PO Box 494, Wellington.

Please contact the solicitorsconcerned if you are holding a will

for any of the following:

FOR URGENT ACTION

WILLENQUIRIES

For infoon theLawRevuesee page1 in thisissue ofCouncilBrief

AS Barclays Bank moves to stem the fallout caused by its roguetraders, Stagecraft is bringing the New Zealand premiere of stageshow, Enron, to Wellington.

Enron tells the story of the spectacular rise and dramatic fall of theTexan energy, commodities and services company. Co-directors PaulKay and Joy Hellyer say the story of Enron is, in essence, a well-known one about the illusion of success, the power of greed and thedangers of corporate life.

“What we particularly liked is the balance of a central dramaamong the key players at Enron with a very stylised and hugelyentertaining depiction of all the other figures who supported or wereaffected by the fraud. So for instance Arthur Andersen, theaccountancy firm, is depicted as a ventriloquist and his dummy.”

Paul, who works in a senior management role for one of

Chance for Wellingtonians to see London hit play on rise and fall of EnronWellington’s major law firms, says the subject matter is particularlyrelevant in Wellington which houses New Zealand’s regulators aswell as the head offices for many energy, law and accountancy firms.

“The behaviour at Enron was absolutely shocking but all thosearound them also contributed to the bubble of perceived success. Andwe’re not immune to this in New Zealand – think of all the financecompany collapses where trustees, auditors and financial analysts allfailed to see through what was going on. And now we see it again inthe UK – lessons really haven’t been learned.”

Enron is on at the Gryphon Theatre, 22 Ghuznee Street and runsfrom 1 to 11 August with tickets $22 or $20. Group bookingsdiscounts are available. Booking fees may apply.

Bookings can be made at www.stagecraft.co.nz or ph 0508iticket(0508 484253)