Canterbury tales

Canterbury Westland Branch New Zealand Law Society May 2014, Vol. 20, No. 4

Canterbury tales

JPs meet the judiciary

Notice is hereby given that the biennial general meeting of the Canterbury WestlandBranch, New Zealand Law Society, will be held on Thursday 26 June 2014 at 5pm atthe West Wing, Lone Star Restaurant, corner Waimairi and Riccarton Roads,Christchurch.Nominations are called for the following positions:President (1).Vice-president (1).Council members (7).Nomination forms have gone out in the weekly notices.If you have not received a nomination form then please contact the branch office on:Phone — 366-9184.Address — PO Box 565, Christchurch 8140.Email — canterbury-westland@lawsociety.org.nz.

Malcolm Ellis, Branch Manager

Branch BGM next month

By Rebecca Ardaghand Sophie Goodwin

It has been another exciting monthfor the Junior Practit ionersCommittee and we have a numberof new interesting projects andevents coming up.On Friday 9 May the JPs held their Cocktailswith the Judiciary event, which sold out veryquickly. At this event junior practitioners got tomix and mingle with Judge O’Driscoll, JudgeSaunders, Judge Walsh, Judge Callaghan,Associate Judge Matthews, Judge Kellar, HonJustice Gendall, Hon Justice Dunningham,Coroner McElrea and Coroner Johnson.It was great to see so many representatives ofthe judiciary supporting this event and gettingto know the junior practitioners, who were alsoon fire that evening. The warm and friendlymanner of the judiciary will no doubt have puta few junior litigators at ease by the time thenext List rolls around.This event was kindly hosted by Blax EspressoBar, who provided us with delicious food andcocktails for the evening. The JP’s committeeis extremely grateful to Blax for hosting thisevent and for all of the work they did on thenight.If anyone is in or around Victoria Street wewould strongly recommend that you pop intoBlax for your coffee and a date scone — wewill probably see you there.We would also like to thank our kind sponsors,Wynn Williams, for making this event possible.The JPs are planning to host a BYO for juniorpractitioners on 4 July, so block out your diariesand standby for details of our next event inCanterbury Tales or Canterbury WestlandBranch notices.The JPs have also launched a new initiativecalled “Bridging the Gap”, which is a mentoringprogramme connecting junior practitioners withcurrent law students in the area. We stronglyencourage any junior practitioners in practiceto contact the junior practitioners committee atcanterburyjps@gmail.com, advising of yourareas of practice or interest and the number ofyears experience that you have.Once you do so, the Junior Practitioners’Committee will pair you with a mentor at theCanterbury Law School that you can guide and

provide support to as they move toward thenext stage of their career.This programme does not impose a burdenon mentors, only requiring that you catch upfor coffee or some other such beverage as oftenas you would like. It is not expected that anymentor will provide tutoring, counselling or berequired to act as recruiting agent for thementor and is a great opportunity for juniorpractitioners in their first few years of practiceto support the future members of theprofession.

Programmes such as this have been verysuccessful elsewhere and we would love forthe Canterbury programme to take them all bystorm. To top it all off this programme will belaunched with a spectacular launch eventduring which you will mingle with other juniorpractitioners and enjoy some free food anddrink in classic JP’s style.We look forward to seeing everyone at theJunior Practitioners’ BYO and hearing from youall when you register to become mentors forthe Bridging the Gap programme.

Judge Callaghan with Ben McCall, from Wynn Williams, and Maddie Dawe, from LaneNeave.

Canterbury tales2 Canterbury tales2

President’s ColumnVino FinoPhoto Caption

The winning entry for the last month’s picture(below) was submitted by Andrew Huntley.

“Time for this morning’s facebookselfie...Damn, lookin good...!”

Each month we have a photo captioncompetition where we invite you to submit acaption. The winner will receive two bottles ofwine sponsored by Vino Fino (www.vinifinoco.nz,188 Durham Street).Send your entry to the Canterbury WestlandBranch New Zealand Law Society, P. O. Box565, Christchurch. Or email to canterbury-westland@lawsociety.org.nz. All entries must bereceived by June 9 2014. The winner will beannounced in the next edition of CanterburyTales.

Dear Colleagues,I have been surprised by a recent articlepublished on the NZ Lawyer website on 14 April2014 headed “ADLS — Why New ZealandLawyers Need Us”.I hope you have not read this. The openingparagraph states — “When the Lawyers andConveyancers Act 2006 came into effect,naming the New Zealand Law Society soleregulator of the legal profession, localised lawsocieties around the country closed their doorsfor good”.And further in the article a reference is madeto outreach programmes where the CEO of theADLS is quoted as saying, “The initial focus hasbeen in the Christchurch/Canterbury area wherelawyers have a need for additional supportfollowing the disruption of the earthquakes”.The first comment that needs to be made isthat the Canterbury Westland Branch never shutits doors. The team of dedicated and skilful staffled by the loud Malcolm Ellis has not paused,nor has Malcolm Ellis got any quieter. It hasalways been business as usual.The second comment is that there is aperception that we have need for additionalsupport. Would not we all say in response tothat we have learned to look after each otheras well as ourselves?We were comforted by the extreme forms ofleadership by our then master Allister Davis atthe time when all was in disarray. He helpedour profession to have a clear idea as to howto restore the provision of justice to ourcommunity. Was not it the New Zealand LawSociety National Office in Wellington on behalfof the Canterbury Westland Branch who madecontact with us to make sure that we were aliveand unharmed?Allister Davis (who must have worked in somecases almost 24 hours a day) ensured that wewere as fully informed as possible about whatour futures could look like and where we couldplay our part in assisting other practitioners.The really serious question to be asked is whatgoes on in the minds of the Northern lattedrinkers? We may not get a prompt or accurateanswer on that so let’s go to the local awardsfor this month:Alan Bruce — a lifetime achievement award.Many years ago Alan (a devout man) decidedto give up for the season of lent any meaningfulexercise in daily life. Such was the feeling ofgreat contentment that Alan decided to convertthis into a vow for life.He was only known to breach the vow when,during one of those haphazard aftershocks, hesprinted across his kitchen to catch a bottle offine pinot noir before it hit the floor. I am toldthat he is still in recovery.On this occasion Ms Di Shirtcliff (a womanwhose hat never seems to run out of rabbits)will loan to Alan her original tape of thesoundtrack to “Chariots of Fire” when Alanrequests it.

Clare Yardley (obviously a favourite of theacademy) — nominated this time for bestpsycho horror part in a scene set some yearsago before the invention of the security toasterthat most of us have to subject our internalorgans to before we can enter Court. A casewas to be called in the No. 1 list Court involvinga gang confrontation.Police were stationed inside and around theCourt entrance for frisk searching. Ms Yardleypresented herself to a constable who hadmistakenly taken Ms Yardley to be a good andvirtuous woman (he was very young). He wavedher through the cordon unsearched. Ms Yardleywas profoundly disappointed and whilestamping her tender foot said, “Constable Idemand a full body search”. The fresh-facedconstable turned crimson, clearly traumatisedand obviously hoping that this was a call wellbeyond his duty.Best stage name — My attention was recentlydrawn by a fellow practitioner to a name in thedaily Court list for the No 1 Court. The namewas Finnie MacDougall Laphroiag. Surprisinglyhe faced an excess breath alcohol charge.Until next time.

Colin Eason

Canterbury tales 3

Tale of a migrant woman

Canterbury Tales is the official newsletter ofthe Canterbury Westland Branch New ZealandLaw Society.Publications Committee: Karen Feltham(editor), Brendan Callaghan, Aliza Eveleigh,Zylpha Kovacs and Kate Dougherty.All correspondence and photographs shouldbe forwarded to: The Branch Manager,Canterbury-Westland Branch New ZealandLaw Society, Unit 1, 8 Homersham Place,Russley, Christchurch. P. O. Box 565Christchurch.Phone 358-3147, fax 358-3148. emailcanterbury-westland@lawsociety.org.nz.Canterbury Tales is published 11 times peryear. The deadline for editorial andphotographs is the 8th of the month.Disclaimer: Canterbury Tales is published bythe Canterbury Westland Branch New ZealandLaw Society. The opinions expressed hereinmay not necessarily be those of the Branchand have not been expressly authorised. TheBranch accepts no responsibility whatsoeverfor any error, omission or statement.

By Kamil Lakshman

It was winter of 1999. Movina (nother real name) had just arrived inNew Zealand with a young one anda new born. Movina had a bachelorof science in chemistry from areputable university in India but hadlimited English skills.Movina accompanied her husband to NewZealand when he was granted residency onthe basis of being a chef. On arrival, she had alimited social circle and no family. Her husbandworked long hours. Her baby suffered fromcolic, money was scarce so she had to bealways very careful with it.She was home alone with the children for longperiods, had no one to talk to and when herhusband got home from work, he was alwaysvery tired. Monday was the only day sheinteracted with the outside world because thatwas her husband’s day off.Movina did not know where to go, what to do.She was a prisoner in her own home. She was

lonely, depression was setting in, and life wasnot as rosy as she had thought it would be inthis foreign land which was to be her newhome. Then she found she was pregnant again.She was barely coping with being a mother oftwo and had few parenting skills.Her husband was nice but was of little help ashe expected her to manage it all. He held theview that a woman’s place was in the home tolook after the family and listen to her husband.He was out of touch with her wants, needs,dreams and aspirations. She conveyed he hadcontrolling tendencies, was suspicious andbehaved jealously. He did not approve of herconnecting with anyone else.So life was not easy. Movina so very muchwanted a happy existence, a united family andultimately she wanted to do well. Movinawanted to learn English, as she knew this wasthe key to her survival. She wanted to earnmoney, she loved the way the ladies dressedhere, the way they put makeup on but sheknew her husband did not approve. She wasin a hurry to learn fast and nothing was goingto stop her.It was then we got connected through avolunteer organisation I had just started calledMAMTA — an Asian women’s support group.The thinking of this group was that the womanis the glue in the family and if she is supportedand empowered then the family greatlybenefits, as in turn does society, the countryand the world at large.The group appreciated that there were manyvaluable services available but they are notalways accessible to the intended audience. Itis not that help is not available, but rather thatmigrant women such as Movina are not awareof it. Movina was lucky to find it.One service not available then — ‘LanguageLine’ administered by the Office of Ethnic Affairs— is now available free to any organisation.This is particularly useful for lawyers if Englishis the client’s second language and if the lawyeris unsure whether the client or their spouse

fully understands the matter being discussed.Movina and I used to talk over the phone inHindi and English; she took to English like fishto water. I connected her to the many servicesthat were available despite her husband’sdisapproval which somewhat subsided when Imet him and he learned that I was not tryingto influence her against him or break up theirfamily unit.Movina was introduced to MCLaSS, amulticultural learning and support service in theWellington region, where she received formalEnglish lessons and was able to master thelanguage. She learnt parenting skills throughhelp offered by Plunket, was connected to theCity Mission which assessed that she had somefamily issues and assisted her in these.Movina eventually undertook a Barnadoscourse relating to childcare in the home. Iattended her graduation. It was a very proudmoment for her, her husband had a big grin.She made friends and started learning the NewZealand way, the lingo. Her confidence grew.She started looking after other children in herown home which gave her an income stream,she helped her husband to buy a business,learned how to drive.Recently I received a call from Movina askingme which website she could refer, toincorporate a company. I put the phone downwith a smile. What a journey!Therefore, for some women, the challengeshave a different face; the aspirations to betreated equally are a far cry from the immediateissues of survival in a foreign country.Hopefully a day will come in the near futurethat these challenges will be overcome andshe will be in a space of an even playing field.A world where we are all equal, gender, race,religion, social standing is an issue of the past,where there is understanding that we areinterconnected, interdependent and part of oneglobal community, where the good of one isthe good of all.

Continued Page 11

Canterbury tales2 Canterbury tales4

Case summaries (72)New Zealand’s legal research tool

Environmental DefenceSociety Inc v New ZealandKing Salmon Co Ltd, Elias CJ,McGrath, Will iam Young,Glazebrook & Arnold JJ, SupremeCourt, 17 April 2014, [2014] NZSC38RESOURCE MANAGEMENT —PLANNING — CIVIL PROCEDURE(3 Supreme Court decisions issued

together)Successful appeal by Environmental DefenceSociety (EDS) against decision of Board ofInquiry (Board) granting plan changes andresource consents for salmon farming inMarlborough - protection of areas ofoutstanding natural character (ONC) andoutstanding natural landscape (ONL) in thecoastal environment - Board’s decision grantedplan changes to Marlborough Sounds ResourceManagement Plan (2003) changing salmonfarming from prohibited to discretionary activityin four locations - resource consents grantedin relation to four sites subject to detailedconditions of consent - appeal related to oneof plan changes at Papatua in Port Gore - appealheard with appeal by Sustain Our Sounds Incwhich challenged all four plan changesprincipally based on issues of water quality - inconsidering whether to grant application Boardrequired to “give effect to” the New ZealandCoastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) - Boardaccepted that Papatua was area of ONC andONL and proposed salmon farm would have

significant adverse effects on natural characterand landscape and that Policy 13(1)(a) andPolicy 15(a) NZCPS (together the Policies)would not be complied with if plan changegranted - plan change however granted onbasis: - (i) Policies had to be given considerableweight but were not determinative and Boardwas required to give effect to NZCPS “as awhole”; - (ii) Board was required to reach an“overall judgment” on application in light ofprinciples in pt2 Resource Management Act1990 (the Act) and s5 in particular; - (iii) norequirement for consideration of alternativeswhen dealing with site specific plan changeapplication (Brown v Dunedin City Council) -“overall judgment” approach upheld by HC indismissing appeals - HCJ also held that Boarddid not commit an error of law in rejectingrequirement to consider alternative locations(adopting approach in Meridian Energy vCentral Otago District Council) - approvedappeal questions: - (a) whether Board’sapproval of the Papatua plan change was onemade contrary to s66 and s67 of the Actthrough misinterpretation and misapplicationof Policies 8, 13 and 15 of the New ZealandCoastal Policy Statement: - (i) whether onproper interpretation NZCPS had standardswhich must be complied with in relation tooutstanding coastal landscape and naturalcharacter areas and if so, whether the Papatuaplan change complied with s67(3)(b) becauseit did not give effect to Policies; - (ii) whetherthe Board properly applied the provisions ofthe Act and need to give effect to the NZCPSunder s67(3)(b) in coming to a “balancedjudgment” or assessment “in the round” inconsidering conflicting policies; - (b) whetherthe Board was obliged to consider alternativesites when determining site specific planchange that was located in or did not avoidsignificant adverse effects on ONL or featureor ONC area within the coastal environment -EDS argued: - (i) analysis was incorrect andBoard had erred in law; - (ii) finding that Policieswould not be given effect to if plan changegranted meant application in relation to Papatuahad to be refused - fundamental issue whetherthe “overall judgment” approach applied byBoard was consistent with legislative frameworkgenerally and NZCPS in particular or whetheras EDS argued there was an “environmentalbottom line” in this case as result of languageof the Policies - specific issues included: - (i)nature of obligation to “give effect to” theNZCPS; - (ii) meaning of “avoid” and“inappropriate” - protection of the environmentconsidered core element of sustainablemanagement - comparison between“environmental bottom line” and “overalljudgment” approaches in early jurisprudenceunder the Act - “give effect to” meant“implement” and was strong directive creatingfirm obligation which would be affected by whatit related to and was intended to constrain

decision makers - “inappropriate” should beinterpreted in s6(1), s6(b) and s6(f) againstthe back drop of what was sought to beprotected or preserved - SC rejected “overalljudgment” approach in relation toimplementation of NZCPS - protection of areasof ONC from adverse effects was an“environmental bottom line” by reason ofNZCPS to which Board was required to giveeffect under s67(3)(b) - Parliament hadprovided for hierarchy of planning documentsto flesh out principles in s5 and remainder ofpt2 in manner that was increasingly detailedboth as to content and location - thosedocuments provided basis for decision making- NZCPS was an instrument at top of hierarchyand contained objectives and policies intendedto give substance to principles in pt2 in relationto coastal environment - discussion of Brownin relation to need to consider alternatives -HELD : (1) (majority, Will iam Young Jdissenting) plan change in relation to Papatuadid not comply with s67(3)(b) of the Act as itdid not give effect to Policy 13(1)(a) and Policy15(a) NZCPS - Policies were strongly wordeddirectives that had been carefully crafted andhad undergone intensive process of evaluationand public consultation - Board was obliged todeal with the application in terms of the NZCPS- given Board’s findings in relation to the Policiesthe plan change should not have been granted;- (William Young J, dissenting) Policies 13 and15 on one hand and Policy 8 on other werenot inconsistent but required assessment asto whether salmon farm at Papatua wasappropriate - such assessment required Boardto take into account and balance the conflictingconsiderations and form broad judgment -decision that salmon farm at Papatua wasappropriate not inconsistent with the Policies

Continued Page 10

MEDIATION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION SKILLS

Recognised internationally for the quality of our mediation and dispute

resolution skills training, LEADR specialises in experiential learning.

5 Day Mediation Workshops

Dunedin: 13 – 17 May

Auckland: 29 July - 2 Aug Christchurch: 12 – 16 Aug

Wellington: 9 – 13 Sept Auckland: 4 - 8 Nov

For fees and registration details,

contact 0800 453237, leadr@leadr.co.nz www.leadr.co.nz

Canterbury tales 7

This is the tribute paid toKeith Hales on his

imminent retirement byJohn Brandts-Giesen, right,

at the final sitting of theRangiora Court on 5 March.

May it please the Court. In thenormal course of events it wouldbe both an honour and a pleasureto address this Court.

Today that pleasure is somewhat dampenedbecause this is a final sitting. The gods of ourancestors, whatever our race or creed, and towhom this Court so often pays lip service in itsrituals, have shed more than a few tears in thelast two days. If the tears have stopped it is notbecause the grieving has stopped. It is becausethey are exhausted.My learned friends have spoken withcharacteristic eloquence and a polite restraintwhich belie the passion that they feel for thisCourt, and which feelings are echoed by otherNorth Canterbury practitioners, and manymembers of the public, who see yet anothercommunity facility snatched from them in thename of efficiency.It is not for me to either upstage my learnedfriends, or to re-litigate the principal purposeof this sitting. However, there is one personwho has not been mentioned and I wish torectify that today.Many distinguished lawyers have practisedbefore even more distinguished judges sincethis Court was opened in the 19th Century. Ofcourse in those early years there were alsocourts in Kaiapoi, Amberley, Culverden andCheviot. They were closed down because ofshrinking populations, not, as today, where weface burgeoning demographics.Those lawyers have included names likeHelmore, Rhodes, Fraser, van Asch, Smith,Bowron, Scott and other luminaries from otherplaces who came only occasionally. Most ofthem appeared in this Court for only a fewyears, before choosing to hand over theCommon Law to junior partners or staff as theythemselves delved into other work they couldperform more profitably.Some have gone on to fame and glory. Inparticular, Sir Howard Kippenberger, whopractised in Rangiora between World War I andWorld War II. He served in and was injured inboth wars and rose to be Lord Freyberg’srighthand man and ultimately a Major General.Others have come and gone more quietly. Onein recent times, on being appointed to a judicial

position, invited none of his fellow practitionersto his apparently private coronation.But of all the practitioners who have practisedin the Rangiora Court, it is our learned friend,Mr Hales, who has given the longest and themost dedicated service of all. He has recentlyannounced his imminent retirement and it isperhaps ironic that it should almost coincidewith the closing of this Court. For 38 years, tothis very month, fortnight after fortnight, he hasbeen a fixture, as it were, in this Criminal Court,as well as in the Family and Civil jurisdictions.It is not for nothing that he claimed the leftend of counsel’s table as “his place”. Many aneophyte has learned very quickly that to sitthere meant immediate ejection. The onlyconcession might be to one of Her Majesty’sCounsel. For others, no distinguishedreputation, or even a short skirt or obviouspregnancy, would allow an exception.And if that was a place which Mr Hales claimedas his own (although he modestly describes itas the Helmore’s Seat), it is a place that he hasearned by his total commitment to his work asa lawyer and, indeed, his general contributionto the wider community. His pleas in mitigationare models of thorough preparation, goodcontent and succinct delivery.Defended hearings have been properlyconducted, and often with conspicuoussuccess. His reports as Lawyer for Child, aposition to which he has been frequentlyappointed, fairly represent the best interests ofhis clients. He has been a mentor to many andan example to all.His intended retirement is regretted by hiscolleagues. No doubt the stresses he, and otherpractitioners, have experienced, and willcontinue to experience as they trek into thecity, have contributed to his decision and thecauses behind it.It is hoped that those who organise the Courtswill appreciate the value of counsel being

available outside the Christchurch metropolitanarea and will accommodate them in some waynow that this Court will no longer sit in NorthCanterbury.That would be some way of reducing, at noexpense to the Ministry, the very real costs thathave been moved from the Ministry on topractitioners and members of the public alike.My learned friend has practised as a lawyernot just before this Court but before almostevery jurisdiction in the land. Cases conductedby him in the Rangiora District Court have onoccasion worked their way through to the Courtof Appeal and beyond.After all, from time to time, judges and juriesdo get it wrong, and Mr Hales has had a secondor third bite of the cherry. From time to time,he has simply lost, and, true to his craft, he hasmoved on to the next file.My learned friend has represented the scionsof privilege, as well as the offspring of the poor.In some cases he has been properly paid, butin most cases he has done so at legal aid rates.Regardless of the defendants’ backgrounds, hehas given them all, in equal measure, thebenefit of his experience, the fruits of hisresearch, and the polish of his presentation.If this sitting today has any positive purpose,then it should be to mark the forthcomingretirement of Mr Hales. The refreshmentsafterwards should be seen, therefore, not somuch as Judas hosting the Last Supper, but asa fitting celebration of the career of a man whohas served this community with distinction, withdedication, with integrity, and with style.On behalf of the Bar, but particularly the NorthCanterbury Bar, I wish him well, and also hisever supportive wife Miranda, in the challengingtimes ahead of them.May it please the Court.

Career marked by ‘distinction,dedication, integrity and style’

Compass

Who will buy your business?

Do you want to grow your business?

Canterbury tales 5

Comings & GoingsJoined firm/organisationSusan Ballantyne (Tomlinson Law), Oliver Bartle(MDS Law), Christopher Boivin (SaundersRobinson Brown), Carolyn Davies (GoldsteinRyder Limited), Louise Dawson (MOJ PublicDefence Service), Belinda Egden (Argyle WelshFinnigan), Lucy Halligan (Malley & Co), JoshuaLucas (MOJ Public Defence Service), Lynn Malin(Helmore Bowron & Scott), Lauren Meester(Meares Williams), Nothando Musesengwa(Andrew & Juenith McIntosh), Paula Nicolaou(Lane Neave), Sandra Spiller (Community LawCanterbury), Rachel Standring (The ImmigrationLaw firm), Rachel Walsh (Godfreys), YunxiaZhang (Parry Field Lawyers).MovedTimothy Brown (Lane Neave to Cavell Leitch),Rachel Triplow (formerly Dawson, James &Wells to Powerhouse Ventures), David Marriott(Lane Neave to Davidson & Associates), SimonMunro (Anthony Harper to Anderson Lloyd),James Pullar (SB Law to Taylor Shaw), MelissaSandom (Saunders Robinson Brown toWilliams McKenzie), Charmaine Satchy (Barker& Associates to Ministry of SocialDevelopment).New barrister/firm/organisationRichard Sudell Limited, 26 Lewisham Park,Christchurch 8052, phone (09) 368-4870.Ben Tothill Lawyer, sole practitioner, commenced1.5.14 (previously with Duncan Cotterill) PO Box31175, Christchurch 8444, phone 021 905504.Change of statusJoshua Orton, partner with Wynn Williams asfrom 16.4.14.

A function was held recently to farewell Garry Collin as Chair of Family Law Section. Garry wasthanked for all the work he has done for FLS and this thanks was of course extended to his Ateam. The photo above explains the “As” in the A team. From left, Abbey Mountford (PA toGarry), Amy Cook (PA to Garry), Garry and his wife Anney.

FLS chair farewelled

Kent Yeoman, partner with Mortlock McCormackLaw as from 1.5.14.Richard Burtt, retired from partnership of MearesWilliams, from 1 4.14. To remain as a consultant.Keith Hales, retired from partnership of HelmoreBowron & Scott, 1.4.14. To remain as aconsultant.Gregory Trainor, retired from partnership ofTrainor MacLean (now MacLean & Associates)1.4.14. To remain as a consultant.Change of detailTrainor MacLean has changed its name toMacLean & Associates as from 1.4.14. (RayMacLean, Principal)

Congratulations to Erin Ebborn, picturedbelow, who was elected to the Family LawSection Executive on 1 April for a three-year term.Erin has 15 years experience as a familylawyer and has previously been a memberof the FLS standing committee for Children,Young Persons and their Families Actmatters. She is the Managing Director ofEbborn Law Ltd, which has a strong focuson the provision of legal aid family lawservices.Erin has a strong social conscience and hasserved on a number of differentgovernance boards for non-for-profitorganisations. Ebborn Law Ltd was a finalistin the 2013 NZ Law Awards for Family Lawfirm of the year and employer of choice.

Erin Ebbornjoins FLS

Canterbury tales2 Canterbury tales6

Power of Content MarketingContent Marketing, in both its digitaland traditional guises, has beenaround for several years and thetime is right for the legal professionto start taking advantage of its un-tapped power to attract and retainnew and existing clients.

Traditional avenues of advertising areincreasingly losing their power. We can nowskip through advertisements on television,people receive so much direct marketing in thepost that it is usually binned without a secondglance, and when was the last time you noticeda Google Ad when you were surfing theinternet?So what exactly is Content Marketing and whyhas it become such an important andincreasingly popular mechanism for varioustypes of industries to connect with theircustomers in a way that they have not beenable to do so previously?According to the Content Marketing Institute’swebsite the definition of Content Marketing is:“a marketing technique of creating anddistributing relevant and valuable content toattract, acquire, and engage a clearly definedand understood target audience — with theobjective of driving profitable customer action”.There are a many types of Content Marketingapproaches but some that are recommendedfor the legal profession are:• A regular blog or articles page on your firm’swebsite.• Videos of your staff, specialist practice areas,and topics of interest (vlogs)• Using social media.

• A firm magazine or newsletter.

• An online community forum.The wonderful thing about this approach toenhancing your business is that you are limitedto what you can do only by your creativeimagination.So does it work? In short, yes and highlyeffective it is too. Consider some statistics from2013 which highlight how successful ContentMarketing is.• Per month business-to-business companies

generate 67 per cent more leads by blogging.• 68 per cent of consumers will spend timereading content from a company that they areinterested in.• One of the top three reasons people followcompanies on social media is based onengaging content.• Traditional marketing costs 62 per cent morethan Content Marketing.• If your business website includes videomaterial visitors are likely to spend 100 percent more time looking at it.• 90 per cent of consumers find customcontent useful and 78 per cent believe thatorganisations providing custom content areinterested in building good relationships withthem.Whilst this gives you a snapshot of the statistics,the research shows overwhelmingly thatContent Marketing works; but how can law firmsuse it effectively? Given that the law professionhas traditionally been reluctant to usemainstream advertising for promotion, ContentMarketing provides the perfect “soft sell”,information providing approach to marketingthat law professionals may feel morecomfortable with.Here are a few ideas that you can start usingimmediately to present prospective clients withtailored information which will encourage themto use your firm’s services.Make the most of your websiteYour firm’s website is your 24/7 internationalshop window. It is much more than simply apage where future and existing clients go tofind phone numbers and email addresses. Youcan dress it up, make it stand out andencourage people through your door with justa little effort and imagination. Start with thecontent basics. Ask yourself the followingquestions:• Have you outlined, in detail, each practicearea in a way that really talks to and resonateswith your prospective client?• Is there a FAQS (Frequently Asked Questions)page giving answers to basic questions suchas where to park and whether your firm takeson Legal Aid work?• Do all your staff have full biographies on yourwebsite, including a snippets of personal detailwhich subconsciously encourages readers to

make a connection with the people they arereading about?• Have you included photos of your firm’s staff,location and offices?• Are your firm’s contact details visible andaccessible on every page?• Are all the pages inter-connected and is thewebsite easy to navigate around?Start a Blog (or regularly update theone you have)Now you have established the basics on yourwebsite, a valuable next step is to consideradding a Blog. The secret of good blogging isthe quality of the content you include. PaulHajek, who runs the Solicitors Online SuccessStory website, states: “You should considerturning your law firm and in particular your lawfirm’s website in to a valuable source of content.Think and act like a publisher.”In legal circles the word “blog” has provenunpopular, some feel the word demeans theconcept of the work law professionals do. Ifyou feel that ‘blogging’ is not a word thatcompliments the image of your firm thensimply call your information page “Articles’ or‘News’.The key is that you are publishing excellentcontent on a regular basis that creates theperception that your company is on the leadingedge of the fields of practice in which youoperate.Update your blog at least once a week. Thispractice will also help with your firm’s SearchEngine Optimisation (SEO). Search engines,especially Google love fresh, relevant, regularlyupdated content and reward sites that provideit with high search rankings. If you don’t havetime, consider hiring a specialist who can dothis for you.Videos on your websiteIf a picture tells 1000 words a video tells amillion! Video is undoubtedly the future ofContent Marketing. Consider this: YouTube nowreceives more than one billion unique visitorsevery month.There are many different ways you canincorporate videos into your firm’s website.Filming a day in the life of your office, videobiographies of your staff, vlogs; these are just afew examples. By using video you will makeyour website stand out from the crowd andensure potential clients remember yourbusiness.Learn the secrets of Social Mediaand how to manage it to your bestadvantageSocial media is a great way to interact andengage with your firm’s potential and existingclients. However, due to the enormous amountof time updating social media can take up it isadvisable to have a clear strategy for managingyour communications.

By Corinne McKenna

Continued Page 11

Canterbury tales 7

JPs meet the judiciary

A joint custodial suite is just one ofthe innovative features of the newChristchurch Justice and EmergencyServices Precinct.Designed to follow national and internationalbest practice principles, the custodial suite willbe shared and operated by Corrections andPolice featuring custodial cells, specialisedprocessing areas, staff facilities, secure non-contact interview areas and secure access tocourtrooms.It represents a new and innovative way ofworking together and unsurprisingly will resultin a number of benefits, including: reducingthe number of trips between current police cells

and the court, with a resulting saving in vehiclenumbers, time and prisoner movements;efficiency in pre-court processes and bettermanagement of sentence regimes;streamlining offender bail management;increased use of audio visual links (AVL)between the custodial suite and courts, andprisons and courts that will reduce prisonertransport costs; and joint operational planningand protocols.The entire precinct is being designed to enableand encourage close working relationships toreduce crime and reoffending and providebetter public services. Custodial and justice

Innovation in the precinctservices will be located together, such as courtservicing staff from the Department ofCorrections who will be co-located with theMinistry of Justice to more efficiently managecourt and custodial processes.User groups, including the New Zealand LawSociety Canterbury Westland Branch, continueto be consulted on the detailed design of theprecinct through a series of workshops.If you’ve passed by the site recently you willhave seen how the wet weather has impactedthe early works phase, however the precinct isstill on track to begin main construction mid-2014.

Continued from Page 1

Leaders and representatives of Justice, Police, Corrections, Fire Service and St John visited the Justice and Emergency Services Precinctsite on May 13 to view progress on the early works phase.

By Justin HygateEstablishment Manager for the Justiceand Emergency Services Precinct

Contact: S.W. (Steve) Mauger M.N.Z.I.B.S.

Cellphone 027 919 3454Home 03 3126 118

Email viewpointinspect@xtra.co.nzWeb www.viewpointpropertyinspections.co.nz

View Point Property Inspections 2012 Ltd

· Visual property inspection building surveys.

· Pre-sale/pre-purchase property inspections and condition reporting identifying

significant defects.

· 27 years practical building experience.

· 8 years building survey experience.

Canterbury tales2 Canterbury tales

9

NZ’s new Patents ActAfter a protracted gestation period,New Zealand finally has a newpatents Act.

The Patents Act 2013 has received Royal assentand will take effect fully on 13 September 2014.Unhelpfully, this is a Saturday and so for anyapplication to benefit from the old law it willneed to be filed by Friday 12 September.The new Act represents the first major refreshof New Zealand’s patent legislation in 60 years,and brings New Zealand more into line withmost other countries around the world.The likely effect of the change will be to makeit harder to obtain patent protection in NewZealand, but patents which are granted will bemore robust.Whilst the changes are likely to be desirableoverall, and bring our system more intoharmony with other countries, patent examinerswill have additional artillery to attack patentapplications during examination, and what canand cannot be protected by a patent will bemore precisely defined.A good time to review your currentResearch and DevelopmentCanny inventors and businesses may thereforewish to try to take advantage of the current,seemingly more flexible law, and file patentapplications before the new law comes intoeffect.This would be more likely to lead to broaderpatent protection, and possibly protection forsubject matter that might be excluded underthe new law. It can be a great advantage tohave a granted patent in force, as whilst thevalidity of a patent can be challenged by acompetitor at any time, this can be costly, andthe competitor cannot be certain that theywould be successful.We are therefore expecting New Zealandbusinesses to use the small window untilSeptember 2014 to try to maximise their patentprotection. A first step would therefore to beto review any R&D work in the pipeline to tryto identify clever developments that could beprotected.Increased artillery for Patent OfficeexaminersWhen the new law comes into force, examinersat the Intellectual Property Office of NewZealand (IPONZ) will have opportunities to referto a larger prior art base to raise objections tonew patent applications, as they will no longerbe limited to documents only available to thepublic in New Zealand.In addition, examiners will be able to object tothe lack of inventiveness of an invention asbeing obvious over what is known. One of the

unusual features of the current law is thatexaminers cannot raise lack of inventivenessobjections during examination, but this is still aground for subsequently opposing/revoking.This can mean that it is easier to obtain agranted patent in New Zealand under thecurrent law.The thorny issue of software patentsOne of the thorny issues of patent law is theoften misunderstood area of protectingsoftware-implemented inventions. It isfrequently, and incorrectly, stated that patentprotection is not available for software-basedideas.In fact, currently New Zealand law is relativelyfriendly towards software driven inventions,although protection is not available for the codeitself (this being protected instead by copyright).Even under the new law, whilst this has beensignificantly updated to correspond largely tothe stricter law used in the UK, it should still bepossible to protect some softwareimplemented inventions, that is, inventionswhich use software to control a machine orprocess to provide some benefit or advantage.Most modern products include some form orother of control system or process andtherefore patent protection should at least beconsidered.Inventions contrary to public order/moralityInventions considered to be contrary to publicorder or morality will not be patentable. This isnot as tabloid as it sounds and examples ofinventions which will not be patentable underthe new Act include:• an invention that is a process for cloninghuman beings;• an invention that is a process for modifyingthe germ line genetic identity of human beings;• an invention that involves the use of humanembryos for industrial or commercial purposes;and• an invention that is a process for modifyingthe genetic identity of animals that is likely to

cause them suffering without any substantialmedical benefit to human beings or animals,or an invention that is an animal resulting fromsuch a process.Bonus defences to infringementThe new Act provides some bonus defencesto infringement where you might be using anotherwise infringing invention for “experimentaluse”. Such experimentation can include actsdone for the purpose of:• determining how the invention works;

• determining the scope of the invention;

• determining the validity of the claims; or

• seeking an improvement of the invention (forexample, determining new properties, or newuses, of the invention).If you are aware of, or frustrated by, competitors’patents, it might be worth noting that the newlaw will provide a number of options forchallenging a patent application or grantedpatent, including the opportunity to bringrelevant documents to the patent examiner’sattention prior to the patent application beingexamined, and the ability to request re-examination of granted patents.The former is a cost effective way of attackinga patent application without becoming involvedin an extensive or expensive procedure. Thelatter can also be cost effective and could be arelatively simple way to frustrate a patent owner.What action should I take?To avoid a new application being held to themore rigorous standards of the 2013 Act, youshould ensure that any application is filed inNew Zealand before the new Act comes intoforce. This could be particularly important forsoftware-based inventions in view of theuncertainty around the patentability of suchinventions under the new Act.Please let us know if you would like any furtherinformation on the changes to the Patents Act,or any other aspect of intellectual property lawin New Zealand or Australia. Check our websitewww.baldwins.com for further analysis of theeffect of the new legislation.

Supplied by BaldwinsIntellectual Property

8

Canterbury tales 9

Canterbury Westland Branch/NZLS

EducationProgrammeProudly sponsored by

NZLS Continuing Legal Education (CLELimited)

To register and for other information checkthe CLE website,

www.lawyerseducation.co.nzChristchurch

June4 — Health and Safety Reforms.5 — Property Lawyers Dilemma — has theProperty Relationship Act undermined trusts?Webinar.9 — Implications of Incorporated SocietiesLaw Reform, Webinar.10 — Financial Markets Conduct Act.30- and 1 July — Residential PropertyTransactions workshop.

July7 - Settlement and E-dealing — contentiousissues, Webinar.21— Influential Presentations.21 — The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act— five years in.29 — Employment Law Issues —developments in Christchurch, Webinar.August

5 —- New District Court Rules — fundamentalchanges.24-30 — Litigation Skills Programme, LincolnUniversity.26 — Apartments — Sale and Purchase,Webinar.

September10 — Rural Law — the big issues.24-26 — Lawyer for Child.24 September — Scrutinising the Actions ofGovernment.

October6-7 — Intro to Family Law Advocacy andpractice.

Out of Christchurch23-24 June — Property Law Conference,Wellington.25 June — Bill of Rights Civil and CriminalLitigation Intensive, Wellington (26 JuneAuckland).25-27 June — Lawyer for the Child,Wellington.26-27 June — Expert Witness Programme,Wellington.23 July Wellington, 24 July Auckland — Issuesin Unjust Enrichment Intensive.25-27 July — Understanding Mediation,Wellington.4th September —- Tax Conference, Auckland.

Christchurch BranchSocial

19 June — Employment Law cocktail partyto farewell Judge Couch from EmploymentCourt. Watch for flyer.7-9 November — Devils Own Golf, Methven.Make a note in your diaries.

Lunchtime Seminar12 June — Family Law Committee, PropertyRelationships Act. Watch for flyer.26 June — BGM, Canterbury WestlandBranch — New Zealand Law Society,Thursday, 5pm, West Wing, Lone StarRestaurant, corner Waimairi and RiccartonRoads.

Much has been written about theLaw Commission’s review of TrustInvestments.

In recent weeks we have surveyed a numberof practitioners to help gain some insight intothe potential ramifications of the changesrecommended in the Law Commission’sreview.While we are in the early stages of informationgathering, it is interesting that with regard to

investments, the recommendations that haveattracted the most interest have been in thefollowing areas; powers and duties of Trustees,total return, appointment and then monitoringof investment managers and written investmentpolicy statements.While all considered a number of therecommendations raised issues, mostpractitioners reported that the most challengingrecommendation is that every Trust withinvestments should have an Investment PolicyStatement (IPS). No doubt over the next fewyears, debate will emerge over what makes agood IPS but the first question is: why is itimportant to have an IPS?There are many reasons but a key one is that

adherence to a well written IPS, can help theTrustees ensure the Trust receives anappropriate return for the investment risk taken.Research shows (1) that many investors donot receive the return they should have.From 1993 to 2013, research found that theaverage investor received returns of 4.25% p.a.while the market (as measured by the S&P500) returned 8.20%. This means that overtwo decades, $100,000 invested by theaverage investor would be worth almost$230,000, while the same investment in themarket should have grown to almost $500,000.

By Andrew NuttallDirector, Bradley Nuttall LtdPhone 364-9119

Trust investments — Review effects

Dalbar Incorporated suggests that the differenceis caused by human behaviour. Investors’ havea tendency to buy investments after they haveperformed well and sell following poorperformance. That is, buy high and sell low.

It is a great pity that many investors who mayhave good investments don’t receive thereturns those investments earn because theydon’t hold them for long enough.Not only does the Law Commissionrecommend that all Trustees have an IPS, theyalso suggest Trustees require the adviser/investment manager to comply with the IPS.This may be where the greatest value can beadded.So far, all respondents to our surveyacknowledge that there will be greaterexpectations imposed on Trustees if therecommendations of the Law Commission areadopted. Our hope is that any changes alsoresult in better outcomes for clients.

(1) http://www.dalbar.com/ProductsServices/Adv i so r ySo lu t i ons/QA I B/ tab id/214/Defaultaspx

Disclosure statement is available on requestand free of charge.

Canterbury tales2 Canterbury tales

and s67(3)(b) requirement to give effect toNZCPS not infringed (2) (unanimous) whetherconsideration of alternative sites necessarydetermined by nature and circumstances ofparticular site specific application relating tocoastal environment - requirement may ariseparticularly where applicant for plan change wasseeking exclusive use of public resource forprivate gain and proposed use would havesignificant adverse effects on natural attributesof relevant coastal area; - (3) appeal allowed -costs reserved. Words considered/defined:“avoid” - “give effect to” - “inappropriatesubdivision, use, and development”Sustain Our Sounds Inc v New ZealandKing Salmon Co Ltd, Elias CJ, McGrath,William Young, Glazebrook & Arnold JJ, SupremeCourt, 17 April 2014, [2014] NZSC 40Unsuccessful appeal by Sustain Our SoundsInc (SOS) in relation to plan changes andresource consents for salmon farming inMarlborough Sounds - water quality issues -plan changes granted by Board of Inquiry(Board) for four proposed sites in three differentareas of Sounds being Papatua, Ngamahau,Waitata and Richmond - under plan changessalmon farming became discretionary ratherthan prohibited activity at sites - accompanyingresource consents subject to detailedconditions designed to monitor and addressadverse effects under an adaptive managementapproach: - (i) conditions limited farming toking salmon from roe sources in New Zealandand included setting maximum initial annualdischarge of fish feed within each site togetherwith annual maximum increases in annualtonnage of fish feed discharge up to totalmaximum annual discharge of fish feed; - (ii)assessment criteria covered range of mattersincluding effects on marine mammals andseabirds - assessment criterion specificallyrelated to discharges to coastal water includedstandards against which discharge effects tobe monitored, provision for staged increasesin scale of feed discharges and monitoringeffects in each stage and adaptive managementapproach to management of effects of seabed

disposition and changes to water quality -experts agreed there was uncertainty tointerpretation of modelling results due tounavailability of baseline data and baselinesurveys would need to begin as soon aspossible after consent issued - Board notedlack of spatial modelling of maximum feeddischarges made it extremely difficult to cometo finding on nature or magnitude of effects ofdischarge - consent therefore granted forgraduated increases in feed discharge levelswith increases based on more robustmonitoring and adaptive management regimethan presented in proposed conditions - HCdismissed appeal in relation to all four sites aswell as appeal brought by EnvironmentalDefence Society Inc (EDS) in respect of twosites - SOS and EDS appeals to SC heardtogether and contemporaneous decisionsissued - EDS appeal relating to Papatua site inPort Gore allowed limiting SOS appeal to threeother sites for practical purposes - SOS arguedthere was inadequate information on waterquality issues before Board to enable it to grantplan changes at all and particularly at maximumfeed levels - SOS also argued that Board waswrongly influenced by adaptive managementmeasures contained in resource consents indeciding to make plan changes and that evenif that approach was available the parametersof approach should have been in plan notconsents - issues: - (i) whether adaptivemanagement approach was available; - (ii)whether Board decision on plan changes waswrongly predicated on consent conditions; -(iii) if adaptive management approachavailable, whether that should have beencontained in plan as against consents - mainconcern with regard to Sounds and proposedsalmon farms was nitrogen level increasesresulting from feed introduced into watermostly through fish waste - discussion ofstatutory framework and planning documentsincluding New Zealand Coastal PolicyStatement (NZCPS) and Marlborough SoundsResource Management Plan (2003) -discussion of New Zealand, Australian andCanadian cases relating to adaptivemanagement concept - HELD: Board was

entitled to consider that the adaptivemanagement regime reflected in plan andconsent conditions was consistent with properprecautionary approach - plan changes werenot improperly predicated on the consentconditions and there was no need for the planto contain more than it did on water quality,the plan containing in particular reference toan adaptive management regime and controlsfor water quality - appeal with regard to WaitataRichmond and Ngamahau sites dismissed -directions on costs.Environmental Defence Society Inc vNew Zealand King Salmon Co Ltd , EliasCJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook &Arnold JJ, Supreme Court, 17 April 2014, [2014]NZSC 41Successful applications by EnvironmentalDefence Society (EDS) and Sustain Our SoundsInc (SOS) for leave to appeal under s149VResource Management Act 1991 (the Act) -reasons judgment for grant of leave to appealand why the Court did not hear oralsubmissions from the Board of Inquiry or takeaccount of its written submissions - leave toappeal granted to EDS on 18 Oct 2013 onquestions: - (i) whether Board of Inquiry’sapproval of the Papatua plan change was onemade contrary to s66 and s67 of the Actthrough misinterpretation and misapplicationof Policies 8, 13 and 15 of the New ZealandCoastal Policy Statement: - (ii) whether theBoard was obliged to consider alternative sitesor methods when determining private planchange that was located in or resulted insignificant adverse effects on an outstandingnatural landscape or feature or outstandingnatural character area within the coastalenvironment - leave to appeal granted to SOSon question whether the conclusion of theBoard that the key environmental effects of theplan change in issue would be adequatelymanaged by the maximum feed dischargelevels set in the plan and the consent conditionsit proposed to impose in granting the resourceconsent to King Salmon one in accordance withthe Act and open to it - HELD: (1) leavegranted to appeal to SC rather than remittingmatter to CA under s149V(7) - exceptionalcircumstances comprised: - (i) appealsconcerned major aquaculture developmentinvolving matters of national significance andreferred to Board of Inquiry; - (ii) EDS appealconcerned important issue as to relationshipbetween pt2 of the Act and hierarchy ofinstruments in RMA including the NZCPS - issuenot previously considered by this Court andhad potential to affect all decisions under theAct; - (iii) SOS appeal concerned appropriateresponse of decision making bodies whenpresented with scientific uncertainty andinterrelationship between precautionaryprinciple and adaptive management approach- matter of major significance and not previouslyconsidered by Court; - (2) Board’s submissionsnot taken into account - while the Boardclaimed its submissions were non-partisan andto assist the Court, numerous parts of theBoard’s submissions appeared to enter the fray- issues fully argued by parties - application forleave to appeal granted.

Case summaryContinued from Page 4

10

Canterbury tales 11

Situation Vacant

Practice Notices

Whilst some may not like the idea, in the newera of digital online presence, as a minimum allfirms should now have a Facebook, Google +and Twitter account that are updated regularly.Here are some basic rules for creating aneffective social media strategy:• Be social. Respond to comments andmessages and try to encourage conversation andinteraction if people make the effor t tocommunicate with you.• Be polite. Thank people for following yourfirm on Twitter or liking your Facebook page.Retweet appropriate and relevant texts.• Update regularly but not too regularly. Somecompanies recommend updating your Twitteraccount and Facebook page four times a day.Updating this regularly can turn people off andyou run the risk of them deleting you off theirlist. The golden rule for updating social mediais — update only when you have somethinguseful and informative to say.• Use Google +. Updates on Google + arecrawled and indexed almost immediately andcan help boost your SEO. Both Facebook andTwitter restrict Google from accessing too muchof their data. So although they are essential formarketing, Google + is the social media platformthat dominates search results. Make the mostof it.Content Marketing is a cost-effective, powerfulway to connect with your law firm’s potentialcustomers. Most importantly, it is a win-winstrategy for everyone.By using Content Marketing your firm canincrease its visibility, expertise and revenue andyour readers gain access to valuable,authoritative, interesting information which willencourage them to engage and work with yourorganisation.Corinne McKenna (nee Larkin) is the ownerof McKenna Legal Copywriting whichspecialises in copywriting, content marketingand social media management for the legalindustry. She has an LLB and worked as theSouth Island Account Manager and TrainingConsultant for LexisNexis for eight years. Shenow lives in the United Kingdom with herhusband and two sons. You can visit herwebsite at www.mckennacopywriting.co.uk.

Power ofContentMarketingContinued from Page 6

That the journey between birth and death is inour hands and it is up to us to make what wemake of it, whatever cards maybe thrown ourway. That nothing tangible is taken when thisjourney ends, where then is there room forbeing treated differently because of yourgender?

Kamil Lakshman is the Director and SeniorLegal Advisor of IDESI Legal Ltd2. Thisarticle was first published in Council Brief

Migrant’s taleContinued from Page 3

If this sounds like you please respond with a curriculum vitae to:A The Managing Partner, Harmans Lawyers, P O Box 5496, Chch 8542E graeme.riach@harmans.co.nz www.harmans.co.nz

An exciting opportunity to participate in the economic resurrection of Christchurch!Harmans is a progressive Canterbury law firm that has served the region for over 125 years. A position is available in our team for a commercial/property lawyer. We are looking for a lawyer with 3-5 years post admission experience. As we value highly the strength of our relationships with clients, the successful candidate will, in addition to sound legal aptitude and relevant experience, possess excellent inter-personal skills and a desire to build a practice. You will work with appropriate autonomy but as part of a team headed up by two partners whose practice areas include hospitality, franchising and property development work. We offer a competitive remuneration package and longer term advancement prospects for the right person. We have a great work atmosphere in well located offices in the busy and vibrant Papanui retail area.

Commercial / Property Lawyer

Telephone 03 374 2547 www.meareswilliams.co.nz

Meares Williams Lawyers wish to announce that Sarah Ayers has been made an Associate Solicitor of the firm.

RAYMOND DONNELLY & COBARRISTERS & SOLICITORS — CROWN SOLICITOR’S OFFICE

The Partners of Raymond Donnelly & Co, Crown Solicitors Office Christchurch

are pleased to announce the appointment of Barnaby Hawes to the Partnership,

effective from the 24 April 2014.

Kent YeomanPartner, Commercial & Property

DDI: +64 3 3438 453 Mob: 021 517 601Email: kent@mmlaw.co.nz

The Partners of Mortlock McCormack Law are pleased to announce the appointment of Kent Yeoman to the Partnership. Kent provides a range of commercial and property law advice, with a focus on contractual matters, commercial property, corporate law and significant property transactions.

Canterbury tales2 Canterbury tales12

Mark Sherry wins Hunter CupBy Brendan Callaghan

The annual Hunter Cup golf day was held at Clearwateron Thursday the 3rd of April.A glorious day meant the players had only themselves toblame for their golf as the conditions were nigh on perfect.A large field was entered and after enjoying the BradleyNuttall barbecue the players made their way to theirrespective tees. The Clearwater drinks cart soon followedalong behind so as to ensure that the players were wellhydrated. Dehydration on the golf course is somethingthat must be avoided at all costs after all!Not only was the Hunter Cup on the line but also theLawyers v. Accountants Trophy and the E A Lee Trophy,which is played for between the profession and the JusticeDepartment. When the scores were tallied, Mark Sherry,from Harmans, was declared the winner. Congratulationsto Mark.I am also pleased to report that the Law Society’s trophycabinet is now bursting at the seams as both the Lawyersv Accountants and the E A Lee trophies were won by thelawyers this year.At the conclusion of the round the players enjoyed thehospitality of the Clearwater Club and it was a goodchance to catch up with colleagues in a relaxedenvironment.Thanks are due to the organising committee for anotherwell-run event. Thanks also to the sponsors, as withouttheir continued support events like this would simply nothappen.

Mark Sherry, left, ispresented with the HunterCup by Matthew Mark,Bank Area Manager ofsponsor SSB, and, aboveright, Ben Framptonreceives the E A LeeTrophy from Julian Clarke,convenor of the LawSociety’s golf committee.Right and below generalphotos from the day.