Build your brand (firm)

In person 1.5 CPD hours

Tuesday 28 February

9am – 10.30am

Presenter Anne Casey, founder and director, Marketing Minds

Working with lawyer for child

Livestream | In Person

2 CPD hrs

Tuesday 28 February

4pm – 6.15pm

Price from $140 + GST

Privacy for legal professionals

Presenters David Amodeo; Val Muller; Sonya Singh and Craig Walker Webinar 1.5 CPD hours

Thursday 2 March

12pm – 1.30pm

Presenters Amy KingstonTurner; Edwin Lim; Luke Han and Tegan Hall

Chair Lloyd Gallagher, managing partner, Gallagher & Co

Assessing capacity workshop

Workshop 3 CPD hours

Tuesday 7 March

9am – 12.15pm

Presenters Alison Douglass; Dr Greg Young and Dr John Kennelly

This workshop includes an overview of digital marketing and its importance. It outlines the channels most suited to legal firms, including email marketing, websites, video formatting, Tik Tok and YouTube. Learn how to get the most from your LinkedIn firm page and how to get your lawyers engaged with digital marketing.

Providing perspectives from those in the role, the judiciary and the ministry, this seminar provides key insights into what the role is (and is not); the statutory framework; the balancing act required in considering the child’s views and his or her welfare and best interests; the role in different contexts; managing challenges and the use of reports.

Chair Judge Alexander Laurenson

Join our panel to harness key information and insights into the interface between privacy and technology in legal practice.

Assessing capacity has many applications – for health care, finances, making a will, personal relationships and even liberty and placement in care. In this workshop, two developers of the popular Toolkit for Assessing Capacity, together with a general practitioner working at the coalface, will provide insights into the legal and medical tests, the method of assessing capacity, referrals, the lawyer’s role in supportive decision-making and cultural considerations.

Continued from page 07 made to the Tenancy Tribunal to end the tenancy.

■ If the rental property is destroyed (or so seriously damaged as to be uninhabitable), then either the tenant or the landlord can give notice to end the tenancy. The tenant’s notice period is two days and the landlord’s is seven days. In such cases, there may be a question about whether the damage is so serious it renders a property uninhabitable. New Zealand case law on what amounts to “uninhabitable” developed as a result of the Christchurch earthquakes. It confirms that each case must be considered on its merits, having regard to the circumstances of the tenants. What is habitable for young people occupying a flat may not be for a family with a child with bronchial

Continued from page 09 problems, or an elderly couple whose mobility is affected by their age.

Landslides and liability

Liability for landslides or slips can be complex and is fact-dependent. Some general principles are provided below, but an assessment of the particular circumstances will be required in each case.

If land or a building has been damaged because of a landslide, generally it is the owner of the land’s responsibility to repair the damage. There is not an automatic obligation on the neighbour whose land slipped. However, the case is different if the slip resulted from negligence by the neighbour.

Conversely, a downhill landowner could be liable to the uphill neighbour if the landowner had done something to affect the stability of the uphill land (earthworks, for example). Landowners have a right of support for land in its natural state. This does not mean a downhill landowner has an obligation to stabilise a neighbour’s land – just a duty not to remove support that is already present.

Finally, landowners have a general duty of care to act reasonably to prevent or mitigate damage to a neighbour’s property arising from a hazard they are aware of on their land. So, if there is a risk of further slips, an uphill landowner may have an obligation to take reasonable steps to remove or reduce that risk, depending on their knowledge of the hazard and the ability to foresee the consequence of not dealing with it. ■

Kate Dickson is a local government and environmental law specialist and an associate at Wynn Williams ■

In its submissions, Wilson Harle contended that the disabled community had a legitimate expectation of consultation by Auckland Council and NZTA/Waka Kotahi when making decisions on issues concerning its members.

“NZTA did not consult with the public or the disabled community before issuing a gazette notice in September 2018, declaring e-scooters not to be motor vehicles,” the firm said. “They are in fact motor vehicles as defined in the Act and as such are prohibited from being driven on the footpath.

“Auckland Council also failed to consult with the disabled community when licensing e-scooters for use on the footpath.”

So, for now, the legal battle to ban e-scooters from footpaths appears lost but the growing number of crashes will ensure the issue doesn’t go away anytime soon.

The latest data shows ACC paid out $30.1m on 10,577 e-scooter injury-related claims between October 2018 and October 2022.

A 2019 study also revealed that Auckland surgeons were operating on more e-scooter users than motorcycle riders. ■