LawNews- Issue 19

NEWS Jun 17, 2022 Issue 19

Inside ■ TRUST

Using ADR to resolve disputes P06

■ MISINFORMATION

How transparent are Google, Twitter and Meta?

P07

Another chance to get

adls.org.nz

SURROGACY LAW RIGHT

Contents 03-05 ETHICS REGISTER GOVERNMENT

Surrogacy: a private member’s bill and a law commission report

LawNews is an official publication of Auckland District Law Society Inc. (ADLS).

06 MEDIATION TRUSTS DISPUTES

The rules around mediating trust disputes

Editor: Jenni McManus Publisher: ADLS Editorial and contributor enquiries to: Jenni McManus 021 971 598 Jenni.Mcmanus@adls.org.nz Advertising enquiries to: Darrell Denney 021 936 858 Darrell.Denney@adls.org.nz

07 MISINFORMATION PLATFORMS TRANSPARENCY

Why we can’t trust transparency reports from Google, Meta and Twitter

All mail to: ADLS, Level 4, Chancery Chambers, 2 Chancery Street, Auckland 1010 PO Box 58, Shortland Street DX CP24001, Auckland 1140, adls.org.nz

09 EVENTS

10-11

Photo: Hagen Hopkins / Stringer / Getty Images

FEATURED CPD

12 CPD IN BRIEF

LawNews will arrive in your inboxes a day early next week, on Thursday 23 June, because of the Matariki public holiday on Friday 24 June.

LawNews is published weekly (with the exception of a small period over the Christmas holiday break) and is available free of charge to members of ADLS, and available by subscription to non-members for $140 (plus GST) per year.

To subscribe, please email reception@adls.org.nz. ©COPYRIGHT and DISCLAIMER Material from this publication must not be reproduced in whole or part without permission. The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and, unless stated, may not reflect the opinions or views of ADLS or its members.

Responsibility for such views and for the correctness of the information within their articles lies with the authors.

Cover: Science Photo Library / Getty Images

02

Jun 17, 2022 Issue 19

FAMILY LAW

Second time lucky: govt considers Law Commission surrogacy report This isn’t just something that Kris Faafoi has run off and done without anyone knowing about. I think we’re going to see change.

Whether it will be a wholesale adoption of all of the recommendations remains to be seen

Nichola Lambie

Diana Clement New Zealand’s surrogacy laws are outdated and in urgent need of reform. That’s the opinion of the Law Commission in its recently-released review – its second attempt to modernise this complex area of the law.

The current law doesn’t even recognise surrogacy as a process that creates a parent-child relationship, says Nichola Lambie, principal legal and policy adviser and project lead at the Law Commission.

As the law stands at present, surrogate parents who are often also the biological parents are even required to adopt their own children. As the Law Commission sees it, adoption and surrogacy are different methods of family-building and require very different legislation.

It’s the second time the commission has recommended change. The first attempt, in 2005, was shelved despite being accepted in principle by the government at the time, Lambie says.

The proposed new framework is not before time, says surrogacy lawyer Stewart Dalley of D&S Law who is a parent to three surrogate-born children. He says there is a better chance of resulting law this time for several reasons.

First, a private member’s bill from back bencher and parent of a surrogate-born child, Tāmati Coffey, has been drawn from the hat and has received cross-party support. If passed, the bill will update, simplify and clarify surrogacy arrangements and ensure completeness of birth certificate information. It also provides a mechanism for enforcing surrogacy arrangements.

The bill is at select committee after passing its first reading in Parliament.

Another good reason legislation is likely to follow from this review is that Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern herself sponsored a private member’s bill about surrogacy in 2013, Dalley says.

“This isn’t just something that Kris Faafoi has run off and done without anyone knowing about it. I think we’re going to see change. Whether it will be a wholesale adoption of all of the recommendations remains to be seen.”

The review coincided with the Ministry of Justice’s review of the Adoption Act, which is 67-years-old and doesn’t reflect modern adoption practices. The Law Commission review on

surrogacy doesn’t make any recommendations about the Adoption Act.

The recommendations Its report has 63 recommendations. The key change is creating an administrative pathway that bypasses the need to register a surrogate birth under the Adoption Act. To qualify, the surrogacy arrangement must be approved in advance by the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology (ECART), and the woman carrying the child agrees. The ECART process is a “robust and effective safeguard” that is widely supported, Lambie says.

The intending parents could then register the child’s birth in the ordinary way. From the time of birth until the surrogate gives her consent, the intended parents would be deemed additional guardians.

Under the Law Commission’s recommendations, the process would also be simplified for traditional surrogacy that has not gone through the ECART approval process where the surrogate’s own egg was used and for international surrogacies.

The proposals include a separate Family Court pathway to establish legal parenthood post birth.

Other key recommendations included: ■ establishing a national surrogacy birth register containing information about surrogate-born children’s genetic and gestational origins, and whakapapa; ■ allowing surrogates to be paid for reasonable costs, including loss of income, to ensure they are not left out-ofpocket; ■ enabling advertising for lawful surrogacy arrangements; and commissioning Māori-led research to provide a better understanding of tikanga Māori and surrogacy.

The Law Commission also recommended that the government undertake a separate first-principals review of the information to include on birth certificates.

They would continue to record a child’s legal parents, which will be the intended parents. The commission noted there were issues with preserving information for surrogate-born children.

One option may be both a long-form birth certificate with all

Continued on page 04 03

Parents find surrogates through word of mouth, social media or even articles or advertisements in women’s magazines

Continued from page 03

Role of government relevant whakapapa information including the surrogate’s details to preserve the child’s and subsequent adult’s sense of identity. In addition, a short-form certificate could be used by surrogate-born children for day-to-day needs such as registering for school where privacy may be a concern.

The government will now consider the recommendations and decide whether to accept them, says Lambie. “A draft cabinet paper will be prepared as soon as practicable. If cabinet accepts the report’s recommendations with the effect that a bill will be required, cabinet will add the bill to the legislation programme. Otherwise, the government will respond formally by way of a paper presented to the House within 120 working days of the presentation of the Law Commission’s report. This is known as the government response and will fall due in early November by our calculations.”

No register Both Coffey and Dalley welcome the Law Commission’s recommendations and have high hopes that legislation will follow.

Their only disappointment is the Law Commission’s opposition to the creation of a surrogacy register, where intending parents and surrogates could be matched.

“One of the things that’s left lying [is] the Law Commission didn’t recommend that there should be a surrogacy agency, or [allow not-for-profit] NGOs to practise in this area,” Dalley says.

That might involve an intended parent being able to go to the agency or NGO to be matched with a surrogate. “They would have a list of surrogates on the books that you could potentially match with.”

Coffey says that omission is a gaping hole in the equation and that he doesn’t buy the argument that the Ministry of Health or third parties shouldn’t provide a register.

Currently, parents find surrogates through word of mouth, social media or even articles or advertisements in women’s magazines, Dalley says.

04

Amokura Kawharu, president of the Law Commission, and Lambie presented their findings to the Health Select Committee on June 8.

Lambie said a government register or allowing third parties to operate on a non-profit basis as they do in the UK were considered as options.

“We found neither …. had a huge amount of support,” she says. “Our starting point was …. the proper role of the government here. We think the state’s proper role is to provide a safe and effective regulatory framework but not to actively facilitate private surrogacy arrangements.

“Getting into the detail by matching intended parents with a surrogate might not be the best use of government resources or the best way for the government to provide the environment for services to operate. We also had some questions about how it would operate in practice.”

The South Australia Law Reform Institute considered but rejected a register when informal communities worked in practice, Lambie says.

The review noted that recommendations in the report would reduce the barriers for intended parents wanting to connect with potential surrogates. “In addition to the online communities that are currently operating, enabling intended parents to advertise for a surrogate will provide new avenues for intended parents and surrogates to connect.

“Second, we are concerned that permitting private intermediaries will increase the cost of surrogacy in Aotearoa New Zealand, even if intermediaries are restricted to operating on a non-profit basis. In the United Kingdom, it has been reported that some non-profit organisations charge more than £15,000 for their services. There would also be a regulatory cost associated with permitting intermediaries to operate in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Continued on page 05

Photo: Sandy AKNINE / Getty Images

“It’d be nice to have a structure around this and have a safe place where you could go [to] be matched up with a surrogate.”

Dalley hopes Coffey’s private member’s bill will help fill this void. If the government isn’t willing to create an agency, another option could be fertility clinics, which already have egg and sperm donor registers.“So why not surrogates? Conversation needs to happen with those clinics to see why they don’t do it.”

It would cost the fertility clinic upfront to arrange for the surrogate to have medical testing, counselling, and background checks. “They would have to incur that cost [which] would then fall on to the intended parent to recompense the clinic or the provider.”

That would be an improvement on the current DIY style of matching, Dalley says. “People really don’t want to [search on Facebook groups]. They’re doing it because that’s the only option they have. They would much prefer to do it privately and with some dignity.”

Jun 17, 2022 Issue 19

Continued from page 04

Stewart Dalley

“Third, we accept the point made by some submitters that it would be very difficult to regulate intermediaries that operate online or over social media.”

On Coffey’s private member’s bill, Dalley says it will be interesting to see if the government machinery and private submitters will push for a surrogacy agency. “Because that seems to be what’s left dangling.”

Complexities

They’re doing it because that’s the only option they have. They would much prefer to do it privately and with some dignity

International surrogacy is reasonably common. It can be very complex because every country regulates surrogacy and legal parenthood in different ways, the Law Commission said.

Some international surrogacy arrangements may lack protections for the child, the surrogate and intended parents. By incorporating this into the court pathway, the Law Commission says protection would be provided to the parties. Any application to the Family Court could be heard remotely so the child could get New Zealand citizenship and enter the country with the intended parents shortly after birth.

One question that Dalley is pondering is at what point in a pregnancy will the new law kick in once it’s passed.

Would it be only from the date the law came into effect?

Or backdated to conception for surrogate children already conceived? That would be of interest to people who are currently at the start of their surrogacy journey.

As with the marriage equality bill, which amended the Marriage Act 1955, other legislation will need amending to play catchup following the passing of a new surrogacy law, Dalley says. For example, once surrogate parents no longer need to adopt their own children and can apply for parentage orders instead, citizenship law will need to be amended.

“When an adoption order is granted, a child automatically

becomes a New Zealand citizen if one of the parents was a citizen or resident visa holder,” Dalley says. “[Legislators] need to ensure they align the citizenship laws as well to cover these parentage orders, especially for [surrogate] children born outside of New Zealand.”

In its review, the Law Commission recommended that s 3 of the Citizenship Act 1977 should be amended to ensure a child who is the subject of a parentage order is treated the same way as a child adopted under the Adoption Act 1955 (or its replacement) for citizenship purposes.

It wasn’t clear until the Law Commission released the report whether Coffey would continue with his private member’s bill.

He says he has now made the decision to push on with the bill and call for submissions, which opened the following day.

The bill is open for submissions for six weeks from June 10.

“They may want to include issues around the wider surrogacy reports, not just my bill.

“Who knows if there’s going to be further legislation [as a result of the Law Commission’s review]? I don’t, and there currently isn’t any legislation at the moment. So until that happens, we’ll go through the normal select committee process and call for submissions, listen to them and produce a report to get back to the House for a second reading.”

Ultimately Coffey’s bill could be rolled into new legislation and adopted into wider work from the government and he notes the cross-party support for surrogacy reform.

“It’s a good grounding, to actually ensure that it’s not politically gamed or that people don’t use it for nefarious reasons, to be able to score political points.

“It’s really important to mention [that] this isn’t just a matter of the gay issue. This is an issue that affects lots of people who want to start their own families. And I’m really pleased that all parties have realised that this issue is bigger than our political allegiances.” ■

NEW TITLE

Challenge and Change: Judging in Aotearoa New Zealand Editors John Burrows QC and Jeremy Finn The focus of this new text is on how judges have dealt with social, demographic and economic change and the difficulties they have faced with the legislature and the executive. It is split into four parts, each exploring in depth an important topic but written to be accessible and of interest and value to a wide range of readers.

Contributors to the book Gordon Anderson • Natalie Baird • Richard Boast • John Burrows • Natalie Coates • Justice Helen Cull • Shaunnagh Dorset •

Justice Rebecca Ellis • Jeremy Finn • Andrew Geddis • Kris Gledhill • Justice Stephen Kós • Nicola Peart • Katherine Sanders • Tania Sharkey • Justice Joseph Williams • Chief Justice Dame Helen Winkelmann Price for ADLS members $117.39 plus GST* Price $130.43 plus GST* To purchase this book please visit https://adls.org.nz or contact the ADLS bookstore by phone: 09 306 5740, fax: 09 306 5741 or email: thestore@adls.org.nz * + Postage and packaging

05

TRUST LAW

When a court can order mediation to resolve trust disputes Anthony Grant

Many judges have had sufficient exposure to the reality of mediations to know when it is not appropriate to order one defined term “matter” – can be the subject of a s 145 order.

■ Some of the issues that the husband wanted to mediate had

Anthony Grant

06

Section 145 of the Trusts Act empowers a court to order some trust disputes to be the subject of an ADR (alternative dispute resolution) process. S v N [2021] NZFLR 756 may be the first case to be dealt with under the new regime.

A husband and wife were trustees of two trusts. Following their separation, they couldn’t agree on most things. The tensions between them extended beyond disputes about their trusts to more serious matters. The wife applied successfully for an order against the husband for domestic violence.

They eventually agreed to resign as trustees of the two trusts and to be replaced by two Auckland lawyers.

After their resignation, the husband’s lawyer filed a memorandum with the High Court, asking the court to order a mediation of a number of disputes.

Wylie J said the method of requesting the mediation was flawed.

Conventionally, it should have been done by an application for directions under s 133 of the Trusts Act and not by a memorandum, he said, but nevertheless went on to consider the substance of the informal application.

Section 145, authorising the court to refer “a matter” to ADR, is not as broad as some might suspect. The section confines the court’s powers to “internal matters” and “a matter”. These terms are defined in s 142.

The term “matter” is defined as “a legal proceeding brought by or against a trustee in relation to a trust; or a dispute … between a trustee and a beneficiary or between a trustee and a third party, or between two or more trustees that may give rise to a legal proceeding”.

An “internal matter” is defined as being “a matter to which the parties are a trustee and one or more beneficiaries, or a trustee and one or more other trustees, of the trust”.

Some lessons can be learned from the application: ■ The court cannot submit a matter to an ADR process “if the terms of a trust indicate a contrary intention”: s 145(1)(b).

Wylie J held that the terms of the two trusts did not contain “a contrary intention”.

■ He held that the s 145 procedure does not authorise a court to require that “a dispute about the validity of all or part of a trust” can be made the subject of a compulsory ADR process. Only “internal matters” – a term that incorporates the separately

“nothing to do with a trust” and did not fall within the definition of “matters” or “internal matters”.

If the court is satisfied that the issues an applicant wants to have resolved by ADR fall within s 145, it has a discretion to refuse to order an ADR process. The court declined to exercise its discretion for three reasons.

First, the court had previously made some consent orders and the husband had “agreed that the various matters he now seeks to mediate should be determined by the independent trustees. … The trustees have not as yet completed these tasks, and in my view, the court should be slow to undermine its existing orders”.

Second, the husband was the subject of a domestic violence order involving the wife and her compulsory attendance in a mediation, even by a Zoom link, “would perpetuate the abuse to which she says she has been subjected”. The judge added: “It is counterintuitive to force people to attend a mediation when they do not wish to do so. … Forcing an unwilling party, with the benefit of a protection order, to attend a mediation insisted on by her abuser is not an attractive proposition.”

Third, the husband had “breached court orders” and “given the patently obvious absence of any goodwill between the parties, it is difficult to see that mediation would achieve anything. … It would force [the wife] into a distressing and unwelcome confrontation with [the husband] and inevitably involve her in additional cost and delay”.

Most lawyers involved in mediations will be able to identify cases where the prospect of success is too remote to justify going through the process. They can accurately predict that a mediation will fail, and that the parties will simply be wasting their time and money on the exercise.

Lawyers with this experience may have had concerns that the court could use its powers under s 145 to order mediations that are doomed to fail.

But they can take some comfort from Wylie J’s decision. There may be several good reasons why the court should not order a mediation and many judges have had sufficient exposure to the reality of mediations to know when it is not appropriate to order one. ■ Anthony Grant is an Auckland barrister specialising in trusts and estates. ■

Jun 17, 2022 Issue 19

TECHNOLOGY

‘Transparency reports’ from tech giants are vague on combating misinformation.

It’s time for legislation There are currently no acceptable, enforceable standards on identifying misinformation

On May 30, Meta, Google and Twitter released their 2021 annual transparency reports, documenting their efforts to curb misinformation in Australia.

Despite their name, however, the reports offer a narrow view of the companies’ strategies to combat misinformation. They remain vague on the reasoning behind the strategies and how they are implemented.

They therefore highlight the need for effective legislation to regulate the digital information ecosystem.

The transparency reports are published as part of the Digital Industry Group’s (DIGI) voluntary code of practice that Meta, Google and Twitter signed onto in 2021, along with Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, Redbubble and TikTok. The DIGI group and its code of practice were created after the Australian government’s request in 2019 that major digital platforms do more to address disinformation and content quality concerns.

implements to identify false information and moderate its spread. These include: ■ alerting users when they engage with misleading tweets; ■ directing users to authoritative information when they search for certain key words or hashtags; and ■ punitive measures such as tweet deletion, account locks and permanent suspension for violating company policies.

In the first half of 2021, Twitter suspended 7,851 Australian accounts and removed 51,394 posts from Australian accounts.

Google’s report highlights that in 2021 it removed more than 90,000 YouTube videos from Australian IP addresses, including more than 5,000 videos with covid-19 misinformation.

Google’s report further notes that more than 657,000 creatives were blocked from Australiabased advertisers, for violating the company’s “misrepresentation ads policies (misleading, clickbait, unacceptable business practices, etc)”.

Google’s senior manager for government affairs and public policy, Samantha Yorke, told The Conversation: “We recognise that misinformation, and the associated risks, will continue to evolve and we will re-evaluate and adapt our measures and policies to protect people and the integrity of our services.”

What the reports say

Underlying problem

In Meta’s latest report, the company claims to have removed 180,000 pieces of content from Australian Facebook and Instagram pages or accounts for spreading health misinformation during 2021.

It also outlines several new products, such as Facebook’s Climate Science Information Centre, aimed at providing “Australians with authoritative information on climate change”. Meta describes initiatives including the funding of a national media literacy survey and a commitment to fund training for Australian journalists on identifying misinformation.

Similarly, Twitter’s report details various policies it

In reading these reports, we should keep in mind that Meta, Twitter and Google are essentially advertising businesses. Advertising accounts for about 97% of Meta’s revenue, 92% of Twitter’s revenue and 80% of Google’s. They design their products to maximise user engagement and extract detailed user data which is then used for targeted advertising.

Although they dominate and shape much of Australia’s public discourse, their core concern is not to enhance its quality and integrity. Rather, they hone their algorithms to amplify content that most effectively grabs users’ attention. Having said that,

Uri Gal

let’s examine their transparency reports.

What is misinformation’?

Despite their apparent specificity, the reports leave out some important information. First, while each company emphasises efforts to identify and remove misleading content, they don’t reveal the exact criteria through which they do this – or how these criteria are applied in practice.

There are currently no acceptable, enforceable standards on identifying misinformation (DIGI’s code of practice is voluntary). This means each company can develop and use its own interpretation of the term “misinformation”.

Given they don’t disclose these criteria in their transparency reports, it’s impossible to gauge the actual scope of the mis/disinformation problem within each platform. It’s also hard to compare the severity across the platforms.

A Twitter spokesperson told The Conversation its policies on misinformation focused on four areas: synthetic and manipulated media, civic integrity, covid misinformation and crisis misinformation. But it’s not clear how the policies are applied in practice.

YouTube, which is owned by Google’s parent company Alphabet, and Meta are also vague in describing how they apply their misinformation policies. The reports don’t provide enough quantitative context for their statements of content removal. While the companies do provide specific numbers of posts removed or accounts acted against, it’s not clear what proportion of the overall activity these actions represent on each platform.

For example, it’s difficult to interpret the claim that 51,394 Australian posts were removed from Twitter in 2021 without knowing how many were hosted that year. We also don’t know what proportion of content was flagged in other countries or how these numbers

Continued on page 08 07

Continued from page 07 track over time. And while the reports detail various features introduced to combat misleading information (such as directing users to authoritative sources), they don’t provide evidence as to their effectiveness in reducing harm.

What’s next?

The successful applicant will :

Meta, Google and Twitter are some of the most powerful actors in the Australian information landscape. Their policies can affect the well-being of individuals and the country as a whole. Concerns about the harm caused by misinformation on these platforms have been raised in relation to the covid-19 pandemic, federal elections and climate change, among other issues.

It’s crucial they operate on the basis of transparent and enforceable policies whose effectiveness can be easily assessed and independently verified.

In March, former Australian prime minister Scott Morrison’s government announced that, if re-elected, it would introduce new laws to provide the Australian Communications and Media Authority “new regulatory powers to hold big tech companies to account for harmful content on their platforms”. It’s now up to Anthony Albanese’s government to carry this promise forward.

Local policymakers could take a lead from their counterparts in the European Union, who recently agreed on the parameters for the Digital Services Act. This will force large technology companies to take greater responsibility for content that appears on their platforms. ■ Uri Gal is a Professor of Business Information Systems at the University of Sydney ■ The above first appeared in The Conversation and is republished with permission

• Be proactive and motivated with a positive attitude and strong work ethic;

Business For Sale

We are a busy general practice located in Howick, Auckland. We are looking for an experienced Commercial Lawyer to join our team.

The role requires solid experience in all areas of Commercial Law, including sale and purchase of businesses and commercial premises, commercial leases, franchise agreements, employment agreements and shareholder agreements.

We anticipate that you would have 10+ years’ New Zealand PQE. You will be experienced in dealing with clients, able to work autonomously and manage a heavy workload. Excellent interpersonal and communication skills are essential, as well as a confident and professional approach.

• Have excellent time management skills; and

General Practice Law Firm

• Be able to communicate in plain language and use common sense to provide practical solutions tailored to our clients’ specific needs.

Auckland | $490,500 Long established law firm ready to be taken over and rejuvenated. North Shore based with clients on both sides of the bridge. This firm has a vast amount of untapped potential.

Flexible lease terms.

• Diverse legal work • Lot of room to grow • Genuine work-life balance!

• 3-Year average profits exceed $295k!

We see a long-term future within the firm in our well-established community. We have an extensive client base consisting of quality businesses, trusts and individuals. We have fantastic schools, shopping, beaches, cafes, sports and cultural facilities all within a short distance, and believe East Auckland is a great place to live and work.

An attractive salary package will be offered to the successful applicant including Fencible Law’s “Flextime” hours for professional staff.

If you would like to learn more about this opportunity please email your CV, in confidence, to Richard Galbraith at Richard@fenciblelaw.co.nz or phone Richard for a confidential discussion on 021-433996. www.fenciblelaw.co.nz

www.linkbusiness.co.nz/EL03573

“You only get one chance to sell your business, so it makes sense to do it right.”

Are you considering selling your Law Firm in 2022?

If you are looking for a fresh start and are curious about the value of your business call me today for a confidential discussion.

JD Hyslop 021 377 569 jd.hyslop@linkbusiness.co.nz 0800 546 528 LINKBUSINESS.CO.NZ

08

All LINK Offices Are Licenced REA08

Commercial Lawyer

Jun 17, 2022 Issue 19

Events Featured events

Connecting New Zealand lawyers

Central Auckland Express Lunch Wednesday 29 June 1pm – 2pm Glass Goose, 78 Federal Street, Auckland CBD Sponsored by CoLegal Learn more

Upcoming August

Thursday 4 | Tauranga lawyers’ lunch Thursday 11 | Henderson lawyers’ lunch Wednesday 17 | Hawke’s Bay lawyers’ lunch Wednesday 24 | Christchurch lawyers’ lunch

September

Wednesday 28 | Takapuna lawyers’ lunch

Soon to be added: Hamilton lawyers’ lunch Wednesday 6 July 12.30 pm – 2pm Iguana Street Bar & Restaurant, 203 Victoria Street, Hamilton Sponsored by MAS

October | Wellington lawyers’ lunch November | New Plymouth sundowner November | East Auckland lawyers’ lunch November | Tauranga sundowner

Learn more

Rotorua lawyers’ lunch

Photo: Lucia Vazquez / Getty Images

Wednesday 27 July 12.30 pm – 2pm Ambrosia Restaurant, 1096 Tutanekai Street, Rotorua Sponsored by MAS Learn more

Book Here

events@adls.org.nz

adls.org.nz

09

FEATURED CPD

FINAL NOTICE

WRITING SKILLS HACKS

Excellence in legal writing Auckland Workshop 3 CPD hrs Tuesday 21 June 1pm – 4.15pm Facilitator Andrea Ewing, Crown counsel, Crown Law Office

Legal writing is the bread and butter of a lawyer’s practice. But writing well is harder than it looks. For years, we’ve been told that we should “write like Katherine Mansfield”. But how?

Spaces are limited. Register now to avoid missing out.

FIND OUT MORE

Personal effectiveness workshop

Online Workshop 4 CPD hrs Monday 27 June 9am – 1.15pm Presenter Tony Gardner, managing director, Archetype Leadership + Teams

Back by popular demand, this workshop offers a range of personal effectiveness insights and tools to help increase your productivity and return-on-effort at work. It is facilitated by a leading high-performance consultant.

Limited spaces available.

PERFORMANCE SKILLS DEVELOPMENT

FIND OUT MORE

New protected disclosures regime CHANGES IMPLICATIONS REVIEW

Webinar 0.70 CPD hr Tuesday 28 June 12pm – 12.40pm Presenters Tim Clarke, partner, Bell Gully and Bronwyn Heenan, partner, Simpson Grierson

The long-awaited Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022 comes into force on 1 July 2022, repealing and replacing the Protected Disclosures Act 2000. Lawyers advising in this area must get up to speed with key changes and any implications for their clients, including a review of workplace policies and procedures.

FIND OUT MORE 10

Jun 17, 2022 Issue 19

adls.org.nz/cpd

Inland Revenue insights PROPERTY TAX INVESTORS

Webinar 1.25 CPD hrs Wednesday 29 June 4pm – 5.15pm Presenters Manoj Rathod and Kevin Mascarenhas, property team – community compliance, Inland Revenue and Denham Martin, lawyer, Denham Martin Tax Law

cpd@adls.org.nz

09 303 5278

This webinar, led by members of Inland Revenue’s property – community compliance team, will update lawyers on how the regulator is applying the brightline test and interest deductibility rules to residential property investment.

FIND OUT MORE

Overseas investment update REGIME CONSENT PROPERTY

Webinar 1.5 CPD hrs Thursday 30 June 12pm – 1.30pm Presenters Pedro Morgan; Lael Kim and Andre Baldock, all from the Overseas Investment Office

This webinar will cover the overseas investment regime as it applies to the types of residential property purchases legal practitioners are most likely to encounter. It will help you understand the regime, recognise when a client needs consent from the Overseas Investment Office and how to go about doing that.

FIND OUT MORE

Working from home: risks, insurance and preparation TECHNOLOGY PROTECTION OPTIONS

Webinar 1.5 CPD hrs Monday 4 July 4pm – 5.30pm Presenters Lloyd Gallagher, managing partner, Gallagher & Co and Sasha Daniels, lead legal business partner – technology, competition and regulation, Spark New Zealand Legal

This webinar will cover cyber-insurance (its scarcity and limitations and alternatives) and offer general tips and traps about using technology when working from home.

FIND OUT MORE 11

CPD IN BRIEF FINAL NOTICE

Consumer law developments

Alternatives to trusts

Livestream | In Person 2 CPD hrs Thursday 23 June 4pm – 6.15pm Presenters Brigette Shone, special counsel, Russell McVeagh and Charlotte Fleetwood-Smith, consumer law specialist, Russell McVeagh

Are your clients prepared for significant changes in this area of law? Consumer law has been a moving feast of legislative and case law developments in the past 12 months. Significant changes to the Fair Trading Act come into force on 16 August 2022 with the unfair contract terms regime extending to business-to-business or “small trade” contracts and a new statutory unconscionable conduct regime being introduced.

Webinar 1 CPD hr Thursday 7 July 12pm – 1pm Presenter Tammy McLeod, director, Davenports Law Limited

Your client may want a trust, but is that the best option? This webinar will look at when a trust should be used and what alternatives might be better suited to the client’s circumstances.

IN PERSON

LIVESTREAM

FIND OUT MORE

Drafting wills

Workshop 3.5 CPD hrs Wednesday 3 August 9am – 12.45pm Facilitators Henry Stokes, general counsel, Perpetual Guardian and Theresa Donnelly, legal services manager, Perpetual Guardian

Led by two facilitators immersed in wills and asset planning and known for their practical aproach, this workshop will give you the confidence to deliver real value to your clients.

FIND OUT MORE

Lawyer for child

Seminar | Livestream 2 CPD hrs Thursday 4 August 4pm – 6.15pm Presenters David Amodeo; Val Muller; Sonya Singh and Craig Walker

Providing perspectives from those in the role, the judiciary and the ministry, this seminar will provide key insights into what the role is (and is not), the statutory framework and the balancing act required when considering the child’s views and his or her welfare and best interests.

Chair Judge Antony Mahon

IN PERSON

International Family Law Conference Thursday 10 November | In Person | Livestream | 5.75 CPD hours Visit adls.org.nz for more information.

12

LIVESTREAM

Jun 17, 2022 Issue 19

Expert witness/Retired Civil Engineer Investigations/civil works & buildings

• 33 years as a contractor/property developer • 20 years as a project manager/consulting engineer Experience includes: Sales, unit title, buildings, price specifications, quantities, volumes, concrete works, roading, subdivisions, survey, general civil work.

CV on request Contact: Walter MacDonald Ph: 021 822 634 E: walterma45@gmail.com

General Manager Central Christchurch Location White Fox & Jones is a widely respected Canterbury based law firm focused on delivering specialist, high quality and practical legal advice. We understand that delivering legal advice is not just about knowing the law. It is about knowing each of our clients and knowing what they need.

WILL INQUIRIES

Please refer to deeds clerk. Please check your records and advise ADLS if you hold a will or testamentary disposition for any of the following people. If you do not reply within three weeks it will be assumed you do not hold or have never held such a document.

LawNews: The no-hassle way to source missing wills for $80.50 (GST Included) reception@adls.org.nz DX CP24001, Auckland 1140

ADLS, PO Box 58, Shortland Street, Fax: (09) 309 3726

We are currently seeking a General Manager to lead the firm, implementing strategy, managing operations and leading service delivery to achieve our vision.

The GM is responsible for day-to-day management of the firm, including personnel, systems, financial, technology, marketing and premises.

For more information candidates can download a position description and apply online at www.sheffield.co.nz/job-search To apply by email, please send your cover letter and CV to cvchc@sheffield.co.nz quoting 8047ADLS. Closing date: 3 July 2022.

Contact: Andrea Bankier at Sheffield on +64 (0) 27 4478 102.

( 09) 303 5270

NIKO Vern

PICKERING Brian Anthony

• Late of 10 Kauri Point Road, Laingholm, Auckland • Married • Joiner • Aged 59 / Died 16’11’21

• Late of 356 Bull Road, Paparoa • Married • Truck driver • Aged 61 / Died 09’04’22

Charlotte Joy SEN IO R ASSO CI ATE

OAKES Anne Elizabeth • Late of 112 Ahuroa Road, Waipu • Horticulturalist • Aged 78 / Died between 10’05’22 and 15’05’22

A huge congratulations to Charlotte on her promotion to Senior Associate.

belaw.co.nz

13

1.25 CPD HOURS

Inland Revenue Insights – Brightline and Interest Limitation Rules Wednesday 29 June | 4pm - 5.15pm | Webinar There has been a wealth of information on Bright-line, and on the interest limitation rules. But wouldn’t you like to know how it’s all playing out from the regulator’s perspective? This webinar, led by members of the IRD’s Community Compliance team, will give you the behind-the-scenes insight.

T 09 303 5278

E cpd@adls.org.nz

W adls.org.nz/cpd

3 CPD HOURS

Excellence in Legal Writing Auckland Afternoon Session Tuesday 21 June | 1pm - 4.15pm | Workshop This learn-by-doing workshop will help you achieve writing excellence through three simple hacks: writing concretely; writing actively; and writing less. Join us to learn the hallmarks of crisp legal writing, to understand the traps that frustrate writing, to practise editing and to develop your skills in ‘point-first’ advocacy.

T 09 303 5278

14

E cpd@adls.org.nz

W adls.org.nz/cpd