• Murder – R v D. Gang confrontation – the client was acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter (co-counsel).
  • R v SRP – Matrimonial setting acquitted of murder, convicted of manslaughter (co-counsel).
  • Incest – R v H – Acquitted by a jury.
  • Arson – R v P – Acquitted by a jury.
  • Rape – R v W – Re-trial after a “hung jury” achieved by another lawyer. Acquitted by a jury on retrial.
  • Arson – burglary – R v BIA – convicted on receiving, possession of house-breaking implements. Acquittal on arson and burglary.
  • Fraud using a document in relation to ACC and three summary offences – R v R – Acquitted fraud by jury – two summary offences were dismissed (irregularity with search warrants, final summary offence section 106 discharge without conviction – which is equivalent to an acquittal).
  • Burglary – R v WPH – Convicted by jury – plea in mitigation – 40 hours of community work. Appealed to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
  • Kidnapping / aggravated robbery and receiving – R v B – Pleaded not guilty, sought a jury trial, acquitted of aggravated robbery and kidnapping. Guilty of receiving.
  • Traffic issues – T v P – driving licence suspended – successful section 94 application. Successful appeal against sentence 200 hours of community work reduced to 55 hours.
  • Dangerous driving – T v C – refused to accompany (supplied specimen of breath – excess breath alcohol alleged). Refusal to remain and failing to stop. Acquitted on refusal to accompany and refusal to remain. Guilty of dangerous driving – fined $300.00 and failing to stop – fined $550.00. No disqualification because of “special reasons”.


A. Land Law

  • Vendor/purchaser – K v K – Successful application for a specific performance of agreement for sale and purchase by the vendor.
  • E v L – Lease payments – Application for relief against forfeiture.
  • H v R – Lease and rental payments.

B. Summary Judgment Applications

  • M & S v S – Outstanding payment – successful in obtaining a judgment in the District Court – judgment slightly reduced on appeal to the High Court. Unsuccessful in the Court of Appeal principles of summary judgment.
  • CD v D – Invoice payments sought from guarantor – partially successful by demonstrating plaintiff not able to show that there was no defence to at least 90% of the claim.
  • L v B – Successful summary judgment application – obtaining liability in a professional negligence claim – quantum subsequently settled by negotiation.

C. Debt Collection

  • ALM v H – Acted for the defendant in the District Court successfully defeated plaintiff’s claim using Contractual Mistakes Act 1972.
  • H v M – Successful appeal to the High Court from the District Court – judgment had been entered against client who was self-represented initially. Judgment was vacated on appeal and successfully resisted on re-hearing.
  • P v E – This was a substantial multi-faceted case which resulted in settlement in favour for client.
  • JBH v S – Successful defence for defendant against leave to execute a judgment which was more than 6 years old.

D. Defamation

  • RH v NN – Issue of mistaken identity – substantial payment – no proceedings issued.

E. Company Law

Numerous winding up applications:

  1. CDM v ARU – Insolvency / Statutory Demand procedure under scrutiny.

F. Family Law

  • S v S – Attempt to set aside contracting out agreement. Successfully resisted.
  • Family Law, including:
    1. Matrimonial Property – M v T. Relating to removal of notice of claims lodged under Property (Relationships) Act 1976 and involved status of the Contracting Out Agreement – whether the parties separated before 1 February 2002 (in which case the Act did not apply to de facto couple, successful resolution for client).

G. Estates Litigation

  • C et ors v C & P – Family Protection settled
  • C et ors v S – Relationship property claim
  • T et ors v L – Estate dispute – Family Protection – settled – Proceedings issued

Employment Law

  • MG v S – New Zealand Employment Relations Authority – settlement by mediation.

Administrative Law

  • S v VRB – Majority decision given against client.