March 2016

Screen Shot 2015-11-18 at 4.55.47 PM

I haven’t [and still can’t] get this in NZ. It was probably my favourite cake, because of the marzipan.

Screen Shot 2016-04-01 at 8.16.29 AM

Saw this picture on an English legal site, now I’m craving it.

Screen Shot 2015-11-18 at 4.55.47 PM

I’m now working on school assignments in Insolvency and Ethics. In addition I have two new cases in the ACC jurisdiction. So I’m busy.

Screen Shot 2015-11-18 at 4.55.47 PM

Trump seems to be losing some momentum going into the last leg for the nomination. The issue over the wives hasn’t helped him much. Building the wall is seemingly more popular with his base.

This is the ad that Cruz ran. Trump, not impressed.

This is US politics. Has been for a long time. Not to say UK or NZ politics are much better, because they are not. But the US just takes the tacky and unimportant to the next level.

Screen Shot 2016-03-29 at 8.01.04 AM

Screen Shot 2015-11-18 at 4.55.47 PM

So Ducati finish second, and Rossi 4’th.


Screen Shot 2015-11-18 at 4.55.47 PM

We finished yesterday.

On Tuesday, we actually continued until 1900hrs at night, which only ended when opposing counsel objected to going on that night. There was a little bit of a discussion between her and the Judge, which I stayed well out of, although to be honest, I also wanted to go home. But no way was I getting in the middle of that bun fight.

We resumed yesterday, finishing with oral submissions at 1800hrs.

Opposing counsel was a Partner at one of NZ’s leading law firms. Her closing oral submissions, that were also written, ran to 50+ pages, very professionally presented, the whole 10 yards.

Mine by contrast were about 5 pages and at para 100, my numbering system imploded, so the alignment went about skew-wiff.

The actual oral submissions of opposing counsel talked about everything other than the direct issues in the case. They were very broad. They were professionally presented, but, they just avoided the narrow issues of the case.

My oral submissions were very narrow. I simply applied the law to the issues in the case. Hence the meagre 5 pages.

However, I win the case for 1 very important reason.

In the first morning break, as opposing counsel was taking orders for her team [yes, she had a team, taking notes etc] for coffee, I said, “and I’ll have a mocca…” I was being cheeky, but I said it with a straight face….

When she returned, I had a mocca…..I win.


Screen Shot 2015-11-18 at 4.55.47 PM

The first day went well.

The eye witness changed their version of events from their original evidence to the evidence that we needed, so the substantive case for the employer essentially fell apart at this point.

Other witnesses, who in their witness statements voiced some strong statements either retracted those statements, or toned them down, or simply didn’t pursue them at all.

Overall, we came out ahead. Given that at the beginning of the day, this was slated to be a difficult day on the facts [due to the eye witness] by the end of it, we were comfortably ahead on points.

Today [day 2] is the procedural side of things. This was always the stronger element of our case as things went pretty badly wrong from the very start and deteriorated from there. We have plenty of damaging evidence to present today and unless the witnesses can provide explanations derived from god, things will turn sticky for them.

Screen Shot 2015-11-18 at 4.55.47 PM

Start a 3 day employment trial today. Ten witnesses to get through. The first three are today. The only eye-witness to the incident is the first witness on the stand.

This evidence is crucial to the substantive case. Obviously I want to ‘win’ this area in cross-examination, as to lose it, places increased difficulty ¬†on winning the procedural issues.


Next Page »