Till
Henderson, with three branches in New Plymouth, Hawera and Stratford,
is the
largest branch-based law firm in the Taranaki region.
Stages in the life of an organisation
In recent times Till Henderson has experienced two “growth spurts”. It embraced, firstly, the opportunities of the “Think Big” years of the 1980s to grow its practice in New Plymouth and then, secondly, in the 1990s, it identified the Waikato as an area of further opportunity for growth. The impetus of this development led to an increasing demand for services, resulting in a presence in Hawera and Stratford also. This growth, however, did not happen by accident. It was a result of carefully designed strategies based on
The growth of the branches was an astute business decision to harness the technology that was becoming available. Till Henderson used this technology to take advantage of the economies of scale in the “one firm over many sites” strategy. All Till Henderson staff had their own work personal computer when most other provincial law firms were wondering what a computer was! A further investment of over $800,000 on technology over the last five years has not only ensured our clients get a more efficient (and therefore, cost effective) service, but it has positioned Till Henderson in an enviable position for future progress. With sound business practices in place and an ability to think “outside the square” Till Henderson will continue to strive to enhance its services to its present and future clients.
Provincial legal practices were traditionally “general practices”. A more complex world has demanded this change and, while still a general practice, Till Henderson now focuses strongly on its commercial and litigation specialties, providing expertise equal to anywhere in New Zealand. Such is the technical competence at Till Henderson, many other lawyers seek legal opinions here.
The Partners are all able and respected lawyers in their respective fields of law, supported by staff lawyers and legal executives carefully selected for their technical expertise. To complete the “team”, a diverse, well-trained support staff ensure our clients are afforded the best possible service.
Firm Values
Quality Service
Our first priority is to give value to our clients. They have the right to expect quality service from everyone at Till Henderson all the time. Our success depends on our ability to learn from experience, to embrace change, to achieve full involvement from all our members and get good results.
Till Henderson’s “point of difference”, when compared to other firms, is in our attitude. We are smart, down-to-earth, direct, non-pretentious and let our excellent results speak for themselves.
Social Responsibility
We recognise equal access for all to the law, therefore welcome private-paying and legally-aided clients. We accept that profitability is compromised in providing the “community service” aspect of legal aid.
Performance
Making Till Henderson successful is a business imperative for all the stakeholders – Clients, Staff and Partners. This requires allocating resources to ensure profitable growth, maintaining an effective balance between today and tomorrow, delivering what and when we promise and tying our own rewards directly to our performance.
Integrity
Integrity and honesty have been identified as the cornerstone of our reputation. We have earned the trust and respect of our community since 1870, based on behaviour that is honest, decent and fair. Such behaviour must continue to characterise all our relationships, both inside and outside the Till Henderson network.
Teamwork
It is recognised that every member of the firm team is equally vital in giving value to our clients.
Leadership
Till Henderson is a leader, not a follower. Both our history and our current performance give us the confidence to assert ourselves as market leaders. We cannot be merely ordinary. Internally, we expect our leaders to gather resources, motivate action and ensure successful outcomes. We want and expect our leaders to inspire us.
The Individual
Till Henderson recognises that it is the specialness of each individual member of the firm that drives the success of the whole team. Everyone is entitled to the opportunity to maximise their individual and collective potential. In fact, they are expected to. Till Henderson values members who have the courage to set strong goals, the ambition to strive and the commitment to be the best. Technical skill, in any of the steps in the process of serving our clients, is highly valued. There is always a place at Till Henderson for the person who strives to be the best.
Innovation
Innovation drives growth. We embrace the opportunities inherent in change and we are confident of our ability to help shape the future.
We have a large client base of individuals, small businesses and some very substantial clients. While for reasons of client confidentiality we can not specifically identify them, we give some very general particulars of some of our largest clients: We represent a group of substantial companies involved in the food industry and other fields, and which has grown from Taranaki origins to a multi national organisation.
We act for a significant charitable trust which has assets of in excess of $60m.
We do the legal work for a group of companies which operate a private university.
We act for a substantial player in the rural services industry, which while headquartered in Taranaki now trades nationwide and internationally.
We do the legal work for a charitable trust which is one of the largest owners of real estate in New Plymouth.
We do legal work for two Taranaki Local Authorities.
We do the employment law work for a major Taranaki Group involved in the timber industry and for a major enterprise involved in the local petrochemical industry.
Some examples of our work in recent years include:
We did all the legal work for a software licensing arrangement between a New Zealand company and a foreign corporation. It is anticipated that the royalties from this arrangement could well be in the seven figures. The legal work included creating a tax effective structure to claim depreciation deductions on the value of the software.
We completed all the legal work, which required two years, associated with transferring some tens of millions of dollars of assets from one group of companies to another group of companies to achieve certain family estate planning benefits and other objectives. The transactions were very complex, and included the transfer and licensing of some well known trademarks with a value in the millions.
We pioneered a new type of company, formed under the Companies Act 1993, which has the unusual feature of functioning effectively as an incorporated discretionary family trust, designed to ameliorate the effects of a capital gains tax in a foreign jurisdiction.
It is a matter of public record that we represented the Taranaki Electricity Trust, the successor to the old Taranaki Electric Power Board, in its negotiations to finalise the merger of the Taranaki Electric Power Board and New Plymouth Energy, in which tens of millions of dollars of assets were at stake. We also acted for the Taranaki Electricity Trust in a High Court application by that Trust to make substantial and far reaching changes to its Deed of Trust in which it was successful.
We did all the legal work a few years ago on restructuring a relatively high profile company which had fallen on hard times [which was not one of our usual clients].
We acted on the disentangling of one large group of companies from another large group of companies, where millions of dollars of assets were involved.
We did all the legal work associated with acquiring a tax loss company and putting in place structures and contractual arrangements designed to use it in a tax effective way. The losses involved were in the tens of millions of dollars.
We acted on the acquisition of one of the largest office buildings in New Plymouth, and did the associated legal work for putting in place a tax effective ownership structure and a structure which did not require the payment of any stamp duty.
We carried out a multi million dollar restructure of a group of companies, designed to accelerate a long term Agreement for Sale and Purchase and to achieve other objectives.
We prepared a number of international distribution and agency agreements.
Some years ago we prepared the documentation to assign some $2.8m of income, which is a technically difficult type of transaction. The transaction did not proceed in the end for various reasons, but the accountants who briefed the work to us commented that they considered we were the only firm in Taranaki capable of doing this type of complex tax work.
We acted on the formation of a multi-million dollar joint-venture for substantial exports to the USA.
We completed, in conjunction with one of the large Auckland/Wellington law firms, representing a substantial client in a major tax audit.
We are acting on getting a substantial group of family-owned companies ready for passing of control to the next generation of the family. Tens of millions of dollars of assets are involved.
We acted for Taranaki’s largest retirement village operator in preparing and registering their Prospectus.
We represented a significant Taranaki Group in defending a complex copyright claim of over $2m, which we settled for $150,000.
We were retained by an American firm of Attorneys to combat infringement throughout NZ of a well-known international Trade Mark.
We prepared a major civil claim for $30m+ arising out of a failed land development scheme.
It is a matter of public record that we acted for Frank Amor in a high profile and long running dispute with the New Plymouth District Council over a large shed he had built at his residence which did not comply with the District Plan. The battle ended in a very favourable compromise where Frank was allowed to retain his shed for life subject to some minor changes to appease his neighbours.
We have conducted a large number of hearings in the Employment Tribunal, the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court, and a large number of employment mediations. We have also represented clients in professional disciplinary hearings before the Police Tribunal and the Nursing Council. We have achieved a very good success rate. Notable cases include defending a newly registered "in-house" union that we helped to establish, from an attempt by the Meat Workers Union of Aotearoa to have it deregistered. We have acted for several Policemen facing disciplinary action, and in one case on appeal to the Employment Court a constable dismissed over 4 years earlier was ordered to be reinstated with all lost income and benefits to be paid. We have also appeared in the Employment Court in a new type of case involving an employer counterclaiming against an employee. We pride ourselves in taking a legalistic approach, “leaving no stone unturned” in order to achieve the desired result.
A notable civil case we conducted was a matter that related to a defendant's right to silence in civil proceedings. The High Court required our client to file an affidavit that potentially incriminated him. An appeal was filed in the Court of Appeal and the decision in favour of our client found rights usually only available to persons in criminal proceedings under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 could be incorporated into civil cases as well. The Court of Appeal's decision was reported in the New Zealand Law Reports.
A successful appeal was made on behalf of a lady who had taken on the unsupported care of a child and was claiming unpaid benefits of $30,000.
We acted for a well known national retailer and secured 8 trademark registrations on behalf of that company. These trademarks are now seen throughout NZ.
These are court judgments which have been published because the publishing editors consider they have established a new legal principle or represent a novel interpretation of the law; or are otherwise legally significant decisions.
For a firm of our size Till Henderson has an unusually large number of reported cases which is a testament to the size and quality of our litigation and common law practice.
These cases include:
Social Security Appeal Authority Decision No. 828 (1983) 3 NZAR 396 - a successful appeal against reduction in Domestic Purposes Benefit.
Re Electronic Business Systems Ltd (in liquidation); Guzzwell v Burr [1990] 5 NZCLC 66, 473 (H.C.) – a successful application against director for compensation for reckless trading.
Finnigan v CIR (1994) 16 NZTC 11,027 (H.C.) – Unsuccessful appeal by way of case stated against tax assessment. Succeeded in appeal (see below).
Finnigan v CIR (1995) 17 NZTC 12,170 (C.A.) – Successful appeal against tax assessment.
Englebretsen v Englebretsen (1999) 19 FRNZ 168 (Family Court) – unsuccessful application to vest family trust by way of family court order.
R v Christiansen [2001] 19 CRNZ 256 – Court of Appeal: Defences available in criminal law for assault on a constable in execution of his duty
R v Richards (1991) 7 CRNZ 551 – Court of Appeal: Criminal law – Disparity of sentencing. Appeal over whether a sentence was excessive.
R v Simpson (1994) 12 CRNZ 155 – Court of Appeal: Criminal law – Preventative detention.
Pickering v Attorney-General (2001) 15 PRNZ 369 – Court of Appeal: This case involved an appeal against a Court Order to call witnesses who did not want to give evidence. We were acting for the appellant.
Veen v Taylor [2000] 2 ERNZ 363 – Employment Court: This case involved an appeal by an employer (a farmer) who had been found by the Employment Tribunal to have unjustifiably dismissed an employee. We were acting for the Respondent.
Riddell v Commissioner of Police [2001] 1 ERNZ 789 – Employment Court: This case involved a referral of a question of law on the issue of whether an enquiry carried out by the Police was an enquiry under the Police Complaints Authority and therefore privileged. We acted for the Applicant.
Ulukita v Joseph [2002] NZFLR 545 – Family Court: This case involved applications for custody of children. We acted for the Respondent.
Police v Charlton [2002] DCR 252 – District Court. This case was about the validity of an evidential breath test in a drink driving prosecution.
Riverside Casino Ltd v Moxon [2001] 2 NZLR 78 – Court of Appeal: This case involved an appeal against a decision to grant a licence. It also involved questions of judicial review of such decisions. We were acting for the respondent.
Pickering v Attorney-General [2001] 2 NZLR 324 – Court of Appeal: This case involved the right to silence and the application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to civil proceedings. We were acting for the appellant.
Matika v Police [2000] 2 NZLR 625 – High Court: This case involved questions of legal aid practice and procedure. We were acting for the appellant.
Down v Van der Wetering [1999] 2 NZLR 631 – High Court: This case involved the right to silence and the application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to civil proceedings. We were acting for the appellant. We were acting for the plaintiff.
Bruce v Edwards [2003] 1 NZLR 515 – Court of Appeal: This case involved the disputed sale of Maori land. We were acting for the respondents.
Gailey v Gordon [2003] 2 NZLR 192 – High Court: This case involved the discretion of the Court in relation to winding up trusts. We were acting for the respondent.
Hamilton Ice Arena Ltd v Perry Developments Ltd [2002] 1 NZLR 309 – Court of Appeal: This case concerned the equitable principle of set off and the principle of repudiation of a contract. We were acting for the appellants in this case.
The Stepping Stones Nursery Limited v Attorney General [2002] 3 NZLR 414 – High Court: This case involved the civil liability of the Crown in relation to a claim for breach of confidentiality. We were acting for the appellants.
Steelink Contracting Services v Manu [1999] 1 NZLR 722 – Court of Appeal: This case involved the interpretation of “harsh and oppressive” in employment law. We acted for the appellant in this matter.
Fleming v Securities Commission [1995] 2 NZLR 514 – Court of Appeal: This case involved the tort of negligence. We were acting for the appellants.
R v Tait [1992] 2 NZLR 666 – Court of Appeal: This case involved criminal practice and procedure in the admission of evidence. We, of course, were acting for the defendant.
R v D and S [1996] 2 NZLR 513 – Court of Appeal: This case also involved criminal practice and procedure in relation to whether 2 accuseds should be tried jointly or severally.
P v M [1998] 3 NZLR 246 – Court of Appeal: This case concerned domestic violence and the jurisdiction to grant final protection orders. We were acting for the first and second appellants.
Hemer v Eden [2001] NZFLR 913 – Family Court New Plymouth: This case concerned a custody and access dispute. We were acting for the applicant.
M v P [1997] NZFLR 597 – Family Court New Plymouth: This case concerned domestic violence protection orders. This case was the precursor to the later appeal at number 13 above. We were acting for the first and second respondents in this case.
Johnson v Hill [1996] NZFLR 1 – Family Court New Plymouth: This case concerned guardianship and custody. We were acting for the respondents.
Re Baby "C" [1996] NZFLR 280 - Family Court New Plymouth: This case also concerned guardianship and custody. We were acting for the applicants.
McDonnell v Collins [1994] NZFLR 885 – Family Court New Plymouth: This case concerned custody and child abduction. We were acting for the applicant.
Taranaki Regional Council v Works Infrastructure Ltd [2002] DCR 814, District Court, New Plymouth, 16 November 2001, Judge C J Thompson.
Works Infrastructure Ltd v Taranaki Regional Council [2002] NZRMA 517, High Court, New Plymouth, 12 July 2002 Harrison J.
T v F (1996) 14 FRNZ 415 Family Court, New Plymouth 24 June 1996 Judge B D Inglis QC.
J v J (1993) 10 FRNZ 269 Family Court, New Plymouth 18 March 1993 Judge B D Inglis QC.
RE Adoption 021/001/91 (1991) 7 FRNZ 427, Family Court, Hawera, 21 February 1991, Judge B D Inglis QC. See also [1991] NZFLR 510.
New Plymouth District Council v Amor Court of Appeal [2002] NZRMA 1 15 August 2001 Thomas, Heron, John Hanson JJ.
In the Adoption of J, [1992] NZFLR 369 Family Court, Hawera, 22 November 1991, Judge Inglis QC.