Header Ad Module

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Company set up - too lax?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    xris is usually right, but on that matter, he isn't. No-one is required to be represented by a lawyer in legal proceedings. DIY is an absolute right.

    The issues re lawyers concern companies and trusts.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Green Fish View Post
      xris is usually right, but on that matter, he isn't. No-one is required to be represented by a lawyer in legal proceedings. DIY is an absolute right.

      The issues re lawyers concern companies and trusts.




      Where?????? What???????

      Comment


      • #18
        (1) Every human litigant can represent themselves, in the Disputes Tribunal, the District Court, the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the NZ Supreme Court. (and the Privy Council, for that matter).

        (2) Where the human litigant is not a party to the proceedings, but a related party is (eg, LAQC), then there is an issue as to who should be allowed to represent that party.

        (3) Tenancy Tribunal, Disputes Tribunal, District Court: The LAQC can appoint someone to represent it, and that someone does not have to be a lawyer.

        (4) High Court & above. Different. The company must either be represented by a lawyer or must be granted permission to be represented by someone else (which permission is not lightly granted.)

        Comment


        • #19
          Green Fish,

          You are missing my point. where did I say that someone could not represent themselves, as you suggest a couple of posts back?

          xris

          Comment


          • #20
            Your #3, although I note that it was posted back in 2006.

            The point is that no-one has to have a lawyer. DIY is very common.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by xris View Post
              Green Fish,

              You are missing my point. where did I say that someone could not represent themselves, as you suggest a couple of posts back?

              xris
              To be specific

              I draw a parallel with the recent change to the law which prevents people from representing themselves in court, and having to use a lawyer.
              DFTBA

              Comment


              • #22
                Thank you (I think) cube.

                This is an ancient post that I can just about remember.

                I recall there was talk of a change to this well established legal principle. It was mooted because of the extraordinarily expensive waste caused by amateurs defending themselves in complicated proceedings (eg MB defending himself - assuming he had had no legal training which he has had I believe), and to prevent alleged, say, rape etc victims being questioned in dock by their accused rapist (eg Cannibal Lecter defending himself and questioning people with an arm and an ear missing).

                This idea would clearly not be applied to lower courts. I am also aware that cube's sentence is posted in isolation, so out of context. Anyway, as it stands I doubt that the idea has progressed further so in that case my statement is false. My guarded apologies.

                xris

                Comment

                Working...
                X