Donna Hall’s no conflict defence rejected by tribunal

Lawyer Donna Hall has failed to have conflict of interest charges against her dismissed.

The Lawyers and Conveyancers Displinary Tribunal this afternoon threw out her defence assertion she had no conflict of interest in a three-way multi-million dollar land deal.

The tribunal earlier found a prima facie case to support New Zealand Law Society disciplinary charges Ms Hall acted for the vendor, purchaser and lender during the sale of North Island land in 2007.

Ms Hall has so far declined to provide a substantive affidavit responding to Law Society's case against her.

A conference will determine the next step in the hearing of the conflict charges against Ms Hall.

The tribunal adjourned earlier this month after Ms Hall’s QC, Helen Cull, submitted there was no case to answer.

Ms Hall may still give evidence about her alleged conflict of interest in the land deal. She has not yet provided an affidavit to the tribunal.

It is unlikely Ms Cull will get Ms Hall in the stand. She may still continue by submissions and could still lodge an appeal against the decision.

Whatever avenue is taken, the tribunal will not accept a long delay.

The tribunal will be keen to hear Ms Hall's explanation of her role in the complex land deal, which saw her rake in $300 000 in legal fees.

Ms Hall acted on behalf of both Tauhara Middle 15 Trust and Hikuwai Hapu Lands Trust in the sale of Tauhara North block near Taupo from Landcorp.

In addition, the tribunal was told Ms Hall also acted for Tauhara Middle 4A2A Trust, which provided an unsecured loan to Tauhara Middle 15 to help fund its $1 million contribution to the deal. 

"This is not evidence of negligence or incompetence," Ms Cull contends.

Ms Cull argued the long-term gains negated the short-term aspects of  Ms Hall's alleged conflict of interest and refuted claims Ms Hall pushed for the deals so she could hang on to $300,000 in legal fees from the Hikuwai trust.

“In this case, the interests of the Tauhara and Hikuwai trusts were in common,” Ms Cull said.

“The ultimate benefit has been obtained, as to their trusts and their beneficiaries, an acquisition of a valuable resource.”

She says the two parties' interests were not "opposed" or in direct conflict with each other and the deal had been profitable for beneficiaries because the rateable value of the land bought for $5m is now $8.01m.