Our Story

At Wairarapa Law, we started these chambers to help ‘fight for ordinary New Zealanders’. We saw a real need to offer a comprehensive litigation and dispute resolution service that is effective for our clients.

Our team below cover a range of legal areas so we confident that no matter what you need  we cal help. Be that a court room advocate, a diplomatic negotiator or a skilled mediator, one of the team can assist.

We offer a professional one-stop litigation and dispute resolution shop. We can appear for clients in any Court or tribunal in New Zealand, and will consider taking instructions anywhere in the South Pacific for certain cases.

So, are you guys a law firm or what?

No. We are not a firm of barristers.  Wairarapa Law is a barristers’ chambers. In plain terms, this means that all of the members of chambers are independant of each other and self-employed.

We work together as a team when required, share our facilities, and support each other. Occasionally, we stand together in Court. Occasionally, we also stand on the other side of the Court-room from one another representing opposing parties. As we maintain confidentiality within our own separate practices, this is not an issue and perfectly normal practice among barristers. If that doesn’t clear it up. Ask!

You guys are barristers, what does that mean?

Broadly speaking, all we do is litigate (or prepare to litigate, or resolve disputes short of litigation). We do not do conveyancing. We can not draw you up a trust deed.

We can not accept instructions directly from the public, but need instructing solicitors. If you do not have a solicitor, we can arrange instructions at no additional cost; our preference is for you to arrange the referral, though. You don’t walk in to surgery without a note from the GP at the start, right?

You can, of course, contact us in the first instance to discuss your litigation matter. We invite you to do just that, and we’ll happily explain what being a barrister means in more detail. If you need a solicitor, but do not know where to go, we are happy to refer you to a good one!

Our Team

Michael Bott

Michael Bott

Barrister (BA, LLB)

Michael works hard to fight for his clients, whether it be in high end civil or criminal litigation or a a simple criminal proceeding. Michael has an eye for detail and is passionate about achieving justice for his clients and promoting fundamental human rights.

Michael was called to the bar in 2002, having previously been involved in the construction industry. Michael’s first case in Court was to seek a writ of Habeus Corpus for a prison inmate who was wrongly transferred to a psychiatric hospital following her hunger strike. From the start he has been fighting for the rights  of those who need a heavy hitter. Ever since, Michael has been standing up for his clients, whether that is in the context of human rights matters, criminal law, parole proceedings or civil disputes. He fights for his clients without fear or favour.

From 2005 to 2012, Michael was a member of Blackstone Chambers, Wellington’s pre-eminent human right’s chambers. There, while working alongside Dr Tony Ellis, he participated in some of the leading Human Rights cases heard in our High Court and Court of Appeal.

Michael has been a member of the New Zealand Council of Civil Liberties, and served at an executive level, for 11 years.

In 2016, Michael took the opportunity to establish chambers within his community. Wairarapa Law was established with a view to standing up for ordinary New Zealanders whether they are in the Wairarapa, Wellington, Auckland, or anywhere in the country.

Michael is taking cases as diverse as high level commercial disputes, administrative law, jury trials, military court martials, and human rights cases ranging from the right to hunger strike to cycling in the nude.

Our Fees

Our fees vary on a case by case basis. This is to do with the complexity of the case and what is required. We offer very competitive pricing and as we are a chambers you are not paying more than you absolutely need to.

Wairarapa Law Chambers expects to be able to offer a choice of mediators for a comprehensive range of disputes of a money and non-money nature. Fees will be quoted and agreed according to the seniority and experience of the mediator, and the nature and circumstances of the case. Our aim is to be flexible according to circumstances and we will be pleased to discuss appropriate fee arrangements and also how to arrange instructing a barrister through your solicitor.

Other Dispute Resolution

In addition to mediation, Wairarapa Law Chambers offers a number of other ways of resolving disputes without the need to go to court. Exploring other options can have a large impact on the cost to you. We are able to tailor a service to your needs.

 

Other Questions

Will you act for me under a grant of Legal Aid?

If you are charged with a criminal offence carrying a maximum term of imprisonment of under 10 years, you can not choose your lawyer, but have one randomly assigned. If you are charged with serious crime and think you qualify for legal aid, contact us and we will discuss your options. We are generally only accepting legal aid grants only for serious crime.

 

Can I get finance to pay for your fees?

Yes, if you have a job and meet lending criteria, there are a number of finance companies who will lend you on a secured or unsecured basis to enable you to meet our fees, if you are otherwise unable to do so. If you need help finding an appropriate lender we will point you in the right direction.

 

Can I pay your fees by installment?

We are not a bank. As such, our preference is for you to obtain finance. In exceptional circumstances we will allow a weekly payment, but our terms are generally for payment on issuance of an invoice. If prior agreement has not been reached, and payment is not made, further work will not be undertaken and steps may be taken to recover debts. If you are having difficult with your legal costs, please discuss this with us so we can work together to ensure your legal needs are met.

 

Do you work on contingency - ie "no win no fee"?

As a general rule, no. There are some exceptions to this, however, and in certain human rights cases and high value civil disputes, we will consider working on a contingency basis.

Recent and Notable Cases:

  • James Kotze v New Zealand Police [2017] NZHC 2043, appeal to the High Court from the imposition of a no-drive clause as a condition of bail following a guilty plea to a charge of driving over the limit. Appeal successful, condition was wrong in present case as previous offending too remote and put employment at risk.
    • Canterbury-Westland Standards Committee 3 v Susan Lewis [2017] LCDT 023/16, Hearing before the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal, regarding charges laid in the alternative regarding a practitioner of misconduct, or unsatisfactory conduct or negligence in relation to the representation of a client. Set down for two day hearing, Tribunal found on the application of counsel no case to answer and awards costs.
      • Canterbury-Westland Standards Committee 3 v Susan Lewis [2017] LCDT 023/16, Hearing before the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal, regarding charges laid in the alternative regarding a practitioner of misconduct, or unsatisfactory conduct or negligence in relation to the representation of a client. Set down for two day hearing, Tribunal found on the application of counsel no case to answer and awards costs.
        • New Zealand Police v LM [2017] Hutt Valley District Court, CRI-2015-096-003566 Judge Alone Trial, Assault by Prison Guard on an Inmate. Inmate threatened guard’s family with a “hit man”; significant provocation and des minimus force. Charge proven but discharged without conviction following application by counsel.
          • The Queen v MP [2017] Wellington District Court, CRI-2015-091-001722 Jury Trial, Representative Sexual Violation charges (historic). Rape complaints from the 1970s, defendant now in 80’s with dementia. Fitness to plead hearing held and defendant found unfit to plead or instruct counsel. Permanent name suppression.
            • The Queen v VM [2017] Wellington District Court, CRI 2016-096-3717 Judge Alone Trial, Unlawful sexual connection x 3 and 1 x perverting the course of justice. A rape complainant not believed, charged with unlawful sexual connection with a minor and perverting the course of justice. Poor Police investigation and tunnel vision. Verdicts of not guilty to all charges and permanent name suppression.

            • NZ Police v Liam BAIRD and others [2017] Wellington District Court, CRI 2016-085-011834 Judge Alone Trial, Trespass Charges. Verdicts of not guilty to all charges.
            • The Queen v Gardner [2016] Wellington District Court, CRI-2015-096-003453 Jury Trial, Male Rapes Female Over 16 (x2) Sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection (x2), Kidnapping, Possession of Offensive Weapon (x3), Male assaults female (x2). Verdicts of not guilty to all charges.
            • The Queen v Russell [2016] Wellington District Court, CRI-2015-096-000019 Jury Trial, Male assaults female (x4). Verdicts of not guilty to all charges.
            • Bishop v The Queen/ Mapson v The Queen [2016] NZHC 2386 Successful appeals to the Court Martial Appeal Court against convictions following Court Martial, NBOMe, Miscarriage of justice, fettering of defence cross examination, issues of fairness, breaches of NZ Bill of Rights Act, acquittals entered for both appellants.
            • MBIE v Memelink [2016] NZDC 10427 Successful defence of defendant against 2 charges of making a false statement and dishonestly using a document. Officially induced error accepted by Court.
            • Costello v R [2015] NZCA 512 Successful appeals against sentence
            • Keat v R [2014] NZHC 2784 Successfully defended client against application by Defence Force to retry him.
            • Keat v R [2014] NZHC 1961 MILITARY LAW – Successful appeal against conviction and sentence on five offences under the Armed Forces Discipline Act 1971
            • Routhan v Police [2014] NZHC 3203 Successful appeals against conviction on two out of three charges of trespass
            • R v Lawson [2013] NZHC 1150 Resisted application for preventive detention preventive detention not appropriate – custodial sentence of eights years imprisonment with a minimum sentence of four years and nine months
            • Andrew Lyall Pointon v New Zealand Police [2012] NZHC 3208 Successful appeal against a conviction for running in the nude
            • R v Ahmed [2010] 1 NZLR 262, Successful appeal to Court of Appeal, citizen’s powers of arrest
            • Creser v R [2010] NZCA 208 Successful appeal against conviction on count of assault on a constable
            • Lowe v Police [2010] NZHC CRI-2009-485-000135 Successful appeal over conviction for cycling in the nude
            • Zafirov v Minister of Immigration [2009] NZAR 457 Successful High Court appeal against decision to deport