The public record on Joyce, Menzies, LawNews and RNZ

The public record on Joyce, Menzies, LawNews and RNZ

Public commentary about me, my work, and employment advocates generally has left out important context.

Some of that commentary is opinion. People can have opinions. But some of it is inaccurate, incomplete, or missing important context. That matters where the commentary is then used to argue for regulation of employment advocates, to damage professional reputation, or to present one side of litigation as if it were the whole truth.

This article brings the main points together. It is an attempt to correct the record and put the underlying facts where they belong: in context.

What this article is not saying

This article is not saying that every word I used was polite. It was not. It is not saying that the Employment Court did not criticise me. It did. It is not saying that others cannot criticise employment advocates. They can.

The point is narrower and more important: criticism should be accurate, contextual, and fair.

What I accept, and what I do not accept

I accept that some of my language has been blunt. I accept that the Employment Court criticised aspects of my conduct. I accept that the Court ordered me to pay costs to Ms Stewart, and those costs were paid. I do not accept the reasons for why I was orded to pay, which will be featured in a future article to explain why.

But accepting those facts does not require me to accept every public narrative built around them. It does not require me to accept inaccurate reporting, missing context, or labels that I dispute.

This article separates what I accept from what I dispute.

The short version

The public narrative has focused heavily on my conduct. My answer is this:

1. In Joyce v Ultimate Siteworks, there was no contempt finding against me, and I was not kicked off the case.
2. In Menzies v Corrigan, the real issue was not simply an advocate being difficult. There was a serious liquidator disclosure and accounting problem.
3. RNZ and LawNews reported the NZBA issue in a way that I say is materially wrong. NZBA was the New Zealand Business Association, not the New Zealand Bar Association.
4. The blunt wording about "pull finger" was not sent to EMA or NZBA. It was used in correspondence with a third party.
5. I dispute the label "harassment". There was litigation conflict, document requests, and strong language. That is not the same thing as harassment.
6. Catherine Stewart Barrister's team was not some irrelevant bystander in Menzies. Documents ordered or expected from the liquidator passed through that office before being provided to the Authority and to us. That is why the document pathway mattered.

Public narrative compared with what I say the record shows

The Joyce reality

Joyce v Ultimate Siteworks has been used as part of the public argument that employment advocates require regulation.

The public narrative tends to be simple: bad advocate conduct, Court concern, regulation needed. That is not the full picture.

The Joyce costs judgment was, at its core, a costs assessment. Ultimate Siteworks raised conduct issues about me as Mr Joyce's representative. Earlier contempt-style relief had been pursued or threatened, but no contempt finding was made against me. I was not found in contempt of Court.

The distinction matters because criticism of language is not the same thing as a contempt finding, removal from the case, or a disciplinary finding.

That did not happen. My position remains that the Joyce commentary should be understood against the actual judgment and the actual procedural history, not as a simplified anti-advocate slogan.

The Menzies reality

Menzies v Corrigan has also been presented publicly as if it was simply about my conduct.

That misses the real issue. The Menzies dispute involved Prime Focus Security Limited, a company in liquidation, former employee Mr Corrigan, my client Mr Menzies, liquidator material, allegations about excessive drawings, and later attempts to make Mr Menzies personally responsible or to require him to take steps to fund the company.

That is not a minor issue.

On 26 July 2024, the Employment Relations Authority ordered Mr Menzies to pay, or take steps to put Prime Focus Security Limited (in liquidation) in funds to pay, $33,103 to Mr Corrigan. That followed the Authority's finding that the company's liquidation was a sham. That finding is under further challenge. Read the 26 July 2024 Authority determination.

The same date was also significant for one of the two liquidators, Ms Nayacakalou. In separate disciplinary findings, she was struck off after conduct described as a "complete dereliction of duty": effectively renting out her licence to a person who did not meet the "fit and proper" test for RITANZ membership, a requirement for holding a liquidator's licence. She was ordered to pay about $40,000 in costs to the NZICA Disciplinary Tribunal.

That matters because the liquidator material was central to what happened to Mr Menzies.

The liquidator disclosure problem

The first liquidator report included a comment about "excessive drawings". That comment became the hook.

In my view, Ms Stewart's team relied heavily on that comment to support a narrative that Mr Menzies had siphoned money out of the company, avoided personal grievance liability, and moved into similar business activity after liquidation.

I reject that narrative.

The problem is not just that the "excessive drawings" comment existed. The problem is that the financial material and the document pathway needed proper scrutiny.

The Authority directed the liquidator to produce documents. But the documents came through Catherine Stewart Barrister's office. Daniel Church emailed the Authority saying he had received documents from the liquidator and asked that they be passed to the Member.

That created a real disclosure issue. If the Authority directs a liquidator to provide documents, and the documents are then routed through the opposing barrister's office, it is fair to ask:

• what exactly was requested;
• what exactly was provided;
• whether everything ordered was produced;
• whether any covering emails or explanations existed;
• whether the material was complete;
• whether anything was filtered, omitted, or misunderstood; and
• whether the parties and the Authority had the full document trail.

That is the context for the later non-party discovery issue. It was not some random rabbit hole. It was about whether the documents and communications behind serious allegations against a company director had been fully disclosed.

Mr Corrigan's paper outcome

There is also an uncomfortable practical question about what Mr Corrigan actually got out of the litigation.

The 2023 costs determination records that Mr Corrigan had been invoiced and had paid total legal costs of $20,143.02. It also records that he sought costs close to indemnity level. The Authority awarded only $6,000 in costs plus the application fee. Read the 2023 costs determination.

The representative recorded in that determination was Javana Schiphorst, counsel for Mr Corrigan. From the material I hold, she was part of Catherine Stewart Barrister's practice.

The practical problem is obvious. Mr Corrigan had a paper win against a company in liquidation. He had paid more than $20,000 in legal costs. The company was in liquidation. The case then moved into efforts to push consequences onto Mr Menzies personally.

In plain English, I say the litigation strategy had a serious practical-recovery problem. That does not mean Mr Corrigan's original grievance was fake. That is not my point. My point is that the practical recovery strategy appears to have depended on pushing liability through a liquidated company and onto a director personally, using liquidation and accounting material that needed far more scrutiny than it received.

The NZBA correction issue

One of the clearest errors in the public reporting is the NZBA issue.

RNZ reported that I attacked the Employers and Manufacturers Association and the New Zealand Bar Association in an email, saying they should "pull their finger out of their arses". Read the RNZ item.

LawNews also reported the issue by referring to the Employers and Manufacturers Association and the "NZ Bar Association". Read the LawNews article.

That is wrong.

The Employment Court judgment says "EMA and NZBA". It does not say New Zealand Bar Association. Read the Employment Court judgment.

The relevant direct email was sent to contact@nzba.org. That was the contact address for the New Zealand Business Association. See the NZBA contact page.

The distinction matters. This was about employer-side and business-side organisations potentially taking an interest in a case involving small business, liquidation, director liability, and the employment jurisdiction. It was not about the New Zealand Bar Association.

There is another important distinction. The blunt wording was not sent to EMA or NZBA. It was used in correspondence with a third party. My direct email to the New Zealand Business Association invited intervention and did not contain that wording.

So the correction is simple: NZBA was the New Zealand Business Association, not the New Zealand Bar Association. And the blunt wording was not sent to either EMA or NZBA.

The harassment label is disputed

LawNews has also used or repeated the language of "harassment".

I dispute that label.

There was litigation. There were document requests. There were disputes about costs. There were strongly worded emails. There were serious disagreements about the conduct of the case.

That is not the same thing as harassment.

The public needs to be careful about the difference between what Ms Stewart alleged, what the Court recorded as submissions or background, what the Court actually decided, and what media commentary later chose to say.

A person can strongly object to conduct. A publisher can report allegations. But once the publisher adopts loaded labels without proper context, the reporting becomes part of the problem.

My position is simple: I do not accept the harassment label. What occurred was litigation conflict, document seeking, and strongly worded disagreement in a case where the document pathway mattered.

The problem with one-sided public commentary

Catherine Stewart was not a disconnected commentator. She had a direct personal and professional interest in the dispute. She sought costs against me personally. She then publicly commented on the matter and on regulation of employment advocates.

That is her right. But the public should understand the context.

When a lawyer who has been personally involved in a dispute then becomes a public commentator on that same dispute, and when that commentary is used to support a broader regulatory argument, the public should ask whether the whole story is being told.

In my view, it has not been.

The story being told publicly has focused on my blunt language and the Court's criticism. It has not properly dealt with:

• the liquidator disclosure problem;
• the accounting concerns;
• the document pathway through Catherine Stewart Barrister's office;
• the practical recovery problem for Mr Corrigan;
• the cost of pursuing a company in liquidation;
• the real reason non-party discovery was pursued;
• the distinction between third-party correspondence and direct emails to EMA/NZBA; and
• the incorrect expansion of NZBA into the New Zealand Bar Association.

Those are not side issues. They go to the heart of the case.

What I say the record actually shows

The record shows that Joyce was not a contempt case against me.

The record shows that Menzies involved serious document, liquidation, and accounting issues.

The record shows that documents ordered from the liquidator came through Catherine Stewart Barrister's office.

The record shows that Mr Corrigan paid more than $20,000 in legal costs and was pursuing practical recovery from a company in liquidation.

The record shows that RNZ and LawNews reported NZBA in a way that I say was materially wrong.

The record shows that the blunt "pull finger" wording was not sent to EMA or the New Zealand Business Association.

The record shows that I dispute the harassment label.

The record shows that there is a much bigger story here than the one being pushed publicly.

Why this matters

This matters because employment disputes are stressful, expensive, and often brutal.

It also matters because public commentary about advocates, lawyers, costs, and regulation should be honest.

If employment advocates are to be criticised, criticise them accurately.

If lawyers want regulation of advocates, they should not build the case on incomplete stories, selective facts, and factual mistakes.

If LawNews and RNZ are going to report on these issues, they should correct material errors.

And if Ms Stewart's public commentary is going to be treated as neutral public-interest commentary, the public should also be told that she was personally involved, personally sought costs against me, and was part of the very dispute being reported.

Conclusion

I am not asking readers to like my language.

I am asking readers to look at the documents.

Look at Joyce and what was actually decided. Look at Menzies and the liquidator disclosure problem. Look at the accounting issue. Look at the $20,143.02 costs point. Look at the direct NZBA email. Look at what RNZ and LawNews said.

Then decide whether the public narrative has been fair, accurate, and complete.

My view is that it has not.

This page brings the key rebuttal material together so readers can assess the record for themselves.