New Zealand Law and Practice Examination common mistakes
New Zealand Law and Practice Examination · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
When a scenario involves a client buying a house, quoting the standard ADLS/REINZ sale and purchase agreement clause numbers and default warranty positions from memory without checking which version of the agreement (and which additional clauses) the question actually specifies.
Candidates learn the agreement once in study and assume all residential transactions use the same wording. Questions often specify an older edition or added clauses that change the default position, and memory-based answers then contradict the facts given.
What to do instead
For every property question, first write down the agreement edition and any additional clauses stated in the scenario, then apply only the consequences of that version. Practise by comparing two editions side by side and listing the differences in default warranties, settlement and default interest.
Treating the Treaty of Waitangi as directly enforceable in ordinary private litigation, or ignoring it entirely, instead of applying the specific statutory reference (for example the principles referred to in a particular Act) that the question raises.
The Treaty's legal effect depends on statutory incorporation, and candidates either overstate it as a general source of rights or dismiss it as irrelevant. Both errors produce answers that miss the statutory hook the examiner is testing.
What to do instead
When a question mentions the Treaty, identify which Act or provision refers to it and answer only on that basis. Build a short table of key statutes with Treaty references and what each reference requires of decision-makers.
Calculating limitation periods from the date of the lawyer's error rather than from the date the client suffered loss or the date of the relevant act or omission under the Limitation Act 2010, and failing to consider extension or postponement provisions.
Candidates carry over general limitation intuitions from other jurisdictions or from contract claims and do not check the specific start date and the knowledge-based postponement rules in the Act.
What to do instead
For every negligence or contract question, state the applicable limitation provision, the start date it specifies, and whether postponement applies on the facts. Work through three worked examples with different discovery dates.
Answering trust questions by describing general trustee duties without identifying who holds the property, whether the trust is express or resulting, and whether the trustee acted within the trust deed or the Trustee Act powers.
Trusts appear across property, family and estate questions, and candidates default to broad statements about fiduciary duty rather than analysing the specific powers and the effect of any breach on third parties.
What to do instead
For each trust scenario, write a short chain: settlor intention, vesting of title, source and scope of trustee powers, breach, and remedy against trustee or third party. Practice identifying resulting and constructive trusts on short fact patterns.
On client care and conduct questions, quoting the fundamental obligations in general terms without applying the specific rule on conflicts of interest, disclosure of information, or when a lawyer must decline or terminate a retainer.
The rules are short and candidates memorise headings rather than the operative tests, so they miss the fact pattern designed to trigger a conflict or a disclosure obligation.
What to do instead
Learn the conduct rules by working backwards from scenarios: for each rule, write two fact patterns that breach it and one that does not. Focus on informed consent, concurrent and successive conflicts, and the duty to disclose to the client.
Confusing the roles of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act disciplinary bodies, the New Zealand Law Society and the Legal Complaints Review Officer, and attributing powers to the wrong body.
The regulatory structure has overlapping functions and candidates learn names without mapping each body to its jurisdiction, standard of proof and available penalties.
What to do instead
Draw a one-page map of the regulatory pathway from complaint to determination, noting who investigates, who decides, appeal rights and the range of penalties each body can impose. Test yourself by assigning ten short scenarios to the correct body.
Missing the distinction between the Property Law Act 2007 and the Land Transfer Act 2017 when answering questions on easements, covenants, mortgages and indefeasibility, and applying the wrong Act's tests.
Both Acts deal with land and candidates conflate registration concepts with general property law concepts, especially where a question involves both an unregistered interest and a registered title.
What to do instead
For each land question, separate the two issues: is the interest validly created under the Property Law Act, and what is its effect against a registered proprietor under the Land Transfer Act. Practise with fraud and in personam exception scenarios.
Writing answers to practical ethics or accounts questions that describe what the lawyer should do in narrative prose without stating the specific rule, the client's instruction, and the concrete step required (for example the exact trust account entry or the written disclosure to be given).
Candidates treat practice questions as general discussion and do not realise the marking rewards precise identification of the rule and the operational step, including who must sign or be notified.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed answer structure: rule, facts that engage it, required action, timing and record. Practise on trust account reconciliation, fee disclosure and retained funds until the structure is automatic.
Assuming New Zealand contract law has a general duty of good faith in commercial dealings, or importing unconscionability and estoppel doctrines without checking the New Zealand authorities and statutory overlays such as the Fair Trading Act and Contract and Commercial Law Act.
Candidates read overseas material or rely on general equitable language and then apply doctrines more broadly than New Zealand courts do, producing answers that overstate the client's remedies.
What to do instead
Keep a short list of propositions that are often overstated, with the correct New Zealand position and the leading case for each. For every remedy question, name the cause of action and the statutory or equitable basis before discussing outcome.
Ignoring the practical mechanics of a transaction in scenario answers, such as settlement and e-dealing requirements, verification of identity, and the timing of searches and conditions, and answering only on the legal effect.
Candidates focus on substantive law and treat practice steps as background, but many questions award marks for sequencing and for identifying the step that protects the client at the right moment.
What to do instead
Build a timeline template for a conveyancing transaction from pre-contract disclosure through to registration, listing the action, the responsible party and the deadline at each stage. Apply the template to past-style scenarios until the sequence is recalled without prompts.