The purpose of legal aid is to ensure the right to legal representation for socially and economically disadvantaged people. But is the system being abused in civil cases? In part two of ‘Legal Car-nage All Over a Banged Up Benz’, we seek answers to why an Auckland man has been able to fund his fight against a used car dealer using your taxpayer dollars.
Thousands of taxpayer dollars have been spent in legal aid on a messy two-year fight over a $15,000 used car deal raising questions about where the line should be drawn on the state funding of civil cases.
The Legal Services Agency has clear eligibility criteria in the case of civil matters with complaints to the Disputes Tribunal and the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal excluded from receiving legal aid, which is reserved for those who require legal representation but cannot afford it.
One of the biggest recipients of legal aid funding in New Zealand is south Auckland law firm Denham Bramwell. Between July 1 last year and June 30 this year, Denham Bramwell, which specialises in commercial law, received close to $1 million in legal aid, which is significant given the bulk of legal aid funding goes towards criminal cases.
The Manukau-based firm is currently facing questions over its role in a used car dispute involving well-known Auckland second hand car dealer John Murphy and disgruntled customer Sanhachai Prerssilp, who took Murphy to the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal wanting a refund on a $15,000 Mercedes Benz he purchased which was found to have mechanical problems.
Murphy had the vehicle repaired but Pressilp was still not satisfied, claiming breaches of the Consumer Guarantees Act.
It later turned out that Pressilp had driven the car into a curb causing several thousand dollars worth of damage which under the low, according to Murphy, excluded the buyer from returning the vehicle.
Prerssilp played down the extent of the collision with the curb submitting photographs to the tribunal he claimed showed minimal damage.
The tribunal agreed and ordered that Murphy refund the Thai national his money.
But now there are questions over the authenticity of those photographs with Murphy providing expert testimony the pictures were doctored and the tribunal was deliberately misled.
Since then Murphy has been in and out of court fighting the matter and on Tuesday was before the High Court for a judicial review.
It has cost him thousands in legal fees while Prerssilp has been fighting the matter on legal aid.
So why is the taxpayer funding a case over a banged up Benz?
Denham Bramwell lawyer Anna Fuiava is representing Prerssilp and when contacted by telephone earlier in the week was reluctant to discuss the matter until completion of the judicial review.
She also wanted to speak with her client, claiming the case was ‘a private matter’ despite it being funded by taxpayer dollars.
She then requested that questions be sent to her in writing and that she would respond.
She did not.
Specifically she refused to respond to questions about the conflicting accounts of damage to the vehicle from the collision with the curb and Murphy’s claims the photographs had been digitally altered and the tribunal misled.
She also would not discuss how the case fell within the eligibility criteria for legal aid, what she had been paid to date or whether from an optics point of view there was an issue with legal aid being paid to someone who could afford a luxury European motor vehicle.
Murphy says Fuiava’s silence speaks volumes. “There are some serious issues here and the fact she refuses to address them publicly makes you
wonder,” he said.
“The tribunal also has some explaining to do. They have a specialised assessor and should have looked at the car themselves rather than relying on the customer’s photos. They have opened themselves up to questions about their integrity”
