recognised leaders in the development of the law of negligence
Shyrelle graduated from Auckland University in 2004 and was admitted to the bar in 2005.
She joined the predecessor to the firm in 2004.
Shyrelle receives instructions from New Zealand based insurers on a wide range of issues, typically with an emphasis on professional negligence claims and on policy interpretation. Instructions include claims against solicitors, real estate agents, employers, boards of trustees and territorial authorities. She also maintains a busy construction law practice.
Shyrelle has appeared before all courts in New Zealand and on a number of occasions as junior counsel in the Supreme Court.
Shyrelle assists various organisations on a pro bono basis and has for the last 7 years been a Director of St Mary’s Board of Directors charged with developing the school’s buildings and facilities.
Shyrelle was appointed an associate in 2010 and became a partner in 2014.
We successfully defended a complaint made against real estate agents. The Complaints Assessment Committee determined to take no further action on the complaint.
We successfully defended real estate clients from allegations that they had forged initials on a sale and purchase agreement.
We successfully argued in the Tribunal that the claimant’s assignment was invalid, its own claim should be reduced by 50% for contributory negligence and the quantum of the claim should be reduced. The net result was the claim was reduced by nearly 60%.
We successfully defended an application by a ventilation contractor who sought leave after close of pleadings to file a cross claim against the council.
We successfully applied on the council's behalf to adjourn a 12 week trial when the claimants tabled nearly 1,000 pages of reply evidence 5 weeks before the trial was due to commence.
The ten year long stop defence does not apply to cross claims for apportionment between joint tortfeasors.
How to protect yourself when issuing conditional consents.
This is the Supreme Court authority for the proposition that councils owe a common law duty of care to commercial building owners as well as home owners.
A majority of the Supreme Court found that there was insufficient proximity between the Building Industry Authority and councils or homeowners to justify a duty of care.