SKAGEN v WELLINGTON STANDARDS COMMITTEE OF THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2021] NZHC 107

SKAGEN v WELLINGTON STANDARDS COMMITTEE OF THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2021]NZHC 107 [9 February 2021]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDWELLINGTON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHECIV 2015-485-61[2021] NZHC 107UNDER the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006IN THE MATTER OF discipline under the Lawyers andConveyancers Disciplinary TribunalBETWEEN CHRISTOPHER KNUTE SKAGENAppellantAND WELLINGTON STANDARDSCOMMITTEE OF THE NEW ZEALANDLAW SOCIETYRespondentOn the papersJudgment: 9 February 2021JUDGMENT OF MALLON J[1] Mr Skagen was the subject of a decision of the New Zealand Lawyers andConveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal given on 9 December 2014. He broughtproceedings in this Court following that decision. Proceedings in this Court haveresulted in the following judgments:(a) Skagen v Wellington Standards Committee of the New Zealand LawSociety [2015] NZHC 2634 (the interlocutory judgment);(b) Skagen v Wellington Standards Committee of the New Zealand LawSociety [2016] NZHC 1772 (the substantive judgment);(c) Skagen v Wellington Standards Committee of the New Zealand LawSociety [2016] NZHC 2799 (the first recall judgment); and(d) Skagen v Wellington Standards Committee of the New Zealand LawSociety [2020] NZHC 762 (the second recall judgment).[2] In the second recall judgment Mr Skagen asked me to treat the applicationsthat were then before me as an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appealout of time. I did so but declined to grant leave because the application for leave wasmade very late, no question of law was articulated and no seriously arguable point oflaw was apparent.1[3] Mr Skagen then sought the leave of the Court of Appeal to appeal the fourjudgments referred to above. The Court of Appeal accepted the respondent'ssubmission that leave had been declined by this Court on the substantive judgmentonly and that, if Mr Skagen wished to seek leave from the Court of Appeal to appealthe other three judgments, he first needed to apply to this Court for that leave.2[4] Mr Skagen has now filed a notice of interlocutory application in this Courtwhich seeks leave to appeal the other three judgments and other ancillary applications.These applications are all opposed by the respondent. Both parties are content for theapplications to be determined on the papers.[5] The applications for leave to appeal the interlocutory judgment, the first recalljudgment and the second recall judgment are declined because:(a) The application for leave to appeal the interlocutory judgment has beenmade very late. Further, the only matter on which Mr Skagen did notentirely succeed in this judgment was his request for discovery.However, despite the Judge's doubt about whether there was any basisfor the discovery Mr Skagen sought, he urged the respondent to provide1 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, s 254.2 Skagen v Wellington Standards Committee of the New Zealand Law Society CA267/2020, 16 June2020.the documents sought on a voluntary basis. No seriously arguable pointof law is apparent in the application to appeal this judgment.(b) The application for leave to appeal the first recall judgment is also verylate. Moreover, for the reasons stated in the first and second recalljudgments, Mr Skagen was seeking recall for reasons that fell outsidethe narrow grounds on which recall is appropriate. No seriouslyarguable point of law is apparent in the applications to appeal the firstand second recall judgments.[6] The ancillary applications are also declined. They mirror previous applicationswhich have been declined and there remains no jurisdiction to consider them.Mallon J