EVGENY ORLOV v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2014] NZHC 2002

EVGENY ORLOV v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2014] NZHC 2002

The Judge refused recusal because the disclosed past professional and limited personal associations did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias; however, because the Full Court had delivered a decision that might materially affect the pending costs and security applications, the hearing for 25 August 2014 was vacated and a timetable for further submissions was ordered to permit consideration of the Full Court outcome and any appeal, with costs reserved.

Citation
[2014] NZHC 2002
Parties
Plaintiff: Evgeny Orlov; First Respondent: New Zealand Law Society; Second Respondent: Auckland Lawyers Standards Committee (appointed under section 356 of Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006); Third Respondent: Auckland Lawyers Standards Committee No. 1
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
22 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Related Civil Proceedings (applications for Costs, Security for Costs, Public Law Compensation, Misfeasance, Malicious Prosecution) / Interlocutory — Application to Vacate/adjourn Hearing and Application for Judge Recusal; Directions for Filing Submissions
Outcome
Hearing vacated; application for recusal declined; timetable for filings set; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Recusal/disqualification, Security for Costs, Costs, Judicial Review, Disciplinary Appeals, Adjournment/vacation of Hearing
Administrative Law Professional Discipline Civil Procedure Public Law Costs Recusal/disqualification Security for Costs Judicial Review +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Evgeny Orlov

Plaintiff

New Zealand Law Society

First Respondent

Auckland Lawyers Standards Committee (appointed under section 356 of Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006)

Second Respondent

Auckland Lawyers Standards Committee No. 1

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Related Civil Proceedings (applications for Costs, Security for Costs, Public Law Compensation, Misfeasance, Malicious Prosecution) / Interlocutory — Application to Vacate/adjourn Hearing and Application for Judge Recusal; Directions for Filing Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to vacate hearing scheduled for 25 August 2014
  2. 2 Whether the Judge should be disqualified/recuse on grounds of past professional associations
  3. 3 Whether to adjourn pending Full Court decision and potential appeal to Court of Appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The Judge refused recusal because the disclosed past professional and limited personal associations did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias; however, because the Full Court had delivered a decision that might materially affect the pending costs and security applications, the hearing for 25 August 2014 was vacated and a timetable for further submissions was ordered to permit consideration of the Full Court outcome and any appeal, with costs reserved.

Court Disposition

Hearing vacated; application for recusal declined; timetable for filings set; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Hearing scheduled for 10am on 25 August 2014 vacated and appearances excused.
  • Plaintiff Mr Orlov to file and serve submissions and any affidavits in opposition to the applications for costs and security for costs on or before 3 October 2014; if nothing filed by that date the Judge will deal with the application on existing papers.