DELIU v THE NEW ZEALAND DISTRICT COURT & ORS [2016] NZHC 2806

DELIU v THE NEW ZEALAND DISTRICT COURT & ORS [2016] NZHC 2806

Section 74(d) of the Evidence Act codifies the common law immunity that bars compelling judges to give evidence about their conduct as judges; the District Court Judge correctly applied that rule to refuse certification to subpoena judges to testify about impressions of counsel competence and fitness; there was no breach of natural justice in deciding the ex parte application on the papers.

Citation
[2016] NZHC 2806
Parties
Plaintiff: Francisc Catalin Deliu; First Defendant: The New Zealand District Court; Second Defendant: The New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal; Third Defendant: National Standards Committee No. 1; Third Defendant: Auckland Standards Committee No. 1
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
23 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Decision on Application to Compel Judges to Attend Disciplinary Penalty Hearing (application Dismissed)
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed; District Court decision confirmed
Legal Topics
Compellability of Judges, Evidence Act S 74(d), Lawyers and Conveyancers Act Cl 6 Sch 4, Natural Justice, Fit and Proper Person Assessment
Administrative Law Professional Discipline Evidence Law Judicial Immunity Compellability of Judges Evidence Act S 74(d) Lawyers and Conveyancers Act Cl 6 Sch 4 Natural Justice +1 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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francisc Catalin Deliu

Plaintiff

The New Zealand District Court

First Defendant

The New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal

Second Defendant

National Standards Committee No. 1

Third Defendant

Auckland Standards Committee No. 1

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Decision on Application to Compel Judges to Attend Disciplinary Penalty Hearing (application Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Court Judge breached natural justice by deciding the ex parte application on the papers
  2. 2 Whether the District Court Judge failed to take into account the applicant's submissions
  3. 3 Whether s 74(d) Evidence Act 2006 permits compelling judges to give evidence about impressions formed while performing judicial functions

Ratio Decidendi

Section 74(d) of the Evidence Act codifies the common law immunity that bars compelling judges to give evidence about their conduct as judges; the District Court Judge correctly applied that rule to refuse certification to subpoena judges to testify about impressions of counsel competence and fitness; there was no breach of natural justice in deciding the ex parte application on the papers.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed; District Court decision confirmed

Orders

  • District Court decision confirming refusal to issue certificate upheld
  • Costs reserved; memoranda to be filed if parties cannot agree on costs