DELIU v THE NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE and AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 1 OF THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2023] NZHC 1606

DELIU v THE NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE and AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 1OF THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2023] NZHC 1606 [27 June 2023]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV 2016-404-2579CIV 2017-404-0184[2023] NZHC 1606UNDER The Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006BETWEEN FRANCISC CATALIN DELIUAppellantAND THE NATIONAL STANDARDSCOMMITTEE and AUCKLANDSTANDARDS COMMITTEE 1 OF THENEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETYRespondentsContinuedOn the papersCounsel: The appellant in personM Hodge for the Standards Committee respondentsJudgment: 27 June 2023COSTS JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL JThis judgment was delivered by me on 27 June 2023 at 11.00 am pursuant to Rule 11.5of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarCIV 2017-404-0260UNDER The Judicature Amendment Act 1972IN THE MATTER OF An application for judicial reviewBETWEEN FRANCISC CATALIN DELIUApplicantAND THE NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS ANDCONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARYTRIBUNALFirst RespondentTHE NATIONAL STANDARDSCOMMITTEE and AUCKLANDSTANDARDS COMMITTEE 1 OF NEWZEALAND LAW SOCIETYSecond Respondents[1] In my judgment dated 17 May 2023,1 I declined Mr Deliu's application to recallthree judgments of Hinton J: a judgment rejecting his appeal and judicial reviewof decisions by the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal, a judgmentordering Mr Deliu to pay costs, and a judgment declining Mr Deliu's application forleave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. I held that the Standards Committees wereentitled to costs.[2] Earlier, in a judgment delivered on 10 August 2022,2 Paul Davison J haddeclined a related disclosure application filed by Mr Deliu. His Honour held theStandards Committees were entitled to costs on that application, but reserved costsuntil determination of the recall application.[3] The parties have been unable to agree costs and have filed memoranda.[4] Mr Deliu's starting point is to oppose any order for costs on the basis that thisCourt is functus officio and so has no jurisdiction to award costs. He says that he has"unearthed" that he had filed a substantive appeal against the first of Hinton J'sdecisions and his appeal was abandoned. He refers me to several authorities to theeffect that once an appeal has been filed against a Court's decision, that Court becomesfunctus officio and is unable to consider an application to recall the decision.[5] I do not accept Mr Deliu's submission. The question currently before the Courtis whether to order Mr Deliu to pay costs, and if so how much, on two applicationson which he was the unsuccessful party. Even if the Court was functus officio on oneof those applications,3 the Standards Committees opposed both applications and eachapplication was the subject of a hearing. That there may have been a further obstacleto Mr Deliu's recall application does not mean that the Court is unable to exercise itsordinary costs jurisdiction.1 Deliu v The National Standards Committee and Auckland Standards Committee No 1 of The NewZealand Law Society [2023] NZHC 1184.2 Deliu v The National Standards Committee and The Auckland Standards Committee No 1 of TheNew Zealand Law Society [2022] NZHC 1972.3 This is a question I need not decide. However, I note that Mr Deliu's recall application was inrespect of three decisions by Hinton J, only one of which he appears to have appealed.[6] Mr Deliu's fallback position is to contest quantum. The Standards Committeesseek costs of $14,101. Mr Deliu takes issue with two items. First, he says theStandards Committees should not have two sets of costs for preparation of writtensubmissions, as the submissions for the recall hearing were essentially a cut and pasteof the submissions for the disclosure hearing before Paul Davison J. He says acomparison of the two submissions shows this. I have compared the two sets ofwritten submissions. They are quite different and not a cut and paste. I allow two setsof costs.[7] Secondly, the Standards Committees have claimed a whole day forappearances at the two hearings. Mr Deliu says the two hearings did not take a dayin total. Counsel for the Standards Committees responsibly acknowledged someuncertainty over the length of the disclosure hearing. I will allow three quartersof a day in total.[8] Accordingly, I order Mr Deliu to pay costs of $13,503.50 to the StandardsCommittees.______________________Campbell J