DELIU v THE NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE OF THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2015] NZCA 492

DELIU v THE NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE OF THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2015] NZCA 492 [20 October 2015]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA95/2015[2015] NZCA 492BETWEEN FRANCISC CATALIN DELIUAppellantAND THE NATIONAL STANDARDSCOMMITTEE OF THE NEW ZEALANDLAW SOCIETYRespondentCounsel: Appellant in PersonP J Morgan QC for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)20 October 2015 at 2.30 pmJUDGMENT OF WILD JThe application to review the decision of the Registrar sealing judgment is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] By an email to the Court Registry on the evening of 15 October, Mr Deliuseeks "judicial review" of the Registrar's decision to seal judgment in this appeal,which she did, also on 15 October.[2] I am treating Mr Deliu's application as one under s 61A(3) of the JudicatureAct 1908.[3] I put to one side the obvious issue of whether, having sealed judgment, this Court is now functus officio, and look to see whether there is substance in the points Mr Deliu has raised.[4] Mr Deliu's concern is with the following two items in the Schedule of Costsand Disbursements attached to the sealed judgment:1Item Details Days Amount4 Preparation for hearing of defended application2.0 $3,980.005 Appearance at hearing of defended application0.5 $1,115.00[5] In an email to the Court on 14 October Mr Deliu made these points about these two items:2. In re: Item 4, 2 days for preparation for a :15 hearing is excessive. My learned friend spoke for about 2 minutes. He is a Queen'sCounsel and thus was able to argue the matter succinctly without requiring 2 days in his office in advance;3. In re Item 5, claimed costs cannot exceed actual costs. As the hearing took :15 it is not just to claim for .5 days.[6] As to item 4, in its judgment of 28 August 2015 the Court ordered Mr Deliuto pay the respondent's costs of the application on a band B basis and usualdisbursements.2 The application was for leave to appeal. Schedule 2 to the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, band B, allows two days to prepare for the hearing of a defended application for leave to appeal. Mr Deliu submits two days is excessive. That was obviously not the view of this Court in making its costs order, because it allowed costs on a band B basis, indicating it considered a comparatively large amount of time for preparation was reasonable: r 53D(2)(b). Thus, item 4 was correctly allowed by the Registrar.[7] As to item 5, Schedule 2 allows for an appearance in Court "measured in halfdays". Half a day is therefore the minimum. The Court does not measure1 Mr Deliu had initially also disputed costs in relation to a memorandum of opposition he claimed was not filed and the sealing fee. These grounds had no merit: a memorandum of opposition was filed and Mr Deliu is liable to pay the sealing fee (Court of Appeal Fees Regulations 2001, s 4 and Sch).2 Deliu v The National Standards Committee of the New Zealand Law Society [2015] NZCA 399.appearance costs in minutes. Thus, the Registrar was correct to allow half a day, andto reject Mr Deliu's submission that only 15 minutes should be allowed.[8] Having reviewed the Registrar's decision to seal the judgment, I uphold it.The application for review is accordingly dismissed.Solicitors:Glaister Ennor, Auckland for Respondent