TAIA v AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 5 AND SOUTHLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE [2022] NZHC 2911
The appellant was not entitled to costs because he was the unsuccessful party whose appeal was struck out for failure to pay security, he had been struck off the roll and was therefore not a lawyer able to rely on the lawyer‑in‑person exception, he took no steps on appeal, and the respondents did not seek costs;...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] NZHC 2911
- Parties
- Appellant: Michael Rawiri Taia; Respondent: Auckland Standards Committee 5 and Southland Standards Committee
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 8 November 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 / Costs Application After Appeal Struck Out for Failure to Pay Security for Costs
- Outcome
- Application by appellant for costs dismissed; costs to lie where they fall.
- Legal Topics
- Strike Out for Failure to Pay Security for Costs, Lawyer in Person Exception, Costs on Appeal, Disciplinary Tribunal Appeals
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Michael Rawiri Taia
Appellant
Auckland Standards Committee 5 and Southland Standards Committee
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 / Costs Application After Appeal Struck Out for Failure to Pay Security for Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant was entitled to costs after his appeal was struck out for failure to pay security for costs
- 2 Whether the lawyer‑in‑person exception permitted the appellant to claim costs despite having been struck off the roll
- 3 Whether the appellant had taken steps on appeal that would justify a costs award
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant was not entitled to costs because he was the unsuccessful party whose appeal was struck out for failure to pay security, he had been struck off the roll and was therefore not a lawyer able to rely on the lawyer‑in‑person exception, he took no steps on appeal, and the respondents did not seek costs; accordingly costs are to lie where they fall.
Court Disposition
Application by appellant for costs dismissed; costs to lie where they fall.
Orders
- Costs on Mr Taia's appeal are to lie where they fall.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
TAIA v AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 5 AND SOUTHLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE[2022] NZHC 2911 [8 November 2022]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2022-404-1150[2022] NZHC 2911UNDER Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006IN THE MATTER OF An appeal against a decision of theNew Zealand Lawyers and ConveyancersDisciplinary TribunalBETWEEN MICHAEL RAWIRI TAIAAppellantAND AUCKLAND STANDARDSCOMMITTEE 5 AND SOUTHLANDSTANDARDS COMMITTEEDefendantOn the papers: At AucklandJudgment: 8 November 2022JUDGMENT OF POWELL J[Costs]This judgment was delivered by me on 8 November 2022 at 10am.Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules...Registrar/Deputy RegistrarSolicitors/Counsel:Kayes Fletcher Walker, AucklandCopy:M Taia[1] On 18 October 2022 Mr Taia's appeal was struck out as a result of him failingto pay security for costs.[2] Recording that outcome in a minute I advised the parties that if the respondentssought costs they were to file a memorandum within five working days, with Mr Taiathen having a further five working days to respond.1[3] In the event the respondents have confirmed that they do not seek costs on thedismissal of Mr Taia's appeal. Somewhat surprisingly however Mr Taia himself hassought costs on a 2B basis.[4] With respect to Mr Taia his application is misconceived. First, for obviousreasons I did not give Mr Taia the option of seeking costs given he is by definition theunsuccessful party.2 Secondly, as Mr Taia is no longer a lawyer, having been struckoff the roll of barristers and solicitors, he no longer comes within the lawyer in personexception that otherwise prevents a self-represented litigant from claiming costs,3noting for completeness I had previously declined permission for Mr Hovell andMs Hill to act for Mr Taia as his "attorneys" when they have both asserted they do nothave practising certificates as lawyers.[5] Thirdly, even if the lawyer in person exception applied Mr Taia himself tookno steps on the appeal. Finally, there is otherwise nothing in the memorandum filedby Mr Taia that would justify an award of costs given the circumstances as they haveunfolded.[6] Accordingly, costs on Mr Taia's appeal are to lie where they fall._______________________________Powell J1 Taia v Auckland Standards Committee 5 HC Auckland CIV-2022-404-1150, 28 October 2022(Minute No 3).2 High Court Rules 2016, r 14.2(1)(a).3 See for example: Catalin v Independent Police Conduct Authority [2022] NZHC 1411 at [4]–[[8].