MICHAEL RAWIRI TAIA v AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 5 AND SOUTHLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE [2023] NZSC 16

MICHAEL RAWIRI TAIA v AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 5 AND SOUTHLAND STANDARDSCOMMITTEE [2023] NZSC 16 [9 March 2023]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROASC 121/2022[2023] NZSC 16BETWEEN MICHAEL RAWIRI TAIAApplicantAND AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE5 AND SOUTHLAND STANDARDSCOMMITTEERespondentsCourt: Glazebrook, O'Regan and Kós JJCounsel: T L Hovell for ApplicantE J McCaughan for RespondentsJudgment: 9 March 2023JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.B The applicant must pay the respondents costs of $2,000.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] Mr Taia, a solicitor, was found guilty of six charges of misconduct, and two ofunsatisfactory conduct, by the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers DisciplinaryTribunal in 2017, 2020 and 2022 respectively.1 Penalties imposed includedsupervision, censure, suspension, fines and, finally, an order that he be struck off.1 Auckland Standards Committee 5 v Taia [2017] NZLCDT 29; Auckland Standards Committee 5 v Taia [2020]NZLCDT 39; and Auckland Standards Committee 5 v Taia [2022] NZLCDT 17.[2] In its 2022 decision, the Tribunal observed:2Our current findings of misconduct on two charges arise from a number ofgrave shortcomings. Our finding of unsatisfactory conduct contributes to ourconcerns that Mr Taia has a lax approach, lacks candour, and treats the properinterests of clients and regulatory bodies with disdain. These concerns relateto fundamental duties of a member of the legal profession. They would causeconcern for members of the public as to character and performance of apractitioner who exhibited such conduct.Mr Taia's response to these charges (and to the underlying complaints andissues) has been determinedly one of avoidance. He has not engaged withthese disciplinary processes in any usefully substantive manner. His energiesseem to have been reserved for self-protective purposes. He has not prioritisedthe needs of clients, let alone regulatory bodies, in a manner that gives us anyconfidence in his future professional dealings.Threads that emerged in earlier matters have woven into a fabric that revealshis practise as unreliable, insufficiently concerned about his clients,unresponsive and unhelpful. In this case, he left the N's in the lurch and failedto resolve the matter for them. Attempts to scaffold his practise throughsupervision failed because of his own lack of candour. In short, we find helacks the essential attributes of honesty, trustworthiness and integrity. We haveformed the unanimous view that Mr Taia's conduct demonstrates he is not afit and proper person to practise as a lawyer.[3] In July 2022 a notice of appeal was filed in the High Court against all threedecisions. At a case management conference on 23 August 2022 Campbell J declinedadjournment and directed filing of applications to appeal the 2017 and 2020 decisionsout of time and any application for waiver of security for costs by 20 September 2022.Those directions were not complied with.[4] In October 2022 Powell J extended time for compliance with the first direction(to 25 October 2022), directed security for costs be paid in the sum of $2,390 by18 October 2022, and gave further directions as to representation. Powell J wassatisfied that it was appropriate for directions to be issued "to ensure that Mr Taiaeither begins taking substantive steps to prosecute his appeal or it is struck out". Anunless order was made in these terms: "In the event that security is not paid as directed[the] appeal will, without further notice or mention in Court, stand dismissed".2 Auckland Standards Committee 5 v Taia [2022] NZLCDT 17 at [27], [28] and [34].[5] The applicant sought to revisit those directions, both formally and informally,without avail. Compliance with the directions did not occur.[6] On 28 October 2022 Powell J issued a further minute recording that, theapplicant having failed to comply with the direction to pay security by18 October 2022, the appeal had been struck out. He invited a memorandum as tocosts from the respondents. In the event, the respondents did not seek costs but,somewhat curiously, the applicant did. That application was in due course declined.3[7] The applicant seeks to appeal directly to this Court against the unless orderdismissing the appeal and the decision declining costs. He alleges various proceduraldeficiencies and in particular asserts that the High Court process was unjust andinconsistent with tikanga, including the applicant's hauora and the role of hui withwhānau.Our assessment[8] This application raises potential issues as to the jurisdiction of this Court inlight of s 254(4) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, which provides thedecision of the Court of Appeal on appeal from the High Court is final,4 and the factthat the High Court proceedings were struck out.5 Without deciding that jurisdictionquestion now, we observe that, even if there were jurisdiction for this Court to entertainan application for leave for a leapfrog appeal, leave could not be granted unless theproposed appeals satisfied the leave criteria specified in s 74 of the Senior CourtsAct 2016 and met the exceptional circumstances test set out in s 75(1) of the Act.Neither proposed appeal is capable of meeting the latter, s 75 requirement. That makesit unnecessary to consider whether either of the proposed costs appeals is capable ofmeeting the former, s 74 requirement.3 Taia v Auckland Standards Committee 5 [2022] NZHC 2911.4 See, for example, Ngati Wahiao v Ngati Hurungaterangi [2015] NZSC 67, (2015) 22 PRNZ 448;Vukomanovic v Residence Review Board [2011] NZSC 15; J (SC 93/2016) v Accident CompensationCorporation [2017] NZSC 3; Mihinui v Attorney-General [2017] NZSC 155; and Skagen v WellingtonStandards Committee of the New Zealand Law Society [2022] NZSC 145.5 Senior Courts Act 2016, s 69(c): see, for example, M v Minister of Immigration [2011] NZSC 154; Petersonv Attorney-General [2015] NZSC 154; and Ceramalus v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business,Innovation and Employment [2018] NZSC 26, (2018) 24 PRNZ 8;[9] It follows the application for leave to appeal direct to this Court must bedismissed. The applicant must pay the respondents costs of $2,000, being the sumsought.Solicitors:Kayes Fletcher Walker, Manukau for Respondents