MORAHAN v WELLINGTON STANDARDS COMMITTEE 2 [2018] NZCA 407
Leave to appeal was granted limited to two specified questions of law touching compliance with s 351 and whether the High Court reached its own conclusions; other grounds were refused because they were not seriously arguable or did not raise questions of general or public importance, thereby focusing appellate...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] NZCA 407
- Parties
- Applicant: Peter James Morahan; Respondent: Wellington Standards Committee 2
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 5 October 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Disciplinary Appeal / Leave to Appeal Stage
- Outcome
- Grant of leave to appeal limited to specified questions of law; leave otherwise declined
- Legal Topics
- Compliance With S 351, Penalty Review, Leave to Appeal, Appellate Review of Disciplinary Findings
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Peter James Morahan
Applicant
Wellington Standards Committee 2
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Disciplinary Appeal / Leave to Appeal Stage
Legal Issues
- 1 Did the Disciplinary Tribunal and the High Court comply with s 351 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 in finding charge 1 proved and in deciding/upholding penalty?
- 2 Did the High Court reach its own conclusions on the merits or merely adopt the Tribunal's findings and what are the consequences?
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was granted limited to two specified questions of law touching compliance with s 351 and whether the High Court reached its own conclusions; other grounds were refused because they were not seriously arguable or did not raise questions of general or public importance, thereby focusing appellate review only on the statutory and appellate‑conclusion issues.
Court Disposition
Grant of leave to appeal limited to specified questions of law; leave otherwise declined
Orders
- Leave to appeal granted on specified questions of law
- Approved questions of law: (1) Did the Tribunal and the High Court comply with s 351 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 in (a) finding charge 1 proved and (b) deciding/upholding penalty? (2) Did the High Court reach its own conclusions on the merits; if not, what consequences follow?
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
MORAHAN v WELLINGTON STANDARDS COMMITTEE 2 [2018] NZCA 407 [5 October 2018]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROACA392/2018[2018] NZCA 407BETWEEN PETER JAMES MORAHANApplicantAND WELLINGTON STANDARDSCOMMITTEE 2RespondentHearing: 17 September 2018Court: Miller, Gilbert and Williams JJCounsel: A C Beck for ApplicantD R La Hood and R M A Kós for RespondentJudgment: 5 October 2018 at 4.00 pmJUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for leave to appeal is granted.B The approved questions of law on which leave is granted are:1. Did the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Tribunal andthe High Court comply with s 351 of the Lawyers and ConveyancersAct 2006 in (respectively):(a) finding charge 1 proved and upholding that finding; and(b) deciding upon and upholding penalty?2. Did the High Court reach its own conclusions on the merits of theappeal? If it did not, what consequences should follow in thecircumstances of this case?____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Williams J)[1] The Court grants leave to appeal on the following questions of law:Question 1: Did the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers DisciplinaryTribunal and the High Court comply with s 351 of the Lawyers andConveyancers Act 2006 in (respectively):(a) finding charge 1 proved and upholding that finding; and(b) deciding upon and upholding penalty?Question 2: Did the High Court reach its own conclusions on the merits of theappeal? If it did not, what consequences should follow in the circumstances ofthis case?[2] The Court otherwise declines leave on the questions of law posed by Mr Beck,for Mr Morahan. We do not accept that any issue of law meriting the Court's attentionis raised by the way the charges were framed, which was orthodox,1 with the exceptionof the issues raised by the applicability of s 351 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act.In particular the grant of leave on question 1 does not extend to whether indemnitycosts must be reserved only for cases that would have qualified for such award ingeneral civil proceedings.[3] The remaining questions posed are either not seriously arguable and/or fail toraise a question of general or public importance.Solicitors:Luke Cunningham Clere, Wellington for Respondent1 See Duncan v Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Committee [1986] 1 NZLR 513 (CA).