RAM v NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL & Ors [2016] NZHC 2780

RAM v NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL & Ors [2016] NZHC 2780

Because the appellant failed to comply with the agreed conditions which led to the strike out of the appeal and judicial review, and Faire J did not find the Tribunal erred in refusing an adjournment, the defendants succeeded and are entitled to costs on a Category 2, Band B basis with specified adjustments to avoid overlap in preparation items.

Citation
[2016] NZHC 2780
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Anthony Vincent Ram; First Defendant: New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal; Second Defendant: Lawyers Complaints Service; Respondent/third Defendant: Auckland Standards Committee 5
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
23 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Judicial Review Under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 / Costs Judgment After Appeal and Judicial Review Struck Out
Outcome
Appeal and judicial review struck out; defendants awarded costs
Legal Topics
Professional Misconduct, Strike Off, Adjournment, Costs Assessment, Judicial Review, Appeal
Disciplinary Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Legal Ethics Costs Law Professional Misconduct Strike Off Adjournment +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Vincent Ram

Appellant/plaintiff

New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal

First Defendant

Lawyers Complaints Service

Second Defendant

Auckland Standards Committee 5

Respondent/third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Judicial Review Under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 / Costs Judgment After Appeal and Judicial Review Struck Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants were entitled to costs after appellant failed to comply with agreed conditions and proceedings were struck out
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in refusing an adjournment of its hearing
  3. 3 Whether costs claimed by defendants involved impermissible double counting

Ratio Decidendi

Because the appellant failed to comply with the agreed conditions which led to the strike out of the appeal and judicial review, and Faire J did not find the Tribunal erred in refusing an adjournment, the defendants succeeded and are entitled to costs on a Category 2, Band B basis with specified adjustments to avoid overlap in preparation items.

Court Disposition

Appeal and judicial review struck out; defendants awarded costs

Orders

  • Appeal and judicial review struck out (failure to comply with agreed conditions)
  • Costs awarded to second and third defendants against the plaintiff on a Category 2, Band B basis