LITTLE v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2021] NZHC 1480

LITTLE v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2021] NZHC 1480 [22 June 2021]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECIV-2020-404-1515[2021] NZHC 1480IN THE MATTER Of the Trans-Tasman Mutual RecognitionAct 1997, the Lawyers and ConveyancersAct 2006 and an application for reviewunder the Judicial Review Procedure Act2016BETWEEN T G LITTLEApplicantAND NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETYRespondentHearing: On the papers at AucklandAppearances: The applicant in personP N Collins for the RespondentJudgment: 22 June 2021JUDGMENT OF POWELL J[Application for recall and Costs]This judgment was delivered by me on 22 June 2021 at 3.30 pm pursuant toR 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy RegistrarDate:[1] On 29 April 2021, I dismissed an application for judicial review brought by theapplicant, Mr Little, against the respondent, the New Zealand Law Society ("NZLS").1Mr Little had commenced proceedings in an attempt to force the NZLS to issue himwith a practising certificate as a barrister pursuant to the Trans-Tasman MutualRecognition Act 1997 ("TTMRA").2[2] Having dismissed the application, I awarded costs in favour of the NZLS andissued directions for determining costs in the event that those could not be agreed.3[3] Mr Little has since appealed my decision to the Court of Appeal. The appealis yet to be heard. In the meantime:(a) Mr Little has requested that I recall my judgment, an applicationopposed by the NZLS; and(b) the NZLS has applied for costs to be fixed in the sum of $17,327.50,together with disbursements of $110.00, an application opposed byMr Little.[4] This judgment addresses the recall and costs applications respectively.Recall[5] Mr Little submits I should recall my judgment because:(a) He contends the judgment in Re Carter Dabas4 referred to in myjudgment was somehow ultra vires the provisions of the Lawyers andConveyancers Act (Lawyers: Admission) Rules 2008 ("the LCArules"), or is otherwise wrong and cannot be relied upon. Mr Littlenotes that he has also applied to Cull J for her Honour to recall thatjudgment notwithstanding it was issued in 2019 and he was not a partyto it.1 Little v New Zealand Law Society [2021] NZHC 929.2 At [1]-[2].3 At [23].4 Re Carter Dabas [2019] NZHC 1940.(b) I failed to determine an issue put to me and/or misapprehended thesubmissions made by Mr Little with regard to Schedule 3 of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Regulations 2008.(c) The parties failed to direct me to r 7(4) of the Lawyers andConveyancers Act (Lawyers: Admission) Rules 2008.Discussion - recall[6] It is difficult to understand exactly what Mr Little is asserting or how the errorsalleged lead to an overall error in my conclusion that would give rise to a basis for mydecision to be recalled.[7] As Mr Collins has pointed out on behalf of the NZLS, the essence of Mr Little'sargument is that I have misapplied the law in dismissing his application.[8] In such circumstances, as Mr Collins submitted, it is difficult to see that this isan appropriate case for recall in terms of the limited circumstances identified inHorowhenua County v Nash (No 2).5 On the contrary, it would appear Mr Little ispurporting to challenge my substantive findings with regard to his entitlement to apractising certificate under the guise of a recall application. That is not a matter forrecall but is properly addressed in his appeal.6[9] The application to recall my judgment is therefore dismissed.Costs[10] Mr Little opposes a costs award against him on the basis:(a) The substantive decision was wrongly decided (particularly to theextent it relied upon Re Carter Dabas);5 Horowhenua County v Nash (No. 2) [1968] NZLR 632 at 633.6 See for example Erwood v Maxted [2010] NZCA 93 (2010) 20 PRNZ 466 at [23](b)(ii).(b) The NZLS should not be entitled to costs when it "was unresponsive tothe primary claims of the applicant";(c) The NZLS has through its actions required Mr Little to take a range ofunnecessary steps in order to obtain the practising certificate he isentitled to; and(d) As the TTMRA is paramount to the law of New Zealand, somehow s 70of that Act restricts the ability of this Court to award costs on Mr Little'sunsuccessful application.[11] In the event costs are awarded, Mr Little contends that the quantum should bereduced by three days (a total of $7,170) to allow for the matters set out above.Discussion - costs[12] In so far as I am able to understand the matters asserted by Mr Little, I find nobasis for not fixing the costs as sought by the NZLS, noting the NZLS has confirmedit will not seek to enforce any order for costs pending the determination of Mr Little'sappeal.[13] First, to the extent Mr Little reiterates that my judgment dismissing hisapplication was wrongly decided, that is not relevant to the determination of costs. Asnoted at the outset, I had already awarded costs against Mr Little at the conclusion ofmy judgment on the basis that NZLS was the successful party. As a result, the onlyissue to be determined at this point is the quantum of those costs in terms of the HighCourt Rules 2016. In this regard I am unable to see anything in the TTMRA that wouldrestrict my ability to award costs, nor to reduce the amount otherwise reasonable.[14] I likewise see nothing with regard to the conduct of the NZLS that woulddisentitle it to costs. Contrary to Mr Little's submissions, it was clear the NZLS verymuch engaged with the arguments brought on behalf of Mr Little.[15] As I cannot see any merit in the matters raised by Mr Little in opposition tocosts, it follows there is equally no basis to deduct the three days from the amountsclaimed by the NZLS as Mr Little contends is appropriate. The NZLS calculations arecorrectly calculated and otherwise appropriate in terms of standard cost principles. Anorder is made accordingly.Decision[16] The application to recall my judgment is dismissed.[17] Mr Little is to pay the NZLS costs in the sum of $17,327.50 as sought togetherwith disbursements in the sum of $110, a total of $17,437.50._______________________________Powell J