SISSON V THE CANTERBURY DISTRICT LAW SOCIETY AND THE CANTERBURY LAW PRACTITIONERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL HC CHCH CIV 2011-409-001502

SISSON V THE CANTERBURY DISTRICT LAW SOCIETY AND THE CANTERBURY LAW PRACTITIONERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL HC CHCH CIV 2011-409-001502 [31 January 2013]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDCHRISTCHURCH REGISTRYCIV 2011-409-001502[2013] NZHC 36BETWEEN THERESE ANNE SISSONAppellantAND THE CANTERBURY DISTRICT LAWSOCIETY AND THE CANTERBURYLAW PRACTITIONERS DISCIPLINARYTRIBUNALRespondentCIV 2012-409-000078AND BETWEEN THERESE ANNE SISSONAppellantAND THE CANTERBURY STANDARDSCOMMITTEE NO. 1 OF THE LAWYERSCOMPLAINTS SERVICE OF THE NEWZEALAND LAW SOCIETYRespondentCIV 2012-409-000079AND BETWEEN THERESE ANNE SISSONAppellantAND THE STANDARDS COMMITTEE (2) OFTHE CANTERBURY-WESTLANDBRANCH OF THE NEW ZEALANDLAW SOCIETYRespondentHearing: 29 January 2013Counsel: G H Nation for RespondentR A Peters for Appellant in all appealsJudgment: 31 January 2013JUDGMENT OF WHATA J[1] This judgment concerns an application for an adjournment of the substantive proceedings. It appears that the application is made by the appellant without recourse to her counsel.[2] The background to this is that Ms Sisson was found guilty of professional misconduct and struck off by the New Zealand Lawyers and ConveyancersDisciplinary Tribunal. The nub of the Tribunal's reasoning was that Ms Sisson'sconduct included a serious breach of trust, such that striking off was necessary to protect the public. She appeals against this outcome.[3] Chisholm J in a minute dated 18 December 2012 resolved to strike out all relevant grounds of appeal except in relation to the sentence imposed by the Disciplinary Tribunal. Ms Sisson had failed to comply with various directions, including a direction that her appeals would be struck out unless she took certain steps by 5.00 pm on 16 November 2012. Significantly the appellant was required to file all documents including affidavits and did not do so.[4] An application for leave to appeal out of time together with an appeal against the sentence imposed by the Lawyers and Conveyanc ers Disciplinary Tribunal on 7 December 2011 was however received by the Court on 3 December 2012. Theappellant's counsel by a covering letter dated 7 December 2011 indicated that the appeal was now confined to the sentence imposed by the Disciplinary Tribunal (striking off).[5] Ms Sisson has now filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeal against the decision of Chisholm J. Among other things it is asserted that she provided written instructions to counsel to proceed to file an amended notice of appeal within a reasonable timeframe prior to 30 November 2011.[6] The asserted grounds for an application for adjournment or stay are:1. A Notice of Appeal has been filed in the Court of Appeal in respect of the decision of the High Court to refuse to a [sic] allow a further extension of time to proceed with an appeal against a decision issued by the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyencers [sic] Disciplinary Tribunal dated 5 July 2011.2. The High Court appeared to have formed the view that the appellant had failed to proceed with the appeal or failed to comply with a direction, pursuant to rule 20.3 High Court Rules.3. The circumstances are that the appellant provided written instructions to counsel to proceed to file an amended Notice of Appeal within a reasonable time prior to 30 November 2011.4. The appellant's counsel may not have had sufficient time to fullytraverse relevant complex historical matters to properly formulate the grounds of appeal prior to 30 November 2011.5. The matter of extension of time for appeal of the substantive Tribunal decision is now before the Court of Appeal and it is therefore impracticable for the appeal against penalty to proceed until the Court of Appeal determines the matter before it.6. Upon the further grounds appearing in the affidavit of the appellant sworn and filed herein.[7] In a supporting affidavit Ms Sisson details the background to these proceedings and the difficult circumstances that she has had to confront over the last several years. They include her account of her struggle to come to terms with andmanage her daughter's psychosis, a long running battle with the IRD and the recent earthquakes.[8] The substantive proceeding is due to be heard next week on 4 February by a full Court.Decision[9] Given the proximity to the substantive hearing of this matter, it was necessary to deal with these applications with some alacrity. I resolved that the application for adjournment be declined with reasons to follow. My reasons are:(a) Ms Sisson failed to comply with numerous directions of this Court issued in June, October and November. It would be unjust to the respondent in my view to prolong matters still further.(b) I can see no obvious flaw in the approach taken by Chisholm J to strike out that might warrant, as a matter of fairness, the deferral of the proceeding pending resolution of the appeal to the Court of Appeal.(c) If Ms Sisson is correct, and her appeal succeeds, she will not be prevented from ventilating her concerns at another time.(d) This matter is set down to be heard, as I have said, by three Judges. This has required the significant mobilisation of judicial resource, no doubt accompanied by significant commitment by counsel in preparation for the proceedings. It would therefore, in my view, be inappropriate to defer the consideration of the discrete point of penalty, bearing in mind, as I have said, that if there are other substantive bases for appeal, and the Court of Appeal agrees that they should be considered, then that can occur at a later date.Order[10] The application for adjournment is therefore declined.Solicitors:Thompson & Morgan, ChristchurchWynn Williams & Co, Ch ristchurch