New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disciplinary proceedings

Legal area

Court

17 May 2023

DELIU v THE NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE and AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 1 OF THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2023] NZHC 1184

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1184
Court

High Court

Recall application dismissed: no reasonable apprehension of bias existed because the alleged professional connections were historical and remote, judge assignment six weeks in advance did not indicate special assignment or non-random allocation, and an intelligent fair‑minded observer would not infer lack of impartiality; ultra vires grounds were barred by issue estoppel following Peters J's prior decision that the applicant could and ought to have raised those grounds earlier, and recall cannot be used to introduce arguments that were not raised at the original hearing; costs awarded to resp…
5 Apr 2023

SUBRAMANI v A PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE APPOINTED BY THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF NEW ZEALAND [2023] NZHC 757

Citation

[2023] NZHC 757
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was granted because the issues were of sufficient importance and there were arguable errors of fact and law; however a prolonged stay until the substantive High Court hearing would not be in the public interest given the Tribunal's findings and evidence that the practitioner was operating at a junior level even when supervised; by a fine margin an interim stay of the cancellation was granted until the appeal hearing subject to conditions including urgency application to the Court of Appeal and continued supervision by an approved supervisor.
23 Feb 2023

DAI v THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE OF THE NEW ZEALAND INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS (COSTS) [2023] NZHC 278

Citation

[2023] NZHC 278
Court

High Court

Costs of $20,000 awarded to the Professional Conduct Committee because the applicant's claim was an abuse of process, without merit, put the respondent to unnecessary expense, the appropriate costs category is 2B and an uplift was justified under rr 14.6(3)(b)(ii) and (iii) due to unnecessary steps and refusal to accept legal arguments.
8 Nov 2022

RICHARD GENGE v VISITING JUSTICE, CHRISTCHURCH MEN’S PRISON [2022] NZHC 2925

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2925
Court

High Court

Because the respondents were wholly successful, no challenge was made to their claimed quantum, the proceedings did not raise matters of general or public importance, and the applicant's impecuniosity and litigation history did not displace the ordinary rule, the Court awarded respondents costs on the category 2B scale of $29,875.
28 Feb 2022

K v THE COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE OF THE TEACHING COUNCIL OF AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND [2022] NZHC 307

Citation

[2022] NZHC 307
Court

High Court

The CAC became functus officio when it perfected and communicated its final decision to take no further action; there is no basis to infer a power to reopen that decision on the facts presented, the redetermination was unlawful and is set aside, and the CAC is prohibited from reopening the complaint; permanent suppression of identities and restriction of court file access were granted as justified limitations on open justice in the specific circumstances.
9 Sept 2021

BCH INVESTMENTS LIMITED v NGUY [2021] NZHC 2360

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2360
Court

High Court

The application for adjournment was declined because the plaintiff's claim was relatively straightforward, the defendant had personal knowledge enabling timely response, the asserted prejudice was not compelling given available short extensions, prior solicitor withdrawal and disciplinary proceedings did not justify a lengthy adjournment, and the court must protect scarce fixture time and finality for other litigants; instead the timetable was modestly varied to give limited additional time to the defendant.
7 Jul 2021

REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY v PHILLIP JULIAN CAVANAGH [2021] NZHC 1692

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1692
Court

High Court

The Court applied the presumption that costs follow the event and found no sufficient reason to displace it because the appeal primarily concerned the respondent's fitness and evidence rather than a pure point of law for industry guidance; accordingly the successful respondent was awarded costs on a scale 2B basis totalling $13,623.
11 May 2021

NAME SUPPRESSED v NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE (No. 1) OF THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2021] NZHC 1053

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1053
Court

High Court

The High Court has power to modify a Tribunal's interim suppression order and, on the facts and submissions presented, it was appropriate to extend name suppression to continue until the Tribunal's determination; accordingly the appeal was allowed and the Tribunal's order modified to that effect.
30 Oct 2020

MARR v COMPLAINTS AUTHORITY ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE 413 [2020] NZHC 2859

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2859
Court

High Court

Scale costs on a 2B basis in the sum of $14,868 were awarded to the respondent following discontinuance; increased costs were refused because, on balance, the appellant's conduct (including disputing the central forgery finding, pursuing non-party disclosure and some non-compliance) was not so unreasonable or prejudicial as to warrant an uplift beyond scale costs given her self-representation, contested central issue, and that additional attendances were adequately compensated by scale costs.
24 Sept 2020

WHITE v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZHC 2499

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2499
Court

High Court

Application to strike out parts of the defendant's defence was dismissed because findings in the prison disciplinary proceeding did not operate as a conclusive estoppel in the civil claim given differences in proof standards and because it was not appropriate at interlocutory stage to determine whether the Crown's pleaded factual assertions necessarily failed; accordingly the pleaded defence that officers had reasonable grounds could stand and raising it did not constitute an abuse of process in the circumstances.