New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fit and proper person

Legal area

Court

20 Jul 2022

NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE (NO 1) OF THE NZ LAW SOCIETY v GARDNER-HOPKINS [2022] NZHC 1709

Citation

[2022]3 NZLR 452
Court

High Court

Court determined strike-off was not required because respondent had taken substantial and continuing rehabilitative steps that materially reduced the risk of repetition; Tribunal erred in treating professional and financial consequences as mitigating and in underestimating seriousness relative to appropriate comparators; two-year suspension was quashed and replaced with maximum three-year suspension from 7 February 2022; permanent suppression orders confirmed.
8 Apr 2022

LITTLE v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY | TE KĀHUI TURE O AOTEAROA [2022] NZCA 121

Citation

[2022] NZCA 121
Court

Court of Appeal

The TTMRA and LCA require a two-step registration process (admission by the High Court and a separate practising certificate application to the NZLS); the Registrar's sending of a duplicate s 19 notice to NZLS does not substitute for an application for a practising certificate, and entitlement must be assessed when the practising-certificate application is made. Because Mr Little did not hold a current Australian practising certificate authorising practice on his own account when he applied in 2020, he was not entitled to a practising certificate permitting practice on his own account and the…
12 Aug 2021

STEVRYN HOLDINGS LTD v WAKA KOTAHI NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY [2021] NZHC 2099

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2099
Court

High Court

Grant interim relief because Stevryn demonstrated serious arguable grounds of review including potential irrelevant consideration and failure to consider remedial steps, the safety concerns were not shown to be of such immediacy or intensity as to mandate immediate cessation, and revocation taking immediate effect would render appeal and review rights nugatory; accordingly maintain the licence pending on-notice hearing and set procedural directions.
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.
2 Jul 2021

KAMAL v RESTRUCTURING INSOLVENCY AND TURNAROUND ASSOCIATION OF NEW ZEALAND INC [2021] NZHC 1626

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1626
Court

High Court

Court held that ss57 and 58 of the Insolvency Practitioners Regulation Act 2019 do not permit NZICA to issue licences with bespoke or individual-specific conditions for the purpose of enabling an applicant to meet the fit and proper threshold; RITANZ was therefore not required to treat potential s58 arrangements as curing unfitness, but the panel erred by failing to consider certain mitigating material (sentencing mitigation, acceptance of error in Stojkov, applicant's responses to the 2020 NZICA decision) and breached natural justice by making a finding that the applicant would not have soug…
17 Aug 2020

NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY v JOHN LLEWELLYN STANLEY [2020] NZSC 83

Citation

[2020] 1 NZLR 50
Court

Supreme Court

Majority: The fit and proper person test under s55 is forward-looking and fact-specific; where, on balance and viewing all evidence in the round, an applicant demonstrates sufficient character, time elapsed since offending, rehabilitation or minimal connection between offending and professional function, admission may be ordered despite prior convictions; in this case the majority held the Court of Appeal correctly admitted Stanley because his convictions did not directly relate to professional functions, he had otherwise good character and the risks did not justify refusal. Minority: multipl…
19 Sept 2019

LINCOLN v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2019] NZCA 442

Citation

[2019] NZCA 442
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court upheld the High Court's finding that the applicant has a longstanding, enduring defect of character evidenced by aggressive, threatening and unbalanced conduct toward police and lawyers; that the defect materially impairs his ability to meet the statutory fundamental obligations of lawyers and to uphold the administration of justice; the new evidence was admissible and reinforced the pattern of behaviour; supervision after admission would not be a reliable safeguard absent persuasive expert evidence, therefore the applicant is not a fit and proper person and the appeal must be dismi…
6 Aug 2019

STANLEY v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2019] NZCA 354

Citation

[2019] NZCA 354
Court

Court of Appeal

The balance of convenience favours refusing a stay because the appellant's immediate ability to earn a livelihood as an admitted lawyer is the dominant factor, refusal does not render the Society's potential appeal nugatory as removal from the roll remains available, and the appellant will be admitted aware of the risk of subsequent removal if the Society succeeds on appeal.
17 Apr 2019

STANLEY v THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2019] NZCA 119

Citation

[2019] NZAR 1001
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that the assessment of whether an applicant is a fit and proper person is an objective evaluative judgment for the Court; Clark J erred by over-emphasising the risk of reoffending and failing to assess the applicant in the round. Given the nature and context of the drink driving convictions, the applicant's age, community service, referees' statements and genuine commitment not to reoffend, the applicant is a fit and proper person and must be admitted subject to taking the prescribed oath.
22 Mar 2019

STAN SEMENOFF LOGGING LIMITED v NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY [2019] NZHC 541

Citation

[2019] NZHC 541
Court

High Court

The Court held the judicial review challenge was arguable and that interim relief was necessary to preserve the applicant's position; s106(3) did not preclude the Court from granting interim relief in judicial review. Balancing public safety against irreparable harm, the Court suspended the coming-into-force of the revocation pending further order, subject to conditions designed to mitigate safety risks (daily log checks, weekly evidence provision, 24-hour notification of breaches and speeding events), and reserved leave for NZTA to return to Court on breaches.