New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Removal of counsel

Legal area

Court

1 May 2020

MAO v GREEN LAND INVESTMENT LIMITED [2020] NZHC 865

Citation

[2020] NZHC 865
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed Green Land's strike out application and its application to remove Amicus Law, limited Green Land's particular discovery orders by refusing discovery of transactions predating the April 2015 Land Owner Agreement as irrelevant, granted a targeted non-party discovery order against New Zealand Customs Service limited to movements of specified persons between Aug 2015 and Apr 2018, refused to vary confidentiality to permit access by Augustine Lau or Jiawen Mao but permitted access to technical advisors (Stanley Feng, Boubacar Coulibaly, Lily Wu) on execution of confidentiality…
27 Mar 2017

GARY OWEN BURGESS v MALLEY & CO [2017] NZSC 38

Citation

[2017] NZSC 38
Court

Supreme Court

The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate a proper evidential foundation for removing opposing counsel, the threshold for removal was not met, any additional evidence was likely privileged, and the application did not raise an arguable point of public or general importance nor a risk of substantial miscarriage of justice.
6 Dec 2016

BURGESS v MALLEY & CO [2016] NZCA 585

Citation

[2016] NZCA 585
Court

Court of Appeal

Because the appellant's non-compliance with filing and seeking a hearing date was materially related to an unresolved security-for-costs decision, the Court exercised its discretion under r 43(2) to grant an extension to allow the appellant to pursue Supreme Court leave; conditional time limits for payment of security were set depending on the Supreme Court outcome. The application to remove the respondent's lawyers was refused because the allegation lacked evidential foundation, the threshold for removal was not met and relevant evidence might be privileged.
6 Jul 2015

RAM v THE NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2015] NZHC 1553

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1553
Court

High Court

The application to debar Meredith Connell and/or its lawyers was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish any evidential foundation that counsel had been an active participant in acts central to the issues under review; mere allegations of prosecutorial misconduct are insufficient; the legal threshold for removal is high and was not met, so the respondents retain their chosen counsel and costs follow the event.
24 May 2011

BURGESS V BEAVEN HC CHCH CIV-2010-409-000876

Citation

openlaw-b28bd3ce_ed48_4ada_a982_bb875055b2f7.pdf
Court

High Court

The consent memorandum constituted a binding and partly performed agreement enforceable between the parties; any procedural non-compliance with Part 6 did not invalidate the agreement because s21H saved it given the fair process and reliance; estoppel operated to sustain the respondent's caveatable interest; there was no basis to remove respondent's counsel; leave to bring a further appeal was refused as the grounds lacked arguable merit and did not satisfy the interests of justice.

New Zealand Case Law

MAO v GREEN LAND INVESTMENT LIMITED [2020] NZHC 865

GARY OWEN BURGESS v MALLEY & CO [2017] NZSC 38

BURGESS v MALLEY & CO [2016] NZCA 585

RAM v THE NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2015] NZHC 1553

BURGESS V BEAVEN HC CHCH CIV-2010-409-000876