26 Feb 2016
No uplift of costs awarded; successful plaintiff awarded costs against the first defendant on a category 2 band B basis for identified schedule 3 items but reduced by 25% for undue enlargement under r 14.7(d) and (f)(ii); plaintiff allowed application fee $540 and scheduling fee $640; no other disbursements awarded.
14 Oct 2015
The Standards Committee relied essentially on the District Court judgment and third-party correspondence while failing to consider the plaintiff's contemporaneous written response and evidence of the advice he actually gave; that omission was a failure to take into account a very relevant consideration and a breach of procedural fairness under the Act, rendering the Committee's determination unlawful and justifying quashing of both the Committee's and the Tribunal's decisions which were founded on it.
14 Jul 2015
Because the applicant succeeded in the judicial review, he was entitled to an award of costs; the respondent's assertions of ulterior motive and abuse of process did not justify withholding costs, and the appropriate award was costs on a 2B basis plus disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
17 Mar 2015
The High Court quashed the Tribunal's decision and remitted the charge because the Tribunal proceeded on a mistake of fact (incorrectly treating the charge as the respondent's sole prior disciplinary indiscretion) and erred in law by failing to consider or exercise its statutory power under reg 24 to amend or add alternative charges (including under s12(c) or s7(1)(a)), such failures amounted to reviewable error warranting quashing and remittal for reconsideration.
13 Feb 2012
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because there was no arguable error in the Tribunal, High Court or Court of Appeal decisions declining suppression; the open justice principle governs disciplinary proceedings and high public profile does not create a presumptive right to suppression, so the earlier discretionary decisions were within acceptable legal bounds.