New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Lawyers' conduct rules

Legal area

Court

7 Aug 2020

JINDAL v OM FINANCIAL LIMITED [2020] NZHC 1993

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1993
Court

High Court

Extension of time was refused because the applicant made an informed decision not to appeal before the deadline (the stated reasons for delay were not credible), and the proposed appeal lacked merit: no demonstrable or more-than-negligible risk of conflict arose from the same firm representing NZX (a non-party) and OM Financial, and the District Court's exercise of discretion to order additional security for costs was within range and unsupported as inappropriate; accordingly interests of justice do not favor granting an extension.
27 Jul 2018

KEENE v LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER [2018] NZHC 1869

Citation

[2018] NZAR 1361
Court

High Court

The LCRO erred in law by treating the mere fact a lawyer had a financial interest in litigation as a breach of r13.5; financial interest alone does not compromise advocacy independence. Conversely, r13.5.3 requires a contextual/materiality assessment: it is engaged where the lawyer's conduct or advice is a materially relevant issue in the proceedings. Applying that test here, Keene's conduct and advice were in issue from the outset and central by the time of the High Court appeal, so the Standards Committee's finding under r13.5.3 must stand. Consequently the LCRO's contrary determinations we…
1 Apr 2015

BANNOCK and ORS v MONACO MANAGEMENT LIMITED and ORS [2015] NZHC 640

Citation

[2015] NZHC 640
Court

High Court

The Court will not use the inherent jurisdiction to order immediate return of the privileged opinion on the material before it because other recognised remedies and processes exist, the plaintiffs have not placed sufficient detailed evidence before the Court to establish all necessary factual matters (including whether privilege was waived), and it is more appropriate that the plaintiffs pursue established equitable or regulatory avenues (including Law Society processes and an equitable claim) rather than a summary exercise of inherent jurisdiction; accordingly the specific order for return u…

New Zealand Case Law

JINDAL v OM FINANCIAL LIMITED [2020] NZHC 1993

KEENE v LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER [2018] NZHC 1869

BANNOCK and ORS v MONACO MANAGEMENT LIMITED and ORS [2015] NZHC 640