New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Lawyers disciplinary proceedings

Legal area

Court

9 Mar 2023

MICHAEL RAWIRI TAIA v AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 5 AND SOUTHLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE [2023] NZSC 16

Citation

[2023] NZSC 16
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court is dismissed because the applicant did not establish the exceptional circumstances required by s 75 Senior Courts Act 2016; the High Court validly struck out the appeal for non-compliance with directions (including failure to pay security for costs) and there is no basis to overturn that procedural outcome or to grant leapfrog leave.
9 May 2018

DELIU v THE NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2018] NZCA 145

Citation

[2018] NZCA 145
Court

Court of Appeal

The Registrar's decision was upheld because the appellant's asserted impecuniosity was unproven and, even if accepted, impecuniosity alone did not require dispensation; combined with the appellant's removal from the jurisdiction, absence of recoverable assets, low prospects of success and lack of public interest in the appeal, the interests of justice required security for costs of $6,600, payable by 25 May 2018.
8 Dec 2017

LAGOLAGO v WELLINGTON STANDARDS COMMITTEE 2 [2017] NZHC 3038

Citation

[2017] NZHC 3038
Court

High Court

The Tribunal's costs discretion under s 249 must be exercised evaluatively: the public regulator role is a relevant but non‑determinative factor, Baxendale‑Walker examples do not set an absolute bar to costs against a regulator in New Zealand, and Calderbank principles do not automatically apply to tribunal proceedings; applying that approach the Tribunal's costs order against the appellant is quashed and no costs are awarded against the Law Society, while the High Court appeal costs of $14,049 are awarded to the appellant and other costs orders remain as set.
16 Mar 2016

HONG v DELIU [2016] NZCA 75

Citation

(2016) 23 PRNZ 156
Court

Court of Appeal

An abiding defendant may be ordered to contribute to costs where it is just given the defendant's conduct and the extent of error; applying this discretion, the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court costs order against Hong and substituted an order that Hong pay 50% of category 2 band B costs and the disbursements fixed by the Registrar, because his incorrect statement contributed to the Tribunal's errors but was the least material error and he had otherwise abided the High Court outcome.
2 Apr 2015

BOON GUNN HONG v AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE NO.3 [2015] NZHC 667

Citation

[2015] NZHC 667
Court

High Court

The strike-out application was dismissed because the plaintiff's judicial review and misfeasance claims raise non-speculative issues that have not been the subject of substantive judicial determination, the high threshold for strike-out under r 15.1 was not met, and allegations of bad faith and process defects warranted full consideration rather than dismissal on the papers.
6 Nov 2012

THE NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE (NO 1) V ORLOV HC AK CIV-2012-404-3787

Citation

openlaw-232948b4_81dd_415e_82d0_dca7a77e68b1.pdf
Court

High Court

The application by the Law Society to inspect and copy the listed Court files is granted because the request serves the Law Society's legitimate statutory regulatory functions and the r 3.16 balancing favoured inspection subject to strict confidentiality conditions; only the respondent (Orlov) was found to be 'adversely affected' for service purposes and any use of copied documents as evidence requires further directions to protect privacy, confidentiality and privilege.

New Zealand Case Law

MICHAEL RAWIRI TAIA v AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 5 AND SOUTHLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE [2023] NZSC 16

DELIU v THE NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2018] NZCA 145

LAGOLAGO v WELLINGTON STANDARDS COMMITTEE 2 [2017] NZHC 3038

HONG v DELIU [2016] NZCA 75

BOON GUNN HONG v AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE NO.3 [2015] NZHC 667

THE NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE (NO 1) V ORLOV HC AK CIV-2012-404-3787