28 Jun 2022
Because no written transcript existed, the request engaged the Rules which do not require creation of non-existent documents; the applicant provided no clear purpose or extant appeal and there was no good reason in the interests of justice to direct preparation of a transcript given resource implications, so the application was dismissed.
23 Jun 2022
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the courts below correctly interpreted the TTMRA and LCA as requiring distinct steps for admission and for obtaining a practising certificate, including the requirement that the applicant hold a current Australian practising certificate when seeking the New Zealand practising certificate; the duplicate s 19 notice sent by the Registrar did not constitute an application in form to NZLS and did not relieve the applicant of the separate requirement to obtain a practising certificate
16 Jun 2022
The lawyer in person exception applies only to lawyers entitled to practise (holding a current practising certificate); the applicant does not hold a practising certificate and is therefore a litigant in person not entitled to costs, although disbursements are recoverable; no exceptional circumstances justified departure from the primary rule.
8 Apr 2022
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…
29 Jun 2021
Permission was granted on a limited interim basis because Ms Daniels demonstrated substantial experience, imminent completion of New Zealand practice requirements, the Law Society did not oppose, and a limited permission would not impair public confidence while facilitating just, speedy and inexpensive resolution of the proceedings.
22 Jun 2021
The recall application was dismissed because the applicant's complaints amounted to substantive challenges to the correctness of the judgment which are not proper grounds for recall and should be pursued on appeal; the respondent was the successful party and is entitled to the claimed costs and disbursements which are appropriately calculated under the High Court Rules and not restricted by the TTMRA.
9 Aug 2019
A Queensland restricted practising certificate that authorises supervised legal practice constitutes an "equivalent occupation" for purposes of s14/s19 of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997; therefore the applicant is entitled to admission as a barrister and solicitor in New Zealand and may apply for an employee practising certificate thereafter.
9 Aug 2016
The r 5.45(1) threshold was met because the plaintiff was resident overseas and unable to meet an adverse costs award; exercising the r 5.45(2) discretion, the Court refused security in favour of the first defendant because Mallon J's prior declaration and the causal link between the first defendant's unlawful conduct and the plaintiff's loss of employment and residency made it unjust to require security, but granted security for the second and third defendants based on perceived lack of merit, the defendants' funding profiles and enforcement difficulties; proceedings against the second and t…
1 May 2013
The Court applied a two-step approach under s95(2) (Austin Nichols for the desirability threshold and May v May for discretionary exercise), concluded the Tribunal was entitled to treat the offending as low-level with insufficient evidence of real prejudice, found no error of law or principle nor that the Tribunal was plainly wrong, and dismissed the appeal against refusal of permanent name suppression.
23 Nov 2010
The amended statement of claim was struck out (except as to the discrete claim against the fourth defendant) because it was excessively long, repetitive, unclear and lacking in required particulars, advanced untenable causes of action in part, and amounted to an abuse of process/vexatious litigation; plaintiff given leave to file a further amended claim limited to the fourth defendant within 30 days.