New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Standards committee procedure

Legal area

Court

17 Feb 2021

P v THE NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE OF THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2021] NZHC 196

Citation

[2021] NZHC 196
Court

High Court

Court held the challenged documents are, in general, subject to deliberative privilege, but special circumstances existed limitedly because the applicant lacked sufficient information to litigate key pleaded issues (whether the 21 February decision was provisional and whether change in committee composition affected natural justice). Therefore privilege was set aside in a narrowly defined set of documents/portions and those materials were ordered disclosed to the applicant's legal advisers only; otherwise privilege upheld.
2 Apr 2020

P v NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE OF THE NZLS [2020] NZHC 678

Citation

[2020] NZHC 678
Court

High Court

The application for indemnity costs was dismissed because the respondent's claim of deliberative privilege and its opposition to pre-commencement discovery were reasonably arguable and not flagrantly unreasonable; subsequent waiver and voluntary disclosure shortly before the hearing did not render the earlier opposition frivolous; accordingly indemnity costs were not justified and standard scale 2B costs were ordered in favour of the applicant.
29 Aug 2019

KAYE v THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2019] NZHC 2135

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2135
Court

High Court

The Standards Committee and LCRO acted in excess of jurisdiction and breached natural justice by failing to first identify and apply the correct legal regime for alleged pre-commencement conduct (the transitional provisions of the LCA and, where applicable, s 112 of the LPA) before deciding to take no further action; their decisions are set aside and the matter must be reconsidered under the correct legal framework.
19 May 2016

MCGUIRE v MANAWATU STANDARDS COMMITTEE [2016] NZHC 1052

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1052
Court

High Court

The Court held the Committee's finding of a r 11.1 breach was procedurally unfair because it failed to disclose and allow response to the complainant's 21 November 2012 letter; the Committee's r 3.4 finding was legally erroneous or at best a technical breach insufficient to justify the adverse disciplinary finding. Consequently the Committee's determination and the LCRO's decision upholding it were quashed; no rehearing was ordered and costs of the disciplinary orders were set aside.
19 Dec 2012

C v THE LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER HC CHCH CIV-2012-409-812

Citation

openlaw-aa99402f_5025_4001_bd33_b413eba92d1b.pdf
Court

High Court

Court held the LCRO had statutory power to vacate and refer the Standards Committee's determination back under ss 209 and 211 read with s 202, and the LCRO conducted an independent review; however, the LCRO breached natural justice and the practitioner's legitimate expectation by failing to give advance warning of the atypical adverse outcome (vacatur and referral) and an opportunity to respond, so relief was granted requiring reconsideration consistent with lawful procedure.

New Zealand Case Law

P v THE NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE OF THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2021] NZHC 196

P v NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE OF THE NZLS [2020] NZHC 678

KAYE v THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2019] NZHC 2135

MCGUIRE v MANAWATU STANDARDS COMMITTEE [2016] NZHC 1052

C v THE LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER HC CHCH CIV-2012-409-812