New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Suspension

Legal area

Court

6 Sept 2023

TENNET v WELLINGTON STANDARDS COMMITTEE 2 [2023] NZHC 2500

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2500
Court

High Court

The High Court concluded the Tribunal's overall penalty was excessive in length though not in kind: the appellant's wilful dishonesty toward a vulnerable client and deletion of a report justified suspension but, having weighed mitigation (long prior service, character references, personal/psychiatric material and practical impacts of suspension), the least restrictive proportional penalty was nine months' suspension; the Tribunal's costs orders were properly exercised and were upheld.
21 Jul 2023

TENNET v WELLINGTON STANDARDS COMMITTEE 2 [2023] NZHC 1932

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1932
Court

High Court

A brief stay was granted because the balance of convenience favored deferring the suspension until the expedited appeal: the appellant accepted liability and offered supervision and training, there were reasonable grounds the appeal could reduce or negate the suspension (risking rendering the appeal nugatory if stay denied), and adequate interim protective measures and an expedited appeal date mitigated public risk.
28 Nov 2022

O’BOYLE v AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 4 [2022] NZHC 3141

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3141
Court

High Court

The High Court allowed the appeal in part, quashed the six week suspension and substituted a public censure because the Tribunal did not appear to have had before it, and the parties had not adverted to, the collateral consequence that suspension automatically cancels legal aid provider approval; the Court was not satisfied the Tribunal would have imposed suspension had it known that consequence and gave the appellant the benefit of the doubt; censure combined with the existing supervision ordered and already partly undertaken best balanced punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation.
20 Jul 2022

NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE (NO 1) OF THE NZ LAW SOCIETY v GARDNER-HOPKINS [2022] NZHC 1709

Citation

[2022]3 NZLR 452
Court

High Court

Court determined strike-off was not required because respondent had taken substantial and continuing rehabilitative steps that materially reduced the risk of repetition; Tribunal erred in treating professional and financial consequences as mitigating and in underestimating seriousness relative to appropriate comparators; two-year suspension was quashed and replaced with maximum three-year suspension from 7 February 2022; permanent suppression orders confirmed.
24 Aug 2021

AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 4 v SCHLOOZ [2021] NZHC 2185

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2185
Court

High Court

The High Court held the Disciplinary Tribunal did not err: having found the misconduct at the high end for speech-based misconduct, the Tribunal reasonably set a six month starting point and appropriately discounted two months for admission, mitigation and lack of prior disciplinary history; a four month suspension, censure and costs were within the Tribunal's discretion and upheld to protect the public and maintain professional standards.
13 Sept 2019

YOUNG v NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE [2019] NZHC 2268

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2268
Court

High Court

The Court adopted a broad construction of s7(1)(a) (following Hinton J) such that conduct by a practising lawyer that is incidental to or connected with provision of regulated services can fall within s7(1)(a); Mr Young's omission to ensure disclosure of relevant documents, threats to use complaints process for an improper collateral purpose, meritless litigation and unsubstantiated allegations met the thresholds for misconduct and negligence; the 15 month suspension and costs were not manifestly excessive given his lack of insight, incompetence and risk to public confidence, so the appeals a…
7 Mar 2018

CUSTOM STREET HOTEL LTD v PLUS CONSTRUCTION NZ LTD [2018] NZCA 36

Citation

[2018] NZCA 36
Court

Court of Appeal

Formal suspension by the engineer is not a precondition to a contractor's right to terminate under NZS 3910:2003 cl 14.3.3; the right to suspend and the right to terminate are triggered once the 10-working-day remedy period has expired and suspension is available. Clauses 14.2.3 and 14.2.4 require completion of the works before the engineer's cost certification and any wash-up payment for additional cost of completion can be made. The arbitrator's factual findings that Plus had not repudiated and validly terminated must be respected on appeal.
2 Aug 2017

JEFFERIES v NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE [2017] NZHC 1824

Citation

[2017] NZAR 1323
Court

High Court

The Tribunal was correct that suspension was required given the appellant's regular use of Class A and C drugs, multiple locations of possession, and his lying to police which undermined public confidence, but the six month period was not the minimum credible suspension; a four month suspension from the date of judgment appropriately balances public protection and the appellant's mitigation and rehabilitation.
17 Feb 2016

Hong v Legal Complaints Review Officer [2016] NZHC 184

Citation

[2016] NZHC 184
Court

High Court

The High Court held the Tribunal correctly found the appellant's prior statements were not privileged, were made in connection with the provision of regulated services, and cumulatively amounted to misconduct (disgraceful or dishonourable). The liability appeal was dismissed. The two month suspension was quashed because the appellant had already served an unnecessary four month suspension in related proceedings which the Court considered in the interests of justice. The remaining penalty orders, including costs awards, were confirmed and the respondent was awarded High Court costs on appeal.
8 Oct 2014

NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY v DELIU [2014] NZHC 2467

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2467
Court

High Court

The Court set aside the protest to jurisdiction and granted summary judgment for the defendant dismissing the NZLS claim because the statutory disciplinary scheme in Part 7 LCA is the primary and more appropriate forum for these complaints; ss 267 and 268 powers of the High Court are to be used only in rare or exceptional circumstances, which were not present here (overlap with existing disciplinary proceedings, lack of urgency, unsuitability of two-stage High Court/Court of Appeal process, limited range of penalties and need for specialist forum); accordingly at a substantive hearing a judge…