A Lawyer v New Zealand Law Society

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2018-485-970

[2019] NZHC 2661

UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

IN THE MATTER

of an application for review of the exercise of statutory power by a body constituted under s 126 of the Lawyers and conveyancers Act 2006

BETWEEN

A LAWYER

Applicant

AND

NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY

First Respondent

WELLINGTON STANDARDS COMMITTEE NO 2

On the papers

Counsel:

F E Geiringer and J K Mahuta-Coyle for Applicant P N Collins for First Respondent

Judgment:

18 October 2019

JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J (COSTS)

[1] On 13 August 2019 I issued a decision dismissing an application for judicial review by the applicant (a Lawyer).1 The respondents seek costs as the successful party on a 2B basis totalling $22,523 and disbursements of $934.05 to account for filing fees and travelling costs.2

1 A Lawyer v New Zealand Law Society [2019] NZHC 1961.
2 High Court Rules 2016, r 14.2(1)(a).

A LAWYER v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2019] NZHC 2661 [18 October 2019]

[2] The Lawyer asks the matter of costs be stayed as she has appealed the decision. If the matter is not to be stayed, the Lawyer asks that band 2A be adopted for step 30, the preparation the common bundle and affidavits. She says this is because the Law Society only filed one brief affidavit and made no nominations for the common bundle. The majority of the common bundle comprised the Lawyer’s annexed documents. If adopted, this would result in a reduction for this step from costs of
$6,690 to $3,066.25. In any case, the Lawyer notes that the Law Society claimed for a two-day hearing for this step rather than the one-and-a-half-days hearing that occurred.

[3] The hearing indeed lasted only a one-and-a-half-days. The time allocation for step 30 should reflect that. The same logic applies to step 34, preparation for the hearing, and a re-calculation is appropriate for both steps.3 However, I do not accept that 2A costs are appropriate for step 30. There were a significant number of documents in the common bundle, all of which needed to be read and checked by the Law Society. Just because it did not reject any documents, it does not follow that it spent no time on this step. As such a 2B allocation is correct.

[4]There are no special reasons why costs should not follow the event in this case.4

Result

[5] The award for steps 30 and 34 is reduced from $6,690 to $5,575. The total costs awarded on a 2B basis is therefore $20,293. Reasonable disbursements totalling
$934.05 are also appropriate and awarded.

[6] The Law Society is to file submissions on the Lawyer’s application for a stay within 14 days of the date of this judgment.

Thomas J

Solicitors:
Woodward Law Offices, Lower Hutt for Applicant

3 Schedule 3; this change is from an allocation of 3 days to 2.5 days.
4 High Court Rules, r 14.2(1)(a).

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the applicant, a lawyer, brought an application for judicial review against the New Zealand Law Society and Wellington Standards Committee No 2, seeking to challenge the exercise of statutory power by the respondents. The applicant sought to have the decision dismissed, arguing that it was unreasonable and unlawful. The respondents sought costs on a 2B basis, claiming that the hearing lasted for two days instead of the one-and-a-half-days that actually occurred.

The legal issue that the court had to decide was whether the costs awarded to the respondents were appropriate, given that the hearing lasted for one-and-a-half-days instead of the two days claimed by the respondents. The applicant argued that the costs for the preparation of the common bundle and affidavits should be reduced, as the majority of the documents in the bundle were annexed by the applicant, and the respondents had only filed one brief affidavit. The applicant also argued that band 2A costs should be adopted for step 30, the preparation of the common bundle and affidavits, because the respondents made no nominations for the common bundle.

The court rejected the applicant's argument and held that the time allocation for step 30 should reflect that the hearing lasted for one-and-a-half-days. The court also held that there were no special reasons why costs should not follow the event in this case. Therefore, the award for steps 30 and 34 was reduced from $6,690 to $5,575, and the total costs awarded on a 2B basis was $20,293. Reasonable disbursements totalling $934.05 were also awarded.

The court ordered that the Law Society was to file submissions on the applicant's application for a stay within 14 days of the date of this judgment. The court also awarded costs to the respondents on a 2B basis, totalling $20,293, and reasonable disbursements of $934.05.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

UNDER	the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016
IN THE MATTER	of an application for review of the exercise of statutory power by a body constituted under s 126 of the Lawyers and conveyancers Act 2006
BETWEEN	A LAWYER Applicant
AND	NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY First Respondent WELLINGTON STANDARDS COMMITTEE NO 2

On the papers
Counsel:	F E Geiringer and J K Mahuta-Coyle for Applicant P N Collins for First Respondent
Judgment:	18 October 2019