Auckland District Law Society v G J Judd

[2001] NZCA 19

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA151/00

BETWEEN	AUCKLAND DISTRICT LAW SOCIETY
First Appellant

AND	G J JUDD
Second Appellant

AND	B & ORS
First Respondents

AND	RUSSELL MCVEAGH MCKENZIE BARTLETT & CO
Second Respondent

Date: 14 February 2001

MINUTE OF TIPPING J

1. I have considered the submissions of counsel, both written and oral, and have determined that the course set out in direction (1) below will best serve the interests of justice from all points of view.  There is now a material difference between the orders made by Paterson J for removal of discrete questions, and the removal of the declaratory judgment proceedings as a whole.  The answers to the discrete questions will not fully determine those proceedings as now constituted.  There is concern as to the propriety and ambit of the questions removed, and appeals have been brought against the Judge's order.  I am not satisfied those appeals or the questions should properly be determined by this Court in conjunction with the appeal in CA151/00.  I do not regard the points of prejudice suggested by the Society as outweighing the factors raised in support of the course I favour.

2. I do not consider that as a single Judge I have power to join Mr Mathieson's client and Mr Thorp's client as parties to CA151/00.  In any event I am in doubt whether it is appropriate to do so.  My declining an order in their respect is of course without prejudice to their right to apply formally to the Court on 6 March to be joined as parties or to be heard in relation to the issues in CA151/00.  That comment is neutral and should not be taken as encouragement to do so.

3. I therefore direct that:

   (1)          The fixture commencing on 6 March is to be confined to CA151/00.  Neither the questions removed by Paterson J nor the appeals from his removal order will be addressed by the Court at that hearing.

   (2)          I decline to make an order joining the clients of Mr Mathieson and Mr Thorp as parties in CA151/00. 

   (3)          The appellant in CA151/00 may file submissions exceeding 40 pages but not exceeding 70 pages in length (I make this direction on Mr Harrison's assurance that such is necessary fully to present his case and that the additional length will be of assistance to the Court in relation to various intricate factual matters).

   (4)          The parties will prepare a common bundle of authorities.

   (5)          Privacy issues will be addressed by counsel.  If agreement can be reached a joint memorandum will be filed for the Court's consideration.  If not, written submissions are to be filed in advance, limited to 5 pages on either side, setting out the competing contentions.