Auckland District Law Society v G J Judd

The Auckland District Law Society initiated an appeal against the decision of Paterson J, with G J Judd also appealing the judge's order. The first respondents are B and others, while the second respondent is Russell McVeagh McKenzie Bartlett & Co. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, where the court had to determine the procedural and legal issues arising from the removal of certain questions and the appeal against the removal order. The court had to consider whether to join the clients of Mr Mathieson and Mr Thorp as parties in the appeal, the length of submissions that could be filed, and the preparation of a common bundle of authorities. Additionally, privacy issues needed to be addressed by counsel.

The legal issues before the court were the propriety and ambit of the questions removed by Paterson J, the appeals against the removal order, the power of a single judge to join the clients of Mr Mathieson and Mr Thorp as parties, and the appropriate length of submissions that could be filed. The court had to balance the points of prejudice suggested by the Society with the factors raised in support of the course it favoured. The court also had to consider the privacy issues and whether a joint memorandum or written submissions should be filed.

The court determined that the fixture commencing on 6 March would be confined to the appeal in CA151/00, and neither the questions removed by Paterson J nor the appeals from his removal order would be addressed by the court at that hearing. The court declined to make an order joining the clients of Mr Mathieson and Mr Thorp as parties in CA151/00. The appellant in CA151/00 could file submissions exceeding 40 pages but not exceeding 70 pages in length, as the additional length would be of assistance to the court in relation to various intricate factual matters. The parties were required to prepare a common bundle of authorities, and privacy issues were to be addressed by counsel, with the option of filing a joint memorandum or written submissions.

The court issued several directions to manage the appeal proceedings. The fixture was to be confined to CA151/00, and the appeals against the removal order were not to be addressed. The court declined to join the clients of Mr Mathieson and Mr Thorp as parties, leaving open the possibility for them to apply to be joined or heard in relation to the issues in CA151/00. The appellant in CA151/00 was allowed to file submissions of up to 70 pages in length, and the parties were required to prepare a common bundle of authorities. Privacy issues were to be addressed by counsel, with the option of filing a joint memorandum or written submissions limited to 5 pages on either side.