Complainant A v New Zealand Law Society and Z, a Lawyer

[2017] NZSC 158

NOTE: HIGH COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE NAME OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT REMAINS IN FORCE.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 95/2017
[2017] NZSC 158

BETWEEN

COMPLAINANT A
Applicant

AND

NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY
First Respondent

Z, A LAWYER
Second Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, William Young and OʼRegan JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person D R La Hood and R M A Kós for First Respondent H W King for Second Respondent
Judgment:	12 October 2017

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A      The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B      The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of Clifford J dismissing his application for review of a decision of the Registrar of the Court of Appeal refusing to dispense with security for costs in relation to his appeal to the Court of Appeal.[1]

   [1]Complainant A v New Zealand Law Society [2017] NZCA 373 (Clifford J) [Complainant A (CA)].

2. The applicant’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was against a High Court decision granting interim name suppression to the second respondent.[2]  That was an interlocutory order in the substantive High Court proceedings, being the applicant’s application for judicial review of a decision of the New Zealand Law Society to dismissing a complaint made about the second respondent.

   [2]Complainant A v New Zealand Law Society HC Wellington CIV-2016-485-725, 10 May 2017 (Simon France J).

3. Clifford J applied the law as stated in this Court’s decision in Reekie v Attorney‑General.[3]  He noted that the interim name suppression decision was made on the papers, with the Judge acknowledging there had not been full argument.[4]  That meant the obvious course would have been to seek a review under r 7.49 of the High Court Rules.  In addition, he noted that things had moved on: the substantive judicial review application had been dismissed.[5]  We note that since the judgment of Clifford J was delivered, things have moved on again: permanent name suppression has now been granted to the second respondent.[6]

   [3]Reekie v Attorney-General [2014] NZSC 63, [2014] 1 NZLR 737.

   [4]Complainant A (CA), above n 1, at [15]–[16].

   [5]At [17]. The judicial review application was dismissed in A v New Zealand Law Society [2017] NZHC 1712 (Collins J).

   [6][Complainant A] v New Zealand Law Society [2017] NZHC 2153 (Collins J).

4. Clifford J considered a solvent appellant would not wish to pursue the appeal in those circumstances.[7]  Applying the law as outlined in Reekie, he decided that dispensing with security for costs was not warranted and upheld the Registrar’s decision.[8]

   [7]Complainant A (CA), above n 1, at [18].

   [8]The second respondent submits the appeal had already been abandoned under r 43 of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, so it could not have been pursued even if dispensation had been granted.  It is not necessary for us to address that argument.

5. The applicant’s submissions refer to the fact that Clifford J had given an earlier indication that dispensation would be appropriate.  The Judge explained why he did not reach that conclusion in his judgment.  Applying the Reekie test, there was no basis to interfere with the Registrar’s decision.

6. This Court has considered the law relating to dispensing with security for costs in Reekie and there is no point of public importance arising in this case: the decision was the application of the law as stated in Reekie to the facts of this case.  Nor is there any appearance of a miscarriage of justice. 

7. The application for leave to appeal is therefore dismissed.

8. The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondents.

Solicitors:
Luke Cunningham Clere, Wellington for First Respondent
DAC Beachcroft New Zealand Ltd, Auckland for Second Respondent