Corbett v Legal Complaints Review Officer HC Auckland CIV 2009-404-3063
[2010] NZHC 917
•11 June 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CIV-2009-404-003063
BETWEEN JOHN HILLARY CORBETT Applicant
ANDLEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER
Respondent
CIV-2009-404-003700
BETWEEN JOHN HILLARY CORBETT Applicant
ANDLEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER
Respondent
Hearing: 3 June 2010
Appearances: Applicant Self-Represented
J A L Oliver for the Respondent
Judgment: 11 June 2010
JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J
This judgment was delivered by Justice Duffy on 11 June 2010 at 10.30 am, pursuant to
r 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:
Solicitors: Crown Law P O Box 2858 Wellington 6140 for the Respondent CopyTo:
J H Corbett (Applicant) 1/71 Uxbridge Road Howick Manukau
Auckland 1705
City
CORBETT V LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER HC AK CIV-2009-404-003063 11 June 2010
[1] There are two applications by Mr Corbett seeking the recall of a judgment I delivered on 31 August 2009 striking out Mr Corbett’s judicial review proceeding against the respondent, the Legal Complaints Review Officer.
[2] Mr Corbett is representing himself. He relies on rule 11.10 of the High Court Rules for the recall of the judgment. This rule permits the recall of a judgment to correct an accidental slip or omission. When I asked him to identify the accidental slip or omission, he embarked on a discursive argument which covered the grounds of complaints he had made to the respondent regarding the conduct of a solicitor, Bruce Dell. When I drew to Mr Corbett’s attention the fact that the strike-out judgment had not made any determination on the merits of those complaints, Mr Corbett explained to me that the absence of any such determination in my judgment was but one of the accidental slips or omissions on which he relied. He sought to embark on an argument which identified other aspects of the complaints against Mr Dell and another solicitor, Heather Quinn. However, since Mr Corbett filed written submissions before the hearing, I advised him that I could rely on them for the purpose of obtaining a better understanding of the other errors or omissions he now relies upon.
[3] The application for recall of the judgment is opposed. The second respondent has covered the grounds for recalling in both rr 11.9 and 11.10. The judgment I issued on 31 August 2009 has not been sealed. It can, therefore, be recalled if the grounds for doing so in either of the two relevant High Court Rules are made out.
[4] Rule 11.10 allows a judgment or order to be corrected by the court who made the order if it:
a) Contains a clerical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission, whether or not made by an officer of the court; or
b)Is drawn up so that it does not express what was decided and intended.
[5] I have considered the judgment I issued on 31 August 2009. There is nothing in the judgment which causes me to conclude that it requires correction under r 11.10.
[6] The nature of the matters Mr Corbett drew to my attention does not come within the meaning of the grounds in r 11.10.
[7] Although Mr Corbett did not address the grounds for recalling a judgment under 11.9, the respondent has covered those grounds as well. Since Mr Corbett is self-represented, I propose to consider whether or not the judgment can be recalled on any of the grounds in r 11.9.
[8] Under r 11.9, a Judge may recall a judgment given orally or in writing at any time before a formal record of it is drawn up and sealed. Wild CJ in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 (SC) set out three categories of cases which provide valid reasons to recall a judgment:
i)Where since the hearing there has been an amendment to a relevant statute or regulation, or a new judicial decision of relevance and higher authority has been delivered;
ii)Where counsel have failed to direct the Court’s attention to a legislative provision or authoritative decision of plain relevance; and
iii)Where for some other very special reason justice requires that the judgment be recalled.
I am satisfied that none of those grounds apply here.
[9] In my judgment of 31 August 2009, I found that the statement of claim Mr Corbett had filed disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action. This was because his judicial review proceeding essentially attempted to traverse the issues of complaint he had against Mr Dell and Ms Quinn. Mr Dell and Ms Quinn had provided legal services to Mr Corbett’s parents. Mr Corbett does not like the advice
they gave in relation to wills that were prepared for Mr Corbett’s now deceased parents.
[10] In my judgment on the strike-out application, I found that the driving force behind the judicial review proceedings was Mr Corbett’s unhappiness with the way in which his parents disposed of their estate, as well as their decisions on distributions under a family trust. Mr Corbett is unhappy about what he received by way of those dispositions. His complaints against Mr Dell and Ms Quinn were dealt with separately by two persons employed as Legal Complaints Review Officers. Both officers found that the complaints lacked foundation. The thrust of the judicial review proceeding was to attack their findings. No recognisable ground of judicial review was identified in the statement of claim. I found that the judicial review proceeding was no more than an attempt to re-litigate before the Court the complaints which Mr Corbett has made to the Legal Complaints Review Officers.
[11] The argument Mr Corbett presented in his application for recall of the strike- out judgment was no different from the issues he attempted to raise in the judicial review proceeding. There is nothing in those issues that fits with the accepted grounds for recalling a judgment.
[12] Furthermore, the Court of Appeal in a recent decision delivered on 25 March
2010 in Erwood Maxted [2010] NZCA 93 has held that applications for recall of a judgment which merely seek to re-litigate matters already considered, or to challenge substantive findings of fact in law will not be entertained by the court. In my view, Mr Corbett’s case falls within those categories. Mr Corbett is not only seeking to re- visit determinations made in the judgment striking out his judicial review proceeding, but he is essentially attempting to re-litigate the very issues he raised unsuccessfully with the respondent, and which the respondent found to be baseless. This is an abuse of process. Accordingly, there is no basis for the recall of the judgment. The application for recall is, therefore, refused.
[13] I will deal with any issues regarding costs, including outstanding issues from last year, in a separate judgment.
Duffy J
0