Deliu v Connell

The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, considered a judicial review application brought by Mr Deliu against the Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO). Mr Deliu sought to challenge decisions made by the LCRO on 27 August 2014 and 16 March 2015. The New Zealand Law Society (NZLS) applied to be joined as a defendant on the basis that it had a direct interest in the proceedings, specifically in relation to a costs order in its favour and other aspects of the decisions. The NZLS argued that it would be beneficial for the court to have it before it to respond to the issues arising from the costs decision. Mr Deliu opposed the application, stating that joinder was unnecessary and would increase the complexity and cost of the proceedings. He suggested that the NZLS be granted limited intervener status instead. The first defendant, Mr Connell, did not take a position on the application, and the second defendant, the LCRO, abided the court's decision.

The legal issues the court needed to decide included whether it was appropriate to grant the NZLS permission to join the proceedings as a party, and if so, under what conditions. The court considered the statutory and rule-based authority for joinder in judicial review proceedings and the principles that guided the court's decision-making in this area. The court also evaluated the interests of the parties involved and the potential impact of the costs order on the NZLS and other similar cases.

The court found that the NZLS had a direct interest in the judicial review proceedings due to the costs order in its favour and the potential ramifications of the lawfulness of the costs order on other similar cases. The court determined that it would be unjust to decide the issues in the absence of the NZLS and granted the application for joinder. However, the court limited the NZLS' status as a party and its right to be heard to the issues arising from and relating to the costs order. The court considered this course to be preferable to Mr Deliu's suggestion of the NZLS having intervener status only because of the possibility of issues arising that could lead to the NZLS wishing to appeal.

The court granted the application for the NZLS to be joined as a defendant, with its right to be heard limited to the issues arising from and relating to the costs order. The court considered this approach to be the most appropriate and balanced solution in the circumstances. The decision provided clarity on the appropriate scope of the NZLS' participation in the proceedings and ensured that all relevant parties had an opportunity to be heard on the issues that affected their interests.