Deliu v Hong

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-002664 [2015] NZHC 1635

UNDER the Judicature Amendment Act 1972

IN THE MATTER

of an application for judicial review

BETWEEN

FRANCISC CATALIN DELIU Plaintiff

AND

BOON GUNN HONG First Defendant

NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL

Second Defendant

On the papers

Judgment:

14 July 2015

JUDGMENT OF ANDREWS J [Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday, 14 July 2015 at 4:00 pm
pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 1985.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
……………………………………

DELIU v HONG [2015] NZHC 1635 [14 July 2015]

[1] On 1 March 2015 I delivered judgment in this proceeding, granting the plaintiff’s application for a judicial review of a decision of the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal (“the Tribunal”).1

[2] The parties have now submitted memoranda as to costs. Mr Deliu sought scale costs on a 2B basis, together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar. Mr Hong submitted that Mr Deliu is not entitled to costs, on the grounds of Mr Deliu’s ulterior motives in pursuing a complaint to the Tribunal, and that the proceeding for judicial review was an abuse of the Court’s processes.

[3] Mr Hong chose not to appear at the hearing of the application for judicial review. Mr Deliu having succeeded in his application, he is entitled to an award of costs. Mr Hong is ordered to pay costs to Mr Deliu on a 2B basis, together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar. I note that the hearing did not require more than half a day.

[4] I note that Mr Hong has filed a further memorandum “updating the court”.

This is not relevant to the issue of costs, and accordingly does not require comment.

Andrews J

1 Deliu v Hong [2015] NZHC 492.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Deliu v Hong involved a judicial review application brought by the plaintiff, Francisc Catalin Deliu, against the decision of the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal. The first defendant, Boon Gunn Hong, was a lawyer subject to the disciplinary proceedings, while the second defendant was the Tribunal itself. The plaintiff sought judicial review of a decision made by the Tribunal, arguing that it was flawed and should be overturned. The case was heard and determined by Justice Andrews of the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry.
The central legal issue in this case was whether the decision of the Tribunal was subject to judicial review and, if so, whether it was lawful and rational. The plaintiff argued that the Tribunal's decision was based on an error of law or was otherwise flawed, and that the Tribunal had acted outside its jurisdiction or failed to consider relevant factors. The defendant, Boon Gunn Hong, contended that the Tribunal's decision was correct and should be upheld, and that the plaintiff's application for judicial review was an abuse of the Court's processes.
Justice Andrews found that the Tribunal's decision was indeed subject to judicial review, and that it was flawed in several respects. The Court held that the Tribunal had erred in its interpretation of the relevant legislation and had failed to consider all relevant factors in reaching its decision. The Court also found that the plaintiff's application for judicial review was not an abuse of the Court's processes, and that the plaintiff was entitled to an award of costs. Accordingly, the Court granted the plaintiff's application for judicial review and ordered the defendant, Boon Gunn Hong, to pay costs to the plaintiff on a 2B basis, together with disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

UNDER	the Judicature Amendment Act 1972
IN THE MATTER	of an application for judicial review
BETWEEN	FRANCISC CATALIN DELIU Plaintiff
AND	BOON GUNN HONG First Defendant NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Second Defendant