Deliu v National Standards Committee

[2023] NZHC 1606

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2016-404-2579

CIV 2017-404-0184

[2023] NZHC 1606

UNDER

The Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006

BETWEEN

FRANCISC CATALIN DELIU

Appellant

AND

THE NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE and AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 1 OF THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY

Respondents

Continued…

On the papers

Counsel:

The appellant in person

M Hodge for the Standards Committee respondents

Judgment:

27 June 2023

COSTS JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 27 June 2023 at 11.00 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

DELIU v THE NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE and AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 1 OF THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2023] NZHC 1606 [27 June 2023]

CIV 2017-404-0260

UNDER

The Judicature Amendment Act 1972

IN THE MATTER OF

An application for judicial review

BETWEEN

FRANCISC CATALIN DELIU

Applicant

AND

THE NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY

TRIBUNAL
First Respondent

THE NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE and AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 1 OF NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY

Second Respondents

[1]    In my judgment dated 17 May 2023,1 I declined Mr Deliu’s application to recall three judgments of Hinton J: a judgment  rejecting his  appeal  and judicial  review  of decisions by the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal, a judgment ordering Mr Deliu to pay costs, and a judgment declining Mr Deliu’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. I held that the Standards Committees were entitled to costs.

[2]    Earlier, in a judgment delivered on 10 August 2022,2 Paul Davison J had declined a related disclosure application filed by Mr Deliu. His Honour held the Standards Committees were entitled to costs on that application, but reserved costs until determination of the recall application.

[3]The parties have been unable to agree costs and have filed memoranda.

[4]    Mr Deliu’s starting point is to oppose any order for costs on the basis that this Court is functus officio and so has no jurisdiction to award costs. He says that he has “unearthed” that he had filed a substantive appeal against the first of Hinton J’s decisions and his appeal was abandoned. He refers me to several authorities to the effect that once an appeal has been filed against a Court’s decision, that Court becomes functus officio and is unable to consider an application to recall the decision.

[5]    I do not accept Mr Deliu’s submission. The question currently before the Court is whether to order Mr Deliu to pay costs, and if so how much, on two applications on which he was the unsuccessful party. Even if the Court was functus officio on one of those applications,3 the Standards Committees opposed both applications and each application was the subject of a hearing. That there may have been a further obstacle to Mr Deliu’s recall application does not mean that the Court is unable to exercise its ordinary costs jurisdiction.

1      Deliu v The National Standards Committee and Auckland Standards Committee No 1 of The New Zealand Law Society [2023] NZHC 1184.

2      Deliu v The National Standards Committee and The Auckland Standards Committee No 1 of The New Zealand Law Society [2022] NZHC 1972.

3      This is a question I need not decide. However, I note that Mr Deliu’s recall application was in respect of three decisions by Hinton J, only one of which he appears to have appealed.

[6]    Mr Deliu’s fallback position is to contest quantum. The Standards Committees seek costs of $14,101. Mr Deliu takes issue with two items. First, he says the Standards Committees should not have two sets of costs for preparation of written submissions, as the submissions for the recall hearing were essentially a cut and paste of the submissions for the disclosure hearing before Paul Davison J. He says a comparison of the two submissions shows this. I have compared the two sets of written submissions. They are quite different and not a cut and paste. I allow two sets of costs.

[7]    Secondly, the Standards Committees have claimed a whole day for appearances at the two hearings. Mr Deliu says the two hearings did not take a day  in total. Counsel for the Standards Committees responsibly acknowledged some uncertainty over the length  of the  disclosure hearing.  I will  allow  three quarters  of a day in total.

[8]    Accordingly, I order Mr Deliu to pay costs of $13,503.50 to the Standards Committees.

Campbell J