Legal Research
Cases
Deliu v Various Parties

Deliu v Various Parties

Case [2024] NZHC 1423 31 May 2024

Judicial Review

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-0500 CIV-2024-404-0671

CIV-2024-404-0820 [2024] NZHC 1423

BETWEEN
FRANCISC CATALIN DELIU

Applicant

AND

VARIOUS PARTIES

Respondents

Judicial review list: 29 May 2024

Appearances:

Applicant in person

C A Griffin as counsel assisting (CIV-2024-404-0500)

P J Gunn and O Kiel for Attorney-General (CIV-2024-404-0671) M J Hodge for fourteenth to sixteenth respondents (CIV-2024- 404-0671)

B M McKenna for first respondent (CIV-2024-404-0820)

Date of judgment:

31 May 2024

REASONS FOR DECISION OF JAGOSE J

[Recusal]

This reasons for judgment was delivered by me on 31 May 2024 at 3.30pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:
C A Griffin, Barrister, Wellington B M McKenna, Barrister, Auckland M J Hodge, Barrister, Auckland
Crown Law, Wellington

Copy to:
Mr Deliu
DELIU v VARIOUS PARTIES [2024] NZHC 1423 [31 May 2024]

[1] These three proceedings were called sequentially before me in the judicial review list on 29 May 2024, all but Ms McKenna appearing remotely. In the course of the first (-0500), I indicated my intention to include in directions for each a timetable for filing any application for security for costs.

[2] As may be seen from my associate’s annexed transcription of the list’s call, Mr Deliu immediately moved for my recusal “from all matters today” on grounds I was “involving” myself in the proceeding, “completely out of thin air” and without any basis for the suggestion, to “interfer[e] in the proceeding by suggesting a substantive step”. Mr Deliu submitted:

[A] lay observer would reasonably consider that you’ve involved yourself, as I put it earlier, in the game. You’re no longer the referee who is just deciding what parties raise. You’re actually participating in the game and the bad part is you’re participating against me.

[3] Mr Deliu renewed his application for my recusal on call of each subsequent proceeding:

(a)in -0671, he elaborated his reasons in -0500 included no party sought security, counsel assisting lacked standing to seek security and the parties had agreed to progress to hearing which my direction risked derailing. In -0671, he submitted my recusal was “especially important” because the Crown sought to remove parties from the proceeding, which he was concerned my alleged bias against him might lead me to grant, leaving him without recourse as of right; and

(b)in -0820, he elaborated his reasons in -0671 included the Crown’s and Law Society’s senior counsel’s awareness of the option of seeking security, as to which me “effectively suggesting to the Government or those in authority, that they should seek to strike out or seek security of costs” was “outrageous”. In -0820, my “acting with open bias against [him] and … not acting as a fair and impartial judicial officer” in the preceding two matters exacerbated my continued presence as his adversary.

[4]I declined to recuse myself, with reasons to follow. These are those reasons.

[5] Resolution of legal disputes by impartial and independent judges is “an…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Deliu v Various Parties

Details

AGLC: Deliu v Various Parties [2024] NZHC 1423
Case: [2024] NZHC 1423
Decision Date: 31 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Deliu v Various Parties involved the applicant, Francis Catalin Deliu, initiating judicial review proceedings against various respondents. The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, heard three related cases on 29 May 2024. Mr. Deliu sought the recusal of the judge, alleging bias and improper involvement in the proceedings. Specifically, he objected to the judge's suggestion of setting a timeframe for security for costs applications, which he argued was unnecessary and prejudicial. The judge declined the recusal application, providing detailed reasons in writing.

The legal issues centered on whether the judge's actions constituted apparent bias, warranting recusal under the High Court recusal guidelines. The judge assessed the application under a two-stage test, first identifying the relevant circumstances and then determining if there was a logical and sufficient connection to the apprehension of partiality. The judge concluded that a fair-minded, fully informed observer would understand the judge's role in managing judicial review proceedings and that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias in the judge's suggestion regarding security for costs. The judge's actions were seen as part of the procedural management expected in judicial review cases, rather than an indication of bias against Mr. Deliu.

The outcome was that the judge declined to recuse themselves, finding no sufficient grounds for apparent bias. The court proceeded to make directions for the timetable and the filing of any interlocutory applications, including those for security for costs, within two weeks of the case management conference. The judge outlined the reasons for these directions, emphasizing the importance of efficient and complete determination of the judicial review proceedings. The final orders included the proposed timetable and the requirement for any security for costs applications to be filed within the specified timeframe.

Orders