Dorbu v Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal HC Auckland Civ-2009-404-7381

[2011] NZHC 909

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2009-404-7381

BETWEEN  JOHN EVANS DORBU Applicant

ANDTHE LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL

First Respondent

ANDNEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY Second Respondent

Hearing:         (On the papers) Counsel:  Applicant in person

H Keyte QC and M A Treleaven for Respondents

Judgment:      16 August 2011

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J (Costs)

SOLICITORS Applicant in person

Crown Law (Wellington) for First Respondent

New Zealand Law Society (Auckland) for Second Respondent

COUNSEL Howard Keyte QC

DORBU V THE LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL HC AK CIV-2009-404-

7381 16 August 2011

[1]      At the conclusion of my judgment in this matter delivered on 11 May 2011 I

directed:

[114]   Submissions as to costs, if any, are to be filed by 1 July 2011.

[2]      On 30 June 2011 the applicant, Mr Dorbu, filed a memorandum requesting an extension of two weeks to this deadline.  His reason was that he expected the first respondent to issue a decision within that period as to whether it would conduct a rehearing of charge 1.

[3]      On 18 July 2011 Mr Dorbu filed a further memorandum advising that the first respondent had decided to rehear charge 1.  He submitted (broadly) that the outcome might be relevant to the issue of costs.

[4]      Counsel for the second respondent filed a memorandum on 2 August 2011 in reply to Mr Dorbu’s second memorandum.  The second respondent submits that it is not necessary to make any costs orders in this case in all of the circumstances.

[5]      The award of costs is a matter of discretion.  In this case the applicant applied for judicial review in respect of findings of the first respondent that 11 of 12 charges brought against him were proved.   He was successful in relation to charge 1 and unsuccessful in relation to the other charges.   Mr Dorbu conducted his own case. Much of that case, in written and oral form, was muddled, irrelevant or plain wrong. By any professional standard he needlessly prolonged the hearing of the case and added to the work of the second respondent.

[6]      In my view I should draw a line under this case so far as costs are concerned. The rehearing of charge 1 will eventually raise costs as a separate issue there-under.

[7]      I take the memorandum of counsel for the second respondent as an invitation for me to  rule that each party will bear its own costs in this case.    In all the

circumstances I rule accordingly.  Costs will lie where they fall.

Brewer J