EA v Rennie Cox Lawyers - [2017] NZHC 5

THIS IS A REDACTED VERSION OF THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT. THE REDACTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH SUPPRESSION ORDERS IN OTHER PROCEEDINGS AND THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE
OF THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2016-404-1122 [2017] NZHC 5

BETWEEN
EA

Appellant

AND

RENNIE COX LAWYERS Respondents

Hearing: 2 August and 25 November 2016

Appearances:

R J Hollyman and A J Steel for Appellant
E St John for Respondent

Judgment:

13 January 2017

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on appeal against refusal to set aside judgment obtained by default]

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 January 2017 at 2.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

EA v RENNIE COX LAWYERS [2017] NZHC 5 [13 January 2017]

[1] This appeal relates to a claim for recovery of fees rendered for professional services by an Auckland barrister, Mr M. The respondent, the law firm Rennie Cox Lawyers (Rennie Cox), instructed Mr M to act on behalf of the appellant, EA, in respect of a variety of proceedings between May 2009 and November 2011.

[2] On 21 August 2015, Rennie Cox obtained judgment by default against EA in the District Court at Auckland for the sum of $109,097.60 together with costs and interest. The amount for which judgment was entered represented outstanding fees Mr M had rendered to EA between June and November 2011.

[3] EA applied to have the judgment by default set aside, but Judge Gibson dismissed the application in a judgment delivered on 29 April 2016.1 In a subsequent judgment delivered on 31 May 2016, the Judge awarded increased costs in favour of Rennie Cox because he considered she had advanced an argument that lacked merit.2

[4] EA appeals against both of the Judge’s decisions. Rennie Cox cross-appeals in respect of interlocutory orders initially made by Judge Hinton on 19 January 2016 granting EA suppression of her name and identifying particulars. Judge Gibson confirmed in his substantive decision that these were to remain in effect.3

Background

[5] The proceedings in respect of which Rennie Cox engaged Mr M arose out of the various proceedings. Rennie Cox engaged Mr M to act on behalf of EA in respect of some, but not all, of the proceedings.

[6] Mr M rendered invoices in respect of his attendances on a monthly basis. EA

paid these without complaint up until early June 2011. Between June and November

2011 Mr M rendered six further invoices in respect of fees totalling $105,014.86. EA did not pay these invoices and began to query the amount of the invoices in
October 2011. Discussions between Mr M and EA resulted in one of the invoices

1 Rennie Cox Lawyers v EA [2016] NZDC 7359
2 Rennie Cox Lawyers v EA [2016] NZDC 9587.
3 Above n 1, at [34].

being reduced by the sum of $6210. Thereafter Mr M would make no further concession, and required Rennie Cox to take steps…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read EA v Rennie Cox Lawyers and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] NZHC 5
Decision Date: 13 January 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal concerns a claim for the recovery of fees rendered for professional services by an Auckland barrister. The appellant, EA, instructed the respondent law firm, Rennie Cox Lawyers, to act on her behalf in respect of a variety of proceedings. EA did not pay the fees claimed by the barrister, Mr M, in respect of his services rendered between June and November 2011. Rennie Cox obtained a default judgment against EA in the District Court in respect of those fees. EA applied to set the judgment aside, but Judge Gibson dismissed the application. EA appeals against that decision. Rennie Cox cross-appeals in respect of interlocutory orders granting EA suppression of her name and identifying particulars. The central issue for the court was whether Judge Gibson ought to have set aside the default judgment because it was obtained in an irregular manner. The court found that the default judgment was indeed obtained in an irregular manner because the memorandum filed in support of the application contained incorrect advice regarding the effect of the conclusion reached by the Law Society. The court also found that the judgment was irregularly obtained in that Mr Werry omitted to advise the Judge of issues that may have been material to his decision. The court concluded, however, that the irregularities did not deprive EA of her right to defend the claim in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The court therefore exercised its discretion not to set the judgment aside notwithstanding the irregularity that had occurred. The appeal was allowed to the extent that the default judgment is varied to exclude interest. In all other respects it is to remain unaltered. The cross-appeal was dismissed. The costs orders made by the judges in the District Court were set aside. There will be no order for costs in respect of the applications determined by the District Court.

Orders