Francisc Catalin Deliu v The New Zealand Law Society

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 19/2015
[2015] NZSC 100

BETWEEN	FRANCISC CATALIN DELIU Applicant
AND	THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person P J Morgan QC for Respondent
Judgment:	14 July 2015

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant, Mr Deliu, applies to recall the Court’s judgment in Deliu v New Zealand Law Society dismissing his application for leave to appeal.[1] He does so because he does not accept what the Court said about its approach to the award of costs and because he considers that he was not heard on costs.
[1]Deliu v New Zealand Law Society [2015] NZSC 75.
Applications to recall are granted only on limited grounds, as this Court confirmed in Saxmere Co Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Co Ltd (No 2).[2] The only ground that might apply here is that “for some other very special reason justice requires that the judgment be recalled”.
[2]Saxmere Co Ltd v Wool Board Disestablishment Co Ltd (No 2) [2009] NZSC 122, [2010] NZLR 76 at [2], citing Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2) [1968] NZLR 632 at 633. See also Erwood v Maxted [2010] NZCA 93, (2010) 20 PRNZ 466, at [23].
In his written submissions in support of his application for leave to appeal, Mr Deliu accepted that the Court had a rationale for its decisions on costs, but noted that it had not always given reasons for differing awards of costs. Mr Deliu referred to this Court’s decision in Manukau Golf Club Inc v Shoye Venture Ltd,[3] before concluding:
So, if leave is to be denied me and costs are awarded against me there is nothing to indicate this is not arbitrary. I do not make this allegation, but rather submit the lack of any reasoning process when ordering (or not ordering) costs leaves parties completely uncertain and advocates unable to cogently advise their clients of litigation risks and as such is wrong.
[3]Manukau Golf Club Inc v Shoye Venture Ltd [2012] NZSC 109, [2013] 1 NZLR 305.
As this extract indicates, Mr Deliu well understood that he was at risk of an award of costs if his application was unsuccessful. Moreover, his reference to Manukau Golf Club Inc v Shoye Venture Ltd indicates that he was aware of the general principle applying to awards of costs, namely that in the normal course, costs follow the event and, where they are within the normal range, no reasons are required. Mr Deliu’s case fell within that category and there was no suggestion that it did not. The fact that in other cases no awards are made, whether with or without reasons, does not affect this analysis.
Mr Deliu has raised nothing which causes us to reconsider what is said in our earlier judgment. Accordingly, his application for recall is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Glaister Ennor, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard an application from Francisc Catalin Deliu to recall a judgment previously made by the Court in Deliu v New Zealand Law Society. The Court, consisting of Justices Elias, Glazebrook, and Arnold, was asked to reconsider its judgment which had dismissed Deliu's application for leave to appeal. Deliu's primary contention was that the Court had not sufficiently explained its approach to the award of costs, and he felt that he had not been adequately heard on the matter of costs. The New Zealand Law Society was represented by counsel P J Morgan QC.

The legal issues before the Court centered on whether the application for recall should be granted, considering that such applications are only allowed on limited grounds. The Court had to determine if there was a "very special reason" that would justify recalling the earlier judgment. Deliu argued that the lack of clarity in the Court’s approach to awarding costs constituted a special reason warranting a recall. He referenced the Court's earlier decision in Manukau Golf Club Inc v Shoye Venture Ltd to support his contention that the absence of a reasoning process for awarding costs was problematic and led to uncertainty for parties and their advocates.

The Court, after reviewing Deliu's arguments, found that there was no basis to reconsider its earlier judgment. The Court noted that Deliu had acknowledged the rationale behind the Court's decisions on costs and that his case was within the normal range for such decisions, where no specific reasons are typically provided. The Court concluded that Deliu had not presented any new information or arguments that would compel a reconsideration of the previous judgment. Consequently, the application for recall was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established