Hong v New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal

[2020] NZHC 2483

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2020-404-854

[2020] NZHC 2483

IN THE MATTER

of an application for judicial review and declaratory orders

BETWEEN

BOON GUNN HONG

Plaintiff/Applicant

AND

NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL

First Defendant/First Respondent

AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE

No 5 and the NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY

Second Defendant/Second Respondent

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Third Defendant/Respondent

Hearing:

On the papers

Counsel:

B Hong, self-represented

P Collins for Second Defendants/Respondents

Judgment:

22 September 2020

COSTS JUDGMENT OF MUIR J

This judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday 22 September 2020 at 4.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar  Date:…………………………

Counsel:            P Collins, Auckland

Solicitors:           Crown Law, Wellington

New Zealand Law Society, Auckland

Copy to:            Applicant

HONG v NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2020] NZHC

2483 [22 September 2020]

[1]                 In my substantive judgment1 I reserved costs with a provisional indication that they should be awarded to the second defendants on a 2B basis.

[2]                 Memoranda have now been filed by the parties. They are in substantial agreement both in terms of acceptance of my provisional indication and the award which should be made. There are two minor matters of disagreement only.

[3]                 The second defendants’ claim 0.4 of a day for a case management memorandum filed on 3 July 2020. This was in response to a memorandum from the first defendant suggesting the second defendant could, at the Court’s invitation, present argument for the first defendant, effectively as “contradictor”. In turn that suggestion had its origins in the Court’s Minute of 25 June.

[4]                 In response, the second defendants indicated their willingness to do so. Their memorandum was very brief (two short paragraphs).

[5]                 I do not consider Mr Hong should appropriately pay costs on this step. It was effectively a “side bar” between two defendants who decided among themselves how, with maximum efficiency, they could best advance their respective interests. I would not in any event have made a 2B award in respect of such a short memorandum. Categorisation should be made on a per step basis and demonstrably the memorandum involved attendances significantly less than average.

[6]                 The second dispute relates to a teleconference on 11 August. At the conclusion of Mr Hong’s oral submissions on the day of the hearing I made certain provisional observations about Mr Hong’s claims, broadly consistent with my ultimate judgment. Mr Hong sought several days to reflect on these and it was agreed that a teleconference would be convened the following week. In the event, Mr Hong declined to withdraw any of his causes of action. He filed a detailed memorandum which Mr Collins responded to with brief oral submissions at the teleconference.

[7]                 The second defendants approach the matter by analogy with a case management conference. I consider that fair and proportionate. Mr Hong took the

1      Hong v New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal [2020] NZHC 2205.

opportunity between hearing and conference to prepare a further detailed memorandum, effectively attempting to persuade me that my provisional views should be reconsidered. That had to be read and responded to by the second defendants. In reality, the conference became an extension of Mr Hong’s submissions in opposition with the second defendants then being given a right of reply. In other circumstances2 the issues covered in the conference could have been dealt with on the original date of hearing – perhaps after the lunch adjournment. On that basis the 0.5 day allocation for the hearing would have been greater. I allow the claim.

Result

[8]                 I award costs and disbursements against the plaintiff and in favour of the second defendants in the amount of $11,654 calculated in accordance with the schedule annexed hereto.

Muir J

2      I allowed several days for Mr Hong to consider my provisional views because of his health problems.

CIV-2020-404-854 – BG Hong v New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal and Others Schedule of Costs claimed by Second Respondents Category 2B Costs in High Court Rules Schedules 2 & 3 (Schedule 2, Category 2, daily recovery rate: $2390)
No	Sch 3 Step No	Description and Date	Days (Sch 3)
1.	10.	Preparation for first case management conference	0.4
2.	11	Second respondents’ memorandum for first case management conference (memorandum 23 June for conference 25 June 2020)	0.4
3.	13	Appearance at first case management conference (25 June 2020).	0.3
4.	22	Filing strike out application (25 June 2020)	0.6
6.	23	Notice of opposition to applicant’s interim relief application (6 July 2020)	0.6
7.	24	Preparation of written submissions for strike out application (submissions dated 21 July 2020)	1.5
8.	26	Appearance at hearing 5 August 2020	0.5
9.	Attendance at judicial teleconference 11 August 2020 for completion of hearing on 5 August (as for attendance at case management conference)	0.3
4.6 days @ $2390/day =	$10,994.00
Disbursements
Ministry of Justice – filing and sealing fees (High
Court Fees Regulations 2013):
Interlocutory (strike out) application – statement
of claim.	$500.00
Notice of Opposition to interim relief application	$110.00
Sealing judgment	$50.00
Total disbursements	$660.00
Overall total	$11,654.00