Jeremy James McGuire v Wellington Standards Committee

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 138/2015
[2016] NZSC 33

BETWEEN

JEREMY JAMES McGUIRE
Applicant

AND

WELLINGTON STANDARDS COMMITTEE (NO 1)
First Respondent

THE LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent

Court:	William Young, Glazebrook and O'Regan JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person T J Mackenzie for First Respondent P J Gunn and M J McKillop for Second Respondent
Judgment:	6 April 2016

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for recall is dismissed.

B Costs of $250 are payable to the First Respondent.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr McGuire applies for recall of this Court’s judgment refusing his application for leave to appeal.[1]
[1]McGuire v Wellington Standards Committee (No 1) [2016] NZSC 6.
Mr McGuire submits that a hearing is required before a misconduct charge can be amended and that this applies even to an inquisitorial tribunal.
This argument was considered by the Court when it declined the application for leave to appeal and rejected.[2]
[2]At [9].
No grounds justifying recall have been identified.
The application is dismissed with costs of $250.

Solicitors:
New Zealand Law Society, Wellington for the First Respondent
Crown Law Office, Wellington for the Second Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jeremy James McGuire sought to appeal the decision of the Supreme Court of New Zealand against the Wellington Standards Committee and the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal. The applicant argued that the tribunal had erred in amending a misconduct charge against him without a hearing, even though the tribunal operated in an inquisitorial manner. The Supreme Court previously dismissed McGuire's application for leave to appeal, rejecting his argument that a hearing was necessary before amending a misconduct charge.

The legal issue before the court was whether the tribunal's amendment of the misconduct charge against McGuire was proper and, if not, whether the Supreme Court should recall its earlier decision refusing leave to appeal. The court had to determine if there were sufficient grounds for the recall and whether the applicant had demonstrated a significant legal error or miscarriage of justice warranting reconsideration.

The Supreme Court found no grounds to justify recalling its earlier judgment. The court confirmed that the argument concerning the necessity of a hearing before amending a misconduct charge had been previously considered and rejected. The applicant had not identified any new or significant legal grounds that would warrant the court revisiting its earlier decision. Consequently, the application for recall was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay costs of $250 to the first respondent. The court's reasoning underscored the importance of adhering to established legal principles and the limited circumstances under which a court would recall its judgment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established