Little v New Zealand Law Society

[2021] NZHC 1480

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2020-404-1515

[2021] NZHC 1480

IN THE MATTER

Of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997, the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 and an application for review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

BETWEEN

T G LITTLE

Applicant

AND

NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY

Respondent

Hearing:

On the papers at Auckland

Appearances:

The applicant in person

P N Collins for the Respondent

Judgment:

22 June 2021

JUDGMENT OF POWELL J

[Application for recall and Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 June 2021 at 3.30 pm pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

LITTLE v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2021] NZHC 1480 [22 June 2021]

[1]                   On 29 April 2021, I dismissed an application for judicial review brought by the applicant, Mr Little, against the respondent, the New Zealand Law Society (“NZLS”).1 Mr Little had commenced proceedings in an attempt to force the NZLS to issue him with a practising certificate as a barrister pursuant to the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997 (“TTMRA”).2

[2]                   Having dismissed the application, I awarded costs in favour of the NZLS and issued directions for determining costs in the event that those could not be agreed.3

[3]                   Mr Little has since appealed my decision to the Court of Appeal. The appeal is yet to be heard. In the meantime:

(a)Mr Little has requested that I recall my judgment, an application opposed by the NZLS; and

(b)the NZLS has applied for costs to be fixed in the sum of $17,327.50, together with disbursements of $110.00, an application opposed by Mr Little.

[4]This judgment addresses the recall and costs applications respectively.

Recall

[5]Mr Little submits I should recall my judgment because:

(a)He contends the judgment in Re Carter Dabas4 referred to in my judgment was somehow ultra vires the provisions of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Admission) Rules 2008 (“the LCA rules”), or is otherwise wrong and cannot be relied upon. Mr Little notes that he has also applied to Cull J for her Honour to recall that judgment notwithstanding it was issued in 2019 and he was not a party to it.

1      Little v New Zealand Law Society [2021] NZHC 929.

2      At [1]-[2].

3 At [23].

4      Re Carter Dabas [2019] NZHC 1940.

(b)I failed to determine an issue put to me and/or misapprehended the submissions made by Mr Little with regard to Schedule 3 of the Trans- Tasman Mutual Recognition Regulations 2008.

(c)The parties failed to direct me to r 7(4) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Admission) Rules 2008.

Discussion - recall

[6]                   It is difficult to understand exactly what Mr Little is asserting or how the errors alleged lead to an overall error in my conclusion that would give rise to a basis for my decision to be recalled.

[7]                   As Mr Collins has pointed out on behalf of the NZLS, the essence of Mr Little’s argument is that I have misapplied the law in dismissing his application.

[8]                   In such circumstances, as Mr Collins submitted, it is difficult to see that this is an appropriate case for recall in terms of the limited circumstances identified in Horowhenua County v Nash (No 2).5 On the contrary, it would appear Mr Little is purporting to challenge my substantive findings with regard to his entitlement to a practising certificate under the guise of a recall application. That is not a matter for recall but is properly addressed in his appeal.6

[9]The application to recall my judgment is therefore dismissed.

Costs

[10]Mr Little opposes a costs award against him on the basis:

(a)The substantive decision was wrongly decided (particularly to the extent it relied upon Re Carter Dabas);

5      Horowhenua County v Nash (No. 2) [1968] NZLR 632 at 633.

6      See for example Erwood v Maxted [2010] NZCA 93 (2010) 20 PRNZ 466 at [23](b)(ii).

(b)The NZLS should not be entitled to costs when it “was unresponsive to the primary claims of the applicant”;

(c)The NZLS has through its actions required Mr Little to take a range of unnecessary steps in order to obtain the practising certificate he is entitled to; and

(d)As the TTMRA is paramount to the law of New Zealand, somehow s 70 of that Act restricts the ability of this Court to award costs on Mr Little’s unsuccessful application.

[11]               In the event costs are awarded, Mr Little contends that the quantum should be reduced by three days (a total of $7,170) to allow for the matters set out above.

Discussion - costs

[12]               In so far as I am able to understand the matters asserted by Mr Little, I find no basis for not fixing the costs as sought by the NZLS, noting the NZLS has confirmed it will not seek to enforce any order for costs pending the determination of Mr Little’s appeal.

[13]               First, to the extent Mr Little reiterates that my judgment dismissing his application was wrongly decided, that is not relevant to the determination of costs. As noted at the outset, I had already awarded costs against Mr Little at the conclusion of my judgment on the basis that NZLS was the successful party. As a result, the only issue to be determined at this point is the quantum of those costs in terms of the High Court Rules 2016. In this regard I am unable to see anything in the TTMRA that would restrict my ability to award costs, nor to reduce the amount otherwise reasonable.

[14]               I likewise see nothing with regard to the conduct of the NZLS that would disentitle it to costs. Contrary to Mr Little’s submissions, it was clear the NZLS very much engaged with the arguments brought on behalf of Mr Little.

[15]               As I cannot see any merit in the matters raised by Mr Little in opposition to costs, it follows there is equally no basis to deduct the three days from the amounts

claimed by the NZLS as Mr Little contends is appropriate. The NZLS calculations are correctly calculated and otherwise appropriate in terms of standard cost principles. An order is made accordingly.

Decision

[16]The application to recall my judgment is dismissed.

[17]               Mr Little is to pay the NZLS costs in the sum of $17,327.50 as sought together with disbursements in the sum of $110, a total of $17,437.50.

Powell J