Mailley v New Zealand Law Society

[2024] NZHC 1766

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2024-485-0044

[2024] NZHC 1766

BETWEEN

MARTIN JAMES MAILLEY

Applicant

AND

THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY

Respondent

On the papers:

Appearances:

Applicant in person

T P Mullins, D A C Bullock and K Hursthouse for Respondent

Judgment:

1 July 2024

JUDGMENT OF GRAU J

[1]        Mr  Mailley  has  commenced  judicial  review  proceedings  against   the New Zealand Law Society (NZLS). The NZLS has applied for security for costs. A one-hour hearing is scheduled to proceed tomorrow.

[2]       On 26 June 2024 I issued a minute declining to adjourn the security for costs hearing on the basis that two interlocutory applications by Mr Mailley were better dealt with at the already scheduled hearing.

[3]       On 27 June 2024, Mr Mailley applied for recall of my minute as he considered I had predetermined his interlocutory applications. I issued a second minute declining the recall application.

[4]       Today Mr Mailley seeks leave to appeal my minute of 27 June 2024 declining to recall my 26 June 2024 minute.

MAILLEY v THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2024] NZHC 1766 [1 July 2024]

[5]       The NZLS were not served with Mr Mailley’s application. After receiving it from the Registry, the NZLS has responded via email, advising of its opposition.

[6]       I decline to grant leave to appeal. The high threshold for a grant of leave is not met. Mr Mailley still considers I have predetermined his interlocutory applications. I have not. Nor could I, when I am not the Judge who will preside at tomorrow’s hearing. Indeed I do not consider I have determined anything, save that the hearing scheduled for tomorrow should proceed. In my view, Mr Mailley has not raised any issue of general or public importance. The issue Mr Mailley raises is of course of importance to him, but it does not outweigh the lack of general or precedential value or warrant incurring further delay. The interests of justice are not served by granting leave to appeal.

Grau J

Solicitors:

LeeSalmonLong, Auckland, for Respondent