Mailley v New Zealand Law Society

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Martin James Mailley, has initiated judicial review proceedings against the New Zealand Law Society (NZLS). Mr Mailley has applied for leave to appeal the judge's refusal to recall an earlier minute declining to adjourn a security for costs hearing, a matter which the judge had already scheduled. The NZLS has opposed Mr Mailley's application for leave to appeal.

The legal issues before the court were whether the judge's refusal to recall his earlier minute warranted an appeal and whether the matter had any general or public importance. The judge declined to grant leave to appeal, holding that the high threshold for leave had not been met. The judge was of the view that he had not predetermined any interlocutory applications and that Mr Mailley had not raised any issue of general or public importance. The interests of justice did not warrant granting leave to appeal. The matter was of importance to Mr Mailley but did not outweigh the lack of general or precedential value or warrant incurring further delay.

The court declined to grant leave to appeal the judge's refusal to recall his earlier minute declining to adjourn the security for costs hearing. The judge considered that Mr Mailley had not raised any issue of general or public importance and that the interests of justice did not warrant granting leave to appeal. The matter was of importance to Mr Mailley, but it did not outweigh the lack of general or precedential value or warrant incurring further delay.

No further orders were made by the court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established