McGuire v Central Standards Committee 3 - [2024] NZCA 165

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA154/2023
[2024] NZCA 165

BETWEEN	JEREMY JAMES MCGUIRE Appellant
AND	CENTRAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE 3 First Respondent
AND	GENERAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE 1 Second Respondent
AND	GENERAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE 3 Third Respondent
AND	LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER Fourth Respondent
AND	WELLINGTON STANDARDS COMMITTEE 1 Fifth Respondent
AND	LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Sixth Respondent

Hearing:	16 April 2024 (further submissions filed 17 April 2024, 24 April 2024 and 2 May 2024)
Court:	Wylie, Mander and Jagose JJ
Counsel:	R J Latton for Appellant P N Collins for First, Second, Third and Fifth Respondents No appearance for Fourth and Sixth Respondents
Judgment:	17 May 2024 at 12 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is dismissed.
BThe appellant must pay one set of costs to both the first and second respondents jointly, on a band A basis, together with usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Wylie J)

Introduction

The appellant, Jeremy McGuire, was at all relevant times, a lawyer. Determinations were made against him by the respondent Standards Committees and, on review, by the fourth respondent, the Legal Complaints Review Officer (the LCRO). Some matters were referred to the sixth respondent, the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal), by some of the Standards Committees. Mr McGuire sought judicial review of these adverse decisions.
In a judgment issued on 20 February 2023, Palmer J, in the High Court at Wellington, declined Mr McGuire’s application for judicial review.[1] Mr McGuire now appeals against that judgment, but only in part. He challenges the Judge’s decision declining his application for review in respect of four adverse determinations. The impugned determinations are as follows:
(a)A determination made on 14 May 2018 by the first respondent, Central Standards Committee 3, that there had been unsatisfactory conduct by Mr McGuire under s 152(2)(b)(i) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act) (the caveat liability determination).[2]
(b)A determination made on 28 August 2018 by Central Standards Committee 3 under s 156 of the Act (the consequential orders determination).[3]
(c)A decision made on 25 March 2020 by the LCRO (the review decision) under s 211 of the Act confirming the caveat liability determination and the consequential orders determination.[4]
(d)A determination made on 15 June 2021 by the second respondent, General Standards Committee 1 (the refund determination).[5]
[1]McGuire v Central Standards Committee [2023] NZHC 242, [2023] NZAR 134 [High Court judgment].
[2]Notice of Determination by Central Standards Committee 3: No 16807, 14 May 2018 [caveat liability determination].
[3]Notice of Determination by Central Standards Committee 3: No 16807, 28 August 2018 [consequential orders determination].
[4]McGuire v Butler [2020] NZLCRO 43 [review decision] at [148].
[5]Notice of Determination by General Standards Committee 1: Complaint 21098, 15 June 2021 [refund determination].

Central Standards Committee 3 and General Standards Committee 1 oppose the appeal. The LCRO has taken no stance on the matter. The third and fifth respondents made…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read McGuire v Central Standards Committee 3 and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NZCA 165
Decision Date: 17 May 2024 at 12 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Jeremy McGuire, appeals against the High Court's decision declining his application for judicial review of adverse determinations made against him by the respondents, Standards Committees under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. The appeal specifically challenges the High Court's decision in relation to four determinations: the caveat liability determination, the consequential orders determination, the review decision, and the refund determination. The appeal was heard on 16 April 2024 and the Court gave its reserved decision on 17 May 2024.

The appeal raises questions about the legality of the determinations made against Mr McGuire. Mr McGuire contends that the caveat liability determination was not final and that the consequential orders determination was invalid because it was made before the caveat liability determination was confirmed by the Legal Complaints Review Officer (the LCRO). He further argues that the review decision is flawed because the LCRO failed to review the consequential orders determination as sought by Mr McGuire. Additionally, he contends that the refund determination was ultra vires because it was not based on a bill of costs exceeding $2,000, as required by regulation 29 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Complaints Service and Standards Committees) Regulations 2008, and that it breached the rules of natural justice.

The Court rejected the appeal. It found that the caveat liability determination was indeed final and that the consequential orders determination was valid. The Court held that while the LCRO erred in suggesting that Mr McGuire had not sought to review the consequential orders determination, this error did not make a material difference to the outcome. The Court also found that the review decision was both legally and factually sound. Regarding the refund determination, the Court held that the complaint was not about overcharging but about the refusal to provide a refund, and that the threshold in regulation 29 was therefore not engaged. The Court further found that the determination did not breach the rules of natural justice because Mr McGuire had been notified of the issues and invited to respond.

The appeal is dismissed. The appellant must pay one set of costs to both the first and second respondents jointly, on a band A basis, together with usual disbursements.

Orders