McGuire v Central Standards Committee 3 - [2023] NZHC 242

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2022-485-382

[2023] NZHC 242

UNDER the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

AND

Part 30 of the High Court Rules

BETWEEN

JEREMY JAMES MCGUIRE

Applicant

AND

CENTRAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE 3

First Respondent

AND

GENERAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE 1

Second Respondent

AND

GENERAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE 3

Third Respondent

Hearing: 7 February 2023

Appearances:

Applicant in person

P N Collins for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th Respondents Appearances excused for the 4th, 6th and 7th Respondents

Judgment:

20 February 2023

JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

Solicitors/Counsel
P N Collins, Barrister, Auckland Crown Law Office, Wellington

MCGUIRE v CENTRAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE [2023] NZHC 242 [20 February 2023]

AND LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER
Fourth Respondent

AND WELLINGTON STANDARDS COMMITTEE 1
Fifth Respondent

ANDLAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL
Sixth Respondent

Summary

[1] Mr Jeremy McGuire, a solicitor, applies for judicial review of five disciplinary decisions made against him. I decline the application because:

(a)First, there are charges and complaints that will be heard by the New Zealand Lawyer and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) in April 2023. Their merits relate to Mr McGuire’s non- compliance with the previous orders. As long as the previous orders are valid, Mr McGuire cannot relitigate the correctness of those orders in a hearing concerning his non-compliance. The Chair of the Disciplinary Tribunal did not err about that in his minute of 28 June 2022.

(b)Second, Central Standards Committee 3 (Central Committee 3) was not required to give reasons for its decision to refer a matter to the Tribunal in May 2021. It had the power to rescind its decision.

(c)Third, it was reasonable in June 2021 for the General Standards Committee 1 (General Committee 1) to consider Mr McGuire had agreed in August 2019 to refund the difference between his advertised fee and the fee he charged a client. There is insufficient evidence the Council failed to consider relevant considerations. Even if it did, it was entitled to reach the decision it did.

(d)Fourth, General Standards Committee 3 (General Committee 3) did not fail to consider an indemnity in finding Mr McGuire had a professional obligation in 2016 and 2017 not to lodge a caveat in circumstances where he knew, or failed to inquire into whether, there was not a caveatable interest. Any error by the Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO) regarding Mr McGuire’s cross-application on penalty did not make a material difference to its decision.

(e)Mr McGuire’s judicial review of a 2009 decision of the Wellington Standards Committee 1 (Wellington Committee 1) was declined in

2014, which was upheld on appeal. Mr McGuire’s unspecified current challenge does not add to that. It is not accurate to say, as he does, that he has no disciplinary history.

What happened?

[2] Various committees of the New Zealand Law Society (NZLS) have made disciplinary decisions against Mr McGuire, who says he has faced a decade of torment. He challenges a jurisdictional ruling by the chair…

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: [2023] NZHC 242
Decision Date: 20 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Jeremy McGuire, a lawyer, seeks judicial review of five disciplinary decisions made against him by various committees of the New Zealand Law Society. The High Court dismisses the application, holding that the challenges are either unmeritorious or precluded by principles of res judicata. The court also declines to order costs, but grants leave to the respondents to file and serve submissions if they seek costs. The court directs that any application to search the court file will be referred to the parties before it is considered by a judge.

The court first considers Mr McGuire's challenge to a jurisdictional ruling by the New Zealand Lawyer and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal, which will hear charges that Mr McGuire did not comply with previous disciplinary sanctions imposed on him. The court holds that the Tribunal is not required to relitigate the merits of the original orders in the hearing of charges of non-compliance. The court declines the application for judicial review of that decision.

The court then considers Mr McGuire's challenge to a decision by Central Standards Committee 3 to refer a matter to the Tribunal. The court holds that the Committee was not required to give reasons for its decision and had the power to rescind it. The court declines the application for judicial review of that decision.

The court next considers Mr McGuire's challenge to a decision by General Standards Committee 1 that he had agreed to refund the difference between his advertised fee and the fee he charged a client. The court holds that it was reasonable for the Committee to consider that Mr McGuire had agreed to refund the difference and that there is insufficient evidence the Committee failed to consider relevant considerations. The court declines the application for judicial review of that decision.

The court then considers Mr McGuire's challenge to a decision by General Standards Committee 3 that he had a professional obligation in 2016 and 2017 not to lodge a caveat in circumstances where he knew, or failed to inquire into whether, there was not a caveatable interest. The court holds that the Committee did not fail to consider an indemnity and that any error by the Legal Complaints Review Officer regarding Mr McGuire's cross-application on penalty did not make a material difference to its decision. The court declines the application for judicial review of that decision.

Lastly, the court considers Mr McGuire's challenge to a 2009 decision of the Wellington Standards Committee 1 to refer him to the Tribunal and two misconduct orders. The court holds that the challenge is precluded by principles of res judicata and that Mr McGuire does not have a disciplinary history as he claims. The court dismisses the application for judicial review of that decision.

Orders