McGuire v Central Standards Committee 3

[2022] NZHC 2231

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2022-485-382

[2022] NZHC 2231

BETWEEN

JEREMY JAMES MCGUIRE

Plaintiff

AND

CENTRAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE 3

First Defendant

CENTRAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE 1
Second Defendant

CENTRAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE 3
Third Defendant

LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER

Fourth Defendant

WELLINGTON STANDARDS COMMITTEE 1

Fifth Defendant

LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL

Sixth Defendant

Hearing:

On the papers

Appearances:

J McGuire in person

P N Collins for the Defendants

Judgment:

2 September 2022

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

(Declining formal proof)

[1]                 The plaintiff’s application that this proceeding be set down for formal proof under r 15.9 of the High Court Rules 2016, and the various exchanges between the

MCGUIRE v CENTRAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE 3 [2022] NZHC 2231 [2 September 2022]

parties including the plaintiff’s most recent memorandum dated 30 August 2022 have been referred to me as Duty Judge.

[2]                 This is a judicial review proceeding. As such Part 5 of the High Court Rules automatically applies to it.1 The directions for the proceeding are otherwise dealt with at case management conferences under ss 13 and 14 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016 with the balance of the High Court Rules applying subject to judicial control. That is because the case management powers in ss 13 and 14 operate to some extent as a procedural code for judicial review.2

[3]                 Judicial review proceedings are not suitable for formal proof under r 15.9. There is no cause of action, where the proof of elements entitles the plaintiff to judgment. The Court will always be required to assess whether a ground of judicial review is made out, and whether to grant relief. It is a discretionary remedy. The Court might set down an unopposed hearing under s 14(2)(l) of the Act. But the formal proof procedure under r 15.9 is not appropriate.

[4]                 In this case the respondents have filed a statement of defence, albeit a day late. I grant leave for the statement of defence to be filed and served late, and decline the application for a formal proof hearing under r 15.9.

[5]                 The proceedings should remain to be called in the Judges Chambers List on  5 September for directions in the ordinary way.

Cooke J

1      See s 8(2) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016.

2      See, for example, Minister of Energy v Petrocorp Exploration Ltd [1989] 1 NZLR 348 (CA) at 353 and Roussel Uclaf Australia Pty Ltd v Pharmaceutical Management Agency Ltd [1997] 1 NZLR 650 (CA) at 656–658.