McGuire v Manawatu Standards Committee - [2016] NZHC 1052

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CIV-2015-454-000016 [2016] NZHC 1052

BETWEEN
JEREMY JAMES MCGUIRE

Plaintiff

AND

MANAWATU STANDARDS COMMITTEE

First Defendant

LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER

Second Defendant

Hearing: 13 May 2016

Appearances:

Plaintiff Appears In Person
JLS Shaw for First Defendant
No Appearance for Second Defendant

Judgment:

19 May 2016

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff, Jeremy James McGuire (Mr McGuire) seeks judicial review of:

(a) a determination of the first defendant, the Manawatu Standards Committee (the Committee) dated 3 December 2012 (the determination); and

(b) a review decision of the second defendant, the Legal Complaints
Review Officer (the LCRO), dated 4 September 2014 (the decision) in which the LCRO upheld the determination.

MCGUIRE v MANAWATU STANDARDS COMMITTEE [2016] NZHC 1052 [19 May 2016]

[2] This judicial review application is opposed by the Committee which has filed a statement of defence. The LCRO on 24 April 2015 filed an appearance indicating it would abide the decision of the High Court on the application. There was no appearance for the LCRO at the hearing of this application.

[3] Mr McGuire is a practising barrister and solicitor. The determination of the Committee was the result of a complaint against him by clients, Mr Ranganathan and his wife, who had instructed Mr McGuire to act for them on a house purchase.

[4] The determination concluded that Mr McGuire had breached two rules of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the rules) as follows:

(a) rule 11.1, in that he had misled and deceived his clients by attempting to increase an agreed fee of $1100 to one of $1450; and

(b)rule 3.4, in that he had not provided a client engagement letter in advance of acting for the clients.

[5] The determination found that Mr McGuire was guilty of unsatisfactory conduct. He was censured and ordered to pay costs of $250 plus GST to the New Zealand Law Society, to refund $150 plus GST to Mr Ranganathan and his wife and to provide to them a written apology.

[6] Subsequently, Mr McGuire sought a review by the LCRO of the determination. By a decision dated 4 September 2014, the LCRO upheld the determination of the Committee. Following that LCRO decision, the present judicial review proceeding was filed by Mr McGuire.

Involvement of the first defendant Committee in this hearing

[7] The Committee is a body which performs judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Ordinarily, when decisions of parties who carry out judicial functions are the subject of judicial review, as is the case here, they take no part in the proceeding –

New Zealand Engineering, Coach Building, Aircraft, Motor and Related Trades

Industrial Union of Workers v Court of Arbitration.1

[8] In some circumstances, however, it is appropriate for a judicial body to appear by counsel on a judicial review application and to make submissions. In the present matter before the Court there is no party other than Mr McGuire and the Committee…

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 Manawatu Standards Committee 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: [2016] NZHC 1052
Decision Date: 19 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Jeremy James McGuire, sought judicial review of a determination by the Manawatu Standards Committee finding him guilty of unsatisfactory conduct in breach of r 11.1 and r 3.4 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008. The Legal Complaints Review Officer had upheld the determination, which found McGuire had misled and deceived his clients and had failed to provide them with a client engagement letter in advance of acting for them. The court was required to decide whether the Committee's determination and the LCRO's decision to uphold it were made in error, including whether the Committee breached natural justice in failing to provide McGuire with a copy of a letter from the client dated 21 November 2012. The court found that McGuire was not provided with adequate notice of the matters to be determined by the Committee and that this constituted a breach of natural justice. The court also found that the Committee's determination that McGuire had breached r 11.1 and r 3.4 of the Rules was in error, as was the LCRO's decision to uphold it. The court granted McGuire's application for judicial review, quashed the determination of the Committee and the decision of the LCRO, and set aside the orders for costs made in the determination and the decision.

Orders