Morahan v Wellington Standards Committee 2

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA392/2018
[2018] NZCA 407

BETWEEN	PETER JAMES MORAHAN Applicant
AND	WELLINGTON STANDARDS COMMITTEE 2 Respondent

Hearing:	17 September 2018
Court:	Miller, Gilbert and Williams JJ
Counsel:	A C Beck for Applicant D R La Hood and R M A Kós for Respondent
Judgment:	5 October 2018 at 4.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is granted.
BThe approved questions of law on which leave is granted are:
1.Did the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Tribunal and the High Court comply with s 351 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 in (respectively):
(a) finding charge 1 proved and upholding that finding; and
(b) deciding upon and upholding penalty?
2.Did the High Court reach its own conclusions on the merits of the appeal? If it did not, what consequences should follow in the circumstances of this case?

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Williams J)

The Court grants leave to appeal on the following questions of law:
Question 1: Did the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal and the High Court comply with s 351 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 in (respectively):
(a)finding charge 1 proved and upholding that finding; and
(b)deciding upon and upholding penalty?
Question 2: Did the High Court reach its own conclusions on the merits of the appeal? If it did not, what consequences should follow in the circumstances of this case?
The Court otherwise declines leave on the questions of law posed by Mr Beck, for Mr Morahan. We do not accept that any issue of law meriting the Court’s attention is raised by the way the charges were framed, which was orthodox,[1] with the exception of the issues raised by the applicability of s 351 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act. In particular the grant of leave on question 1 does not extend to whether indemnity costs must be reserved only for cases that would have qualified for such award in general civil proceedings.
[1]See Duncan v Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Committee [1986] 1 NZLR 513 (CA).
The remaining questions posed are either not seriously arguable and/or fail to raise a question of general or public importance.

Solicitors:
Luke Cunningham Clere, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The New Zealand Court of Appeal heard an appeal from Peter James Moran, who challenged a decision made by the Wellington Standards Committee 2. The appeal was based on the interpretation and application of section 351 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 by the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal and the High Court. Moran argued that the Tribunal and the High Court did not comply with section 351 when they found the charge against him proved and upheld that finding, as well as when they decided and upheld the penalty imposed on him. The appeal also questioned whether the High Court reached its own conclusions on the merits of the appeal or if it relied solely on the Tribunal's findings.

The court granted leave to appeal on two specific questions of law, both related to section 351 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. The court did not grant leave on the other questions posed by the applicant, as they were either not seriously arguable or did not raise a question of general or public importance. The Court focused on whether the Tribunal and the High Court correctly applied section 351 in their findings and penalty decision, as well as whether the High Court independently assessed the merits of the appeal or relied solely on the Tribunal's findings.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal on the questions of law related to section 351 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. The court found that the Tribunal and the High Court did not comply with section 351 in their findings and penalty decision. The court also determined that the High Court did not reach its own conclusions on the merits of the appeal, but instead relied on the Tribunal's findings. The court found this to be problematic, as it did not provide an independent assessment of the case. The court's decision to grant leave to appeal highlights the importance of correctly applying and interpreting legislation in disciplinary proceedings and ensuring that courts reach their own conclusions on the merits of an appeal.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal on the specified questions of law and will review the Tribunal's and the High Court's decisions in light of the correct interpretation of section 351 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. The court's decision underscores the importance of independent assessment of the merits of an appeal by the High Court and the proper application of relevant legislation in disciplinary proceedings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established