Morahan v Wellington Standards Committee 2

[2018] NZCA 407

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)

1. 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?

2. 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).

3. 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