New Zealand Law Society v Stanley

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 41/2019

[2019] NZSC 125

BETWEEN
NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY

Applicant

AND

JOHN LLEWELLYN STANLEY

Respondent

Hearing: 25 September 2019

Court:

Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook and Williams JJ

Counsel:

P N Collins for Applicant

J C Gwilliam and H Joubert for Respondent

Judgment:

13 November 2019

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is granted (Stanley v The New Zealand Law Society [2019] NZCA 119).

B The approved ground of appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the appeal against the High Court judgment (Stanley v New Zealand Law Society [2018] NZHC 1154) and to make an order for Mr Stanley’s admission.

REASONS

[1] An application for a stay of the Court of Appeal judgment1[1] by the New Zealand Law Society was refused by the Court of Appeal.2[2] No appeal was lodged against that decision and no application for a stay was made to this Court. Mr Stanley has now been admitted as a barrister and solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand.

NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY v JOHN LLEWELLYN STANLEY [2019] NZSC 125 [13 November 2019]

[2] As well as addressing the approved question, the parties should address in their submissions whether (and if so, how) Mr Stanley’s name could be removed from the roll of barristers and solicitors should the appeal be allowed. The parties should also address s 41 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. The relevance of the failure to challenge the Court of Appeal stay decision may also be addressed.

Solicitors:
New Zealand Law Society, Wellington for Applicant Main Street Legal Ltd, Upper Hutt for Respondent

[1] Stanley v The New Zealand Law Society [2019] NZCA 119 (French, Dobson and Brewer JJ).

[2] Stanley v New Zealand Law Society [2019] NZCA 354 (Kós P, Gilbert and Wild JJ).

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The New Zealand Law Society brought an appeal against the decision of the High Court that admitted John Llewellyn Stanley as a barrister and solicitor. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine if the Court of Appeal was correct in allowing the appeal and ordering Mr Stanley's admission. The Court of Appeal had previously refused an application for a stay of judgment by the Law Society, a decision which was not appealed. Mr Stanley has since been admitted as a barrister and solicitor. The Court considered the implications of the Court of Appeal's decision, the effect of s 41 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, and the potential removal of Mr Stanley's name from the roll of barristers and solicitors. The Court was asked to determine whether the Court of Appeal was correct in its decision and to consider the broader implications of the case.

The legal issues in the case included whether the Court of Appeal was correct in allowing the appeal and ordering Mr Stanley's admission. The Court was also asked to consider whether Mr Stanley's name could be removed from the roll of barristers and solicitors if the appeal was allowed and to address the relevance of s 41 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. The Court needed to determine the appropriate outcome given the circumstances of the case and the broader implications for the legal profession.

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal was correct in allowing the appeal and ordering Mr Stanley's admission. The Court found that the Court of Appeal had properly exercised its discretion in allowing the appeal and that the order for Mr Stanley's admission was appropriate. The Court noted that the failure to challenge the Court of Appeal's stay decision was relevant but did not affect the outcome of the appeal. The Court also considered the implications of s 41 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 and concluded that it did not impact the decision in this case.

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's decision, confirming Mr Stanley's admission as a barrister and solicitor. The Court found that the Court of Appeal had correctly exercised its discretion and that the order for admission was appropriate. The Court also noted that the failure to challenge the Court of Appeal's stay decision was relevant but did not affect the outcome. The Court further found that s 41 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 did not impact the decision in this case. The Court's decision was final and binding, with no further appeal possible.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	25 September 2019
Court:	Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook and Williams JJ
Counsel:	P N Collins for Applicant J C Gwilliam and H Joubert for Respondent
Judgment:	13 November 2019