Sisson v Canterbury District Law Society
[2013] NZHC 36
•31 January 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF N EW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGIS TRY
CIV 2011 -409-001502 [2013] N ZHC 36
BETWEEN THERESE ANNE SISSON Appellant
AND THE CAN TERBURY DIS TRICT LAW SOCIETY AND THE CANTERBURY LAW PRACTITIONERS DISCIP LINARY TRIBUNAL
Respondent
CIV 2012-409-000078
AND BETWEEN THERESE ANNE SISSON Appellant
AND THE CAN TERBURY S TANDARDS COMMITTEE NO. 1 OF THE LAWYERS COMPLAINTS S ERVIC E OF THE NEW ZEALAN D LAW SOCIETY
Respondent
CIV 2012 -409-000079
AND BETWEEN THERESE ANNE SISSON Appellant
AND THE S TANDARDS COMMITTEE (2) OF THE CAN TERBURY-WES TLAND BRANCH OF THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY
Respondent
Hearing: 29 January 2013
Counsel: G H Nation for Respondent
R A Peters for Appellant in all appeals
Judgment: 31 January 2013
SISSON V THE CANTERBURY DISTRICT LAW SOCIETY AND THE CANTERBURY LAW PRACTITIONERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL HC CHCH CIV 2011-409-001502 [31 January 2013]
JUDGMENT OF WHATA J
[1] This judgment concerns an application for an adjournment of the substantive proceedings. It appears that the application is made by the appellant without recourse to her counsel.
[2] The background to this is that Ms S isson was found guilty of professio nal misconduct and struck off by the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal. The nub of the Tribunal’s reasoning was that Ms S isson’s conduct included a serious breach of trust, such that striking off was necessary to protect the public. S he appeals against this outcome.
[3] Chisholm J in a minute dated 18 December 2012 resolved to strike out all relevant grounds of appeal except in relation to the sentence imposed by the Disciplinary Tribunal. Ms S isson had failed to comply with vario us directions, including a direction that her appeals would be struck out unless she took certain steps by 5.00 pm on 16 November 2012. Significantly the appellant was required to file all documents including affidavits and did not do so.
[4] An application for leave to appeal out of time together with an appeal against the sentence imposed by the Lawyers and Conveyanc ers Disciplinary Tribunal on
7 December 2011 was however received by the Court on 3 December 2012. The appellant’s counsel by a covering letter dated 7 December 2011 indicated that the appeal was now confined to the sentence imposed by the Disciplinary Tribunal (striking off).
[5] Ms S isson has now filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeal against the decision of Chisholm J. Among ot her things it is asserted that she provided written instructions to counsel to proceed to file an amended notice of appeal within a reasonable timeframe prior to 30 November 2011.
[6] The asserted grounds for an application for adjournment or stay are:
1. A Notice of Appeal has been filed in the Court of Appeal in respect of the decision of the High Court to refuse to a [sic] allow a further extension of time to proceed with an appeal against a decision issued by the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyencers [sic] Disciplinary Tribuna l dated 5 July 2011.
2. The High Court appeared to have formed the view that the appellant had failed to proceed with the appeal or failed to comply with a direction, pursuant to rule 20.3 High Court Rules.
3. The circumstances are that the appellant provided written instructions to counsel to proceed to file an amended Notice of Appeal within a reasonable time pr ior to 30 November 2011.
4. The appellant’s counsel may not have had sufficient time to fully traverse relevant complex histor ical matters to properly formulate the grounds of appeal pr ior to 30 November 2011.
5. The matter of extension of time for appeal of the substantive Tribuna l decision is now before the Court of Appeal and it is therefore impracticable for the appeal against penalty to proceed until the Court of Appeal determines the matter before it.
6. Upon the further grounds appearing in the affidavit of the appellant sworn and filed herein.
[7] In a supporting affidavit Ms S isson details the background to these proceedings and the difficult circumstances that she has had to confront over the last several years. They include her account of her struggle to come to terms with and manage her daughter’s psychosis, a long running battle with the IRD and the recent earthq uakes.
[8] The substantive proceeding is due to be heard next week on 4 February by a full Court.
Decision
[9] Given the proximity to the substantive hearing of this matter, it was necessary to deal with these applications with some alacrity. I resolved that the application for adjournment be declined with reasons to follow. My reasons are:
(a) Ms S isson failed to comply with numerous directions of this Court issued in June, October and November. It would be unjust to the respondent in my view to prolong matters still further.
(b) I can see no obvious flaw in the approach taken by Chisholm J to strike out that might warrant, as a matter of fairness, the deferral of the proceeding pending resolution of the appeal to the Court of Appeal.
(c) If Ms S isson is correct, and her appeal succeeds, she will not be prevented from ventilating her concerns at another time.
(d) This matter is set down to be heard, as I have said, by three Judges.
This has required the significant mobilisation of judicial resource, no doubt accompanied by significant commitment by counsel in preparation for the proceedings. It would therefore, in my view, be inappropriate to defer the consideration of the discrete point of penalty, bearing in mind, as I have said, that if there are other substantive bases for appeal, and the Court of Appeal agrees that they
should be considered, then that can occur at a later date.
Order
[10] The application for adjournment is therefore declined.
Solicitors :
Thomps on & Morgan, Chris tchurch
Wynn Willia ms & Co, Ch ris tchurch
0
0
0