Taia v Auckland Standards Committee 5

[2022] NZHC 2911

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-1150

[2022] NZHC 2911

UNDER

Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006

IN THE MATTER OF

An appeal against a decision of the

New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal

BETWEEN

MICHAEL RAWIRI TAIA

Appellant

AND

AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 5 AND SOUTHLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE

Defendant

On the papers:	At Auckland
Judgment:	8 November 2022

JUDGMENT OF POWELL J

[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 8 November 2022 at 10am.

Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

…………………..

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:

Kayes Fletcher Walker, Auckland

Copy:

M Taia

TAIA v AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 5 AND SOUTHLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE [2022] NZHC 2911 [8 November 2022]

[1]                 On 18 October 2022 Mr Taia’s appeal was struck out as a result of him failing to pay security for costs.

[2]                 Recording that outcome in a minute I advised the parties that if the respondents sought costs they were to file a memorandum within five working days, with Mr Taia then having a further five working days to respond.1

[3]                 In the event the respondents have confirmed that they do not seek costs on the dismissal of Mr Taia’s appeal. Somewhat surprisingly however Mr Taia himself has sought costs on a 2B basis.

[4]                 With respect to Mr Taia his application is misconceived. First, for obvious reasons I did not give Mr Taia the option of seeking costs given he is by definition the unsuccessful party.2 Secondly, as Mr Taia is no longer a lawyer, having been struck off the roll of barristers and solicitors, he no longer comes within the lawyer in person exception that otherwise prevents a self-represented litigant from claiming costs,3 noting for completeness  I had previously declined permission for Mr Hovell and  Ms Hill to act for Mr Taia as his “attorneys” when they have both asserted they do not have practising certificates as lawyers.

[5]                 Thirdly, even if the lawyer in person exception applied Mr Taia himself took no steps on the appeal. Finally, there is otherwise nothing in the memorandum filed by Mr Taia that would justify an award of costs given the circumstances as they have unfolded.

[6]Accordingly, costs on Mr Taia’s appeal are to lie where they fall.

Powell J

1      Taia v Auckland Standards Committee 5 HC Auckland CIV-2022-404-1150, 28 October 2022 (Minute No 3).

2      High Court Rules 2016, r 14.2(1)(a).

3      See for example: Catalin v Independent Police Conduct Authority [2022] NZHC 1411 at [4]–[[8].