Zhao v New Zealand Law Society

Richard Zhao sought judicial review of three decisions of the New Zealand Law Society (NZLS) regarding his application to practice as a solicitor. The NZLS had convened its Fitness for Practice Committee to consider Zhao's application without first providing him with a letter outlining the perceived issues with his application and an opportunity to address the Committee, as had been previously assured. Zhao argued that this breached his legitimate expectation and natural justice. The High Court granted judicial review in relation to one of the decisions, finding that the NZLS had not met the assurances provided to Zhao, and that this amounted to a legitimate expectation as to process. The Court found that the NZLS had failed to uphold the principles of natural justice and ordered the NZLS to provide Zhao with the opportunity to address the Committee and to disclose relevant information.

The Court was required to decide whether Zhao was entitled to costs and, if so, in what amount. The Court considered the overall result, the scale allocation of costs, and the costs actually incurred by Zhao. The Court also took into account the excessive nature of the statement of claim and the failed affirmative defence of the NZLS. The Court concluded that Zhao was entitled to costs on a category 2 band B basis, subject to certain reductions and adjustments. The Court reduced the time allocation for certain items to band A, reduced the level of costs by one quarter due to the excessive nature of the statement of claim, and ensured that the costs did not exceed what was actually incurred by Zhao.

The Court ordered that Zhao was entitled to costs of $18,000, plus disbursements of $3,500. The Court found that certain items claimed on a band B basis exceeded what was appropriate in the circumstances of this proceeding. The Court also found that the statement of claim was excessive and ventured causes of action that could not succeed, which could have justified a substantial reduction of costs. However, the Court bore in mind the NZLS's failed affirmative defence as to prematurity, which occupied a significant part of the case. The Court also ensured that the costs did not exceed what was actually incurred by Zhao. The Court ordered that the NZLS was to pay Zhao's costs of $18,000, plus disbursements of $3,500. The Court also ordered that if proof was still required by the NZLS that Zhao had incurred the claimed costs, that proof was to be given on a counsel to counsel basis.

In conclusion, Zhao succeeded in obtaining judicial review in relation to one of the decisions of the NZLS, and the Court ordered the NZLS to provide Zhao with the opportunity to address the Committee and to disclose relevant information. The Court also ordered that the NZLS was to pay Zhao's costs of $18,000, plus disbursements of $3,500. The Court took into account the overall result, the scale allocation of costs, and the costs actually incurred by Zhao, and made certain reductions and adjustments to the costs claimed by Zhao. The Court also ensured that the costs did not exceed what was actually incurred by Zhao.