Boon Gunn Hong v Legal Complaints Review Officer

• Jurisdiction: New Zealand
• Judge: Asher J
• Judgment Date: 14 October 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] NZCA 501
• Docket Number: CA340/2016
• Court: Court of Appeal
• Date: 14 October 2016

Between

Boon Gunn Hong

Applicant

and

Legal Complaints Review Officer

Respondent

[2016] NZCA 501

Court:

Kos P, Harrison and Asher JJ

CA340/2016

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

Application for special leave to appeal under s254(1) Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (LCA) (Appeal to Court of Appeal on question of law — leave required) against the High Court's (HC) dismissal of his appeal against a finding of misconduct by the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal, while quashing a suspension of two months — the applicant had become involved in a dispute with former clients who then issued proceedings against him — the applicant sent letters and an email to the solicitor for the plaintiffs making allegations of incompetence against the plaintiff's barrister and the junior barristers at his Chambers — he also told the solicitor to withdraw the action against him or he would file a strike out action, seek full costs against the lawyer personally, file a claim for defamation and make a complaint to the Law Society that the solicitor was incompetent — following a complaint by the barrister, the applicant then sent letters to the Lawyers Complaints Service which the Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO) claimed were abusive and unprofessional — whether the communications were susceptible to professional discipline.

counsel

Applicant in person

P N Collins for Respondent

• A The application for leave to appeal is declined.

• B The applicant must pay the respondent costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Asher J)

Introduction

1 The applicant, Boon Gunn Hong, is a lawyer practising in Auckland. He seeks special leave to appeal under s 254(1) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act) against a decision of Faire J dismissing Mr Hong's appeal against a finding of misconduct by the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal, while quashing a suspension of two months. 1

Background

2 The behaviour that has been the subject of the allegations of misconduct by Mr Hong, arose out of civil proceedings in which Mr Hong was a defendant, and where he became locked in a dispute with his former clients, their solicitor, and the barrister briefed, Mr Frank Deliu.

3 Mr Hong then sent two letters and an email to the solicitor for the plaintiffs. As Faire J summarised, 2 in this correspondence he:

• (a) made allegations of incompetence against Mr Deliu and the junior barristers at his Chambers;

• (b) told the solicitor to withdraw the action against him or he would file a strike out action, seek full costs against the lawyer personally, file a claim for defamation and make a complaint to the Law Society that the solicitor was incompetent; and

• (c) warned the solicitor that he had better get what he promised for the clients or they would turn against him.

4 Mr Deliu made a complaint against Mr Hong to the Lawyers Complaints Service. Mr Hong sent three letters and two emails to the Lawyers Complaints Service in which he made a number of statements referring to Mr Deliu and the junior barristers. The Legal Complaints Review Officer claimed the statements were abusive and unprofessional.

5 The complaint then had a long history, which is summarised in Faire J's judgment 3 and which we do not propose traversing. The Tribunal found misconduct

established in relation to some of the statements in Mr Hong's letters. 4 The statements were not privileged and were in connection with the provision of regulated services. In a separate penalties decision the Tribunal: 5

• (a) ordered that Mr Hong be suspended from practice for a period of two months;

• (b) ordered Mr Hong to pay $27,000 of the total costs claimed of $32,832; and

• (c) ordered that Mr Hong meet the full costs of the Tribunal by reimbursement to the New Zealand Law Society of $12,331.

6 Mr Hong then appealed the decision to the High Court under s 253 of the Act. It is the appeal decision of Faire J that is the subject of this application.

7 After traversing the history of the matter and the allegations made against Mr Hong, Faire J determined that the appeal against the liability decision should be dismissed. However he quashed the penalty of two month's suspension. This left Mr Hong with a liability finding, and costs orders. He applied to Faire J for leave to bring a second appeal, as required by s 254(1) of the Act. Faire J declined to give leave 6 and Mr Hong now applies to this Court.

Appeal

8 Section 254 provides:

254 Appeal to Court of Appeal on question of law

• (1) Any party to an appeal under section 253(1) who is dissatisfied with any determination of the High Court in the proceedings as being erroneous in point of law may, with the leave of that court, or, if the High Court refuses leave, with the leave of the Court of Appeal, appeal to the Court of Appeal against the determination; and section 66 of the Judicature Act 1908 applies to any such appeal.

• (2) In determining whether to grant leave to appeal under...