Evgeny Orlov v New Zealand Law Society

JurisdictionNew Zealand
JudgeMcGrath,William Young,Arnold JJ
Judgment Date08 October 2013
Neutral Citation[2013] NZSC 94
Docket NumberSC 68/2013
CourtSupreme Court
Date08 October 2013
BETWEEN
Evgeny Orlov
Applicant
and
New Zealand Law Society
First Respondent
Auckland Lawyers Standards Committee
Second Respondent
Auckland Lawyers Standards Committee No. 1
Third Respondent
National Standards Committee
Fourth Respondent

[2013] NZSC 94

Court:

McGrath, William Young and Arnold JJ

SC 68/2013

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

Application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeal's finding that there was no threshold standard of “sufficient seriousness” to be met before disciplinary proceedings could be determined by the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal under s152 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (Power of Standards Committee to determine complaint or matter) — whether leave to appeal should be given on preliminary point in advance of hearing — whether s13(4) Supreme Court Act 2003 (criteria for leave to appeal — interlocutory applications — leave to appeal only if in interests of justice to determine before proceeding concluded) applied.

Counsel:

Applicant (In Person)

P J Morgan QC for Respondents

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
REASONS
1

The applicant, Mr Orlov, faces disciplinary proceedings brought by the respondents who are the New Zealand Law Society and certain of its Standards Committees constituted under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a Court of Appeal judgment in judicial review proceedings that challenged procedural decisions of the respondent Standards Committees not to deal with complaints themselves, but to lay charges against him before the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal. 1

2

In the High Court, Heath J held that a number of matters, the subject of complaint did not meet a standard of sufficient seriousness to warrant their reference to and determination by the Tribunal. 2 On appeal by the applicant, and cross-appeal by the respondents, the Court of Appeal rejected the view that there is such an implicit threshold of seriousness standard which must be met before Standards Committees may determine matters to be addressed by the Tribunal. 3 Such a threshold test was an unwarranted gloss on the terms of s 152(2)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act. 4 The Court also held that conduct of counsel in Court could be the subject of disciplinary proceedings. In particular, excessively aggressive or scandalous conduct in breach of professional statutory obligations was not protected from disciplinary proceedings under Bill of Rights guarantees. 5 The applicant's appeal was dismissed. The cross-appeal by the Standards Committees was allowed and their decisions confirmed.

3

In his submissions to this Court the applicant makes a number of criticisms of the Court of Appeal's judgment. He submits that a general question of law arises from it on which we should give leave to appeal:

What is the extent of the reviewability of Complaints Committee hearings resulting in a decision to charge a lawyer before the Tribunal?

4

In our view, the only legal question arising from the judgment that might meet the requirements under s 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 for a second appeal, is whether there is a seriousness threshold that must be met before powers under s 152(2)(a) may be exercised by a Standards Committee. Accordingly we turn to whether it is necessary in the interests of justice for the Court to hear and determine an appeal on that ground.

5

The policy of the Supreme Court Act does not favour appeals to this Court on preliminary points...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Terranova Homes and Care Ltd v Service and Foodworkers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated
    • New Zealand
    • Supreme Court
    • 22 Diciembre 2014
    ...favour appeals to this Court on preliminary points that can be raised at the conclusion of the process”: Orlov v New Zealand Law Society [2013] NZSC 94. 6 Terranova (Employment Court), above n 2, at 7 At [118]. 8 LFDB v SM [2014] NZSC 197 at [20]. 9 Terranova (CA), above n 1, at [239]. 10......
  • Francisc Catalin Deliu v The New Zealand Law Society
    • New Zealand
    • Supreme Court
    • 2 Junio 2015
    ...application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500. 1 Orlov v New Zealand Law Society [2013] NZSC 94. 2 At 3 Deliu v New Zealand Law Society [2015] NZCA 12. 4 Wilson v Attorney General [2011] 1 NZLR 399 (HC). 5 See Orlov v New Zealand Law S......
  • Deliu v The New Zealand Law Society
    • New Zealand
    • Court of Appeal
    • 13 Febrero 2015
    ...also facing disciplinary proceedings. He brought similar judicial review proceedings. 12 At [4] citing Orlov v New Zealand Law Society [2013] NZSC 94. 13 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, ss 253 and 14 See Tannadyce Investments v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2011] NZSC 158, [2012] 2 N......
  • Deliu v The New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal
    • New Zealand
    • High Court
    • 19 Noviembre 2013
    ...of New Zealand, above n 19, at [22]. 26 At [20]. 27 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, ss 253, 254. 28 Orlov v New Zealand Law Society [2013] NZSC 94 at [6] – [7]. 29 At [6] – [7]. 30 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers Complaints Service and Standards Committees) Regulations 2008, reg 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT