Evgeny Orlov v New Zealand Law Society
Jurisdiction | New Zealand |
Judge | McGrath,William Young,Arnold JJ |
Judgment Date | 08 October 2013 |
Neutral Citation | [2013] NZSC 94 |
Docket Number | SC 68/2013 |
Court | Supreme Court |
Date | 08 October 2013 |
[2013] NZSC 94
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.
Applicant (In Person)
P J Morgan QC for Respondents
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
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.
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?
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.
The policy of the Supreme Court Act does not favour appeals to this Court on preliminary points...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Terranova Homes and Care Ltd v Service and Foodworkers Union Nga Ringa Tota Incorporated
...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
...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
...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
...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......