Evgeny Orlov v The National Standards Committee

• Jurisdiction: New Zealand
• Judge: William Young,Arnold,O'Regan JJ
• Judgment Date: 26 September 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] NZSC 133
• Docket Number: SC 65/2014
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 26 September 2014

BETWEEN

Evgeny Orlov

Applicant

and

The National Standards Committee 1

Respondent

[2014] NZSC 133

Court:

William Young, Arnold and O'Regan JJ

SC 65/2014

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

Application for leave to appeal against the upholding of a decision that applicant's counsel was debarred from appearing on his behalf — counsel faced similar charges to those faced by applicant in respect of the same Judge, and he had also given evidence (by way of affidavit) in the applicant's disciplinary proceedings — Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal had debarred him from acting in the proceedings before it — High Court judge had ruled counsel could not appear and had appointed amicus curiae — judge had later recused himself from hearing the appeal — whether the appeal was barred by s254(4) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (LCA) (Court of Appeal decision final on any appeal under LCA) — whether the subsequent recusal provided grounds for appealing the earlier order debarring counsel — whether there were issues of general or public importance suitable for adjudication by the Supreme Court.

Counsel:

Applicant in person

W C Pyke for Respondent

• A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

• B The applicant must pay costs of $2,500 to the respondent, plus reasonable disbursements.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

REASONS

1 The applicant, Mr Orlov, is a litigation lawyer. As a result of disciplinary proceedings brought against him by the National Standards Committee of the New Zealand Law Society (the Committee), he was struck off by the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal). The five charges on which Mr Orlov was found guilty related principally to statements he made about a High Court Judge in various contexts, which the Tribunal found to be false or made without sufficient justification and of a nature that meant Mr Orlov was not a fit and proper person to be a lawyer. 1

2 Mr Orlov appealed to the High Court against the Tribunal's decision and also issued judicial review proceedings (we will refer to these together as “the appeal”). For the purpose of the appeal, Mr Orlov retained a close associate, Mr Deliu, to represent him as counsel. The Committee applied for an order that Mr Deliu be debarred from appearing as Mr Orlov's counsel, on the grounds that Mr Deliu faced similar charges to those faced by Mr Orlov in respect of the same Judge, that he had given evidence (by way of affidavit) in Mr Orlov's disciplinary proceedings and that the Tribunal had debarred him from acting in the proceedings before it.

3 Fogarty J granted the Committee's application, and appointed an amicus curiae in respect of the appeal. 2 The Judge later recused himself from hearing the appeal. Mr Orlov appealed to the Court of Appeal against Fogarty J's decision debarring Mr Deliu from appearing, but was unsuccessful. 3 He now seeks leave to appeal to this Court.

4 Mr Orlov advances four grounds of appeal, namely that the Court of Appeal erred in:

• (a) upholding the decision of the High Court to debar Mr Deliu from acting;

• (b) refusing to allow Mr Orlov to take his own recording of the appeal hearing;

• (c) not quashing the decision of the High Court to...