Francisc Catalin Deliu v The New Zealand Law Society

• Jurisdiction: New Zealand
• Judge: Elias CJ,Glazebrook,Arnold JJ
• Judgment Date: 02 June 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] NZSC 75
• Docket Number: SC 19/2015
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 02 June 2015

Between

Francisc Catalin Deliu

Applicant

and

The New Zealand Law Society

Respondent

[2015] NZSC 75

Court:

Elias CJ, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ

SC 19/2015

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

Application for leave to appeal — applicant faced disciplinary charges before the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal, brought under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (LCA) — he issued judicial review proceedings challenging the decisions of the Standards Committees to lay the charges — the judicial review proceedings hearing was adjourned part heard because in a similar case the Supreme Court had ruled that issues about decisions to lay charges could be raised before the Disciplinary Tribunal and thereafter, if necessary, on an appeal to the HC — in such a case, any extant judicial review proceedings would likely be consolidated with the appeal — whether the judicial review hearing should be allowed to proceed irrespective of the disciplinary proceedings — whether the decision to adjourn was an interlocutory decision.

Counsel:

Applicant in person

P J Morgan QC for Respondent

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

REASONS

1 The applicant, Mr Deliu, is facing disciplinary charges before the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal, brought under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. He issued judicial review proceedings challenging the decisions of the National and Auckland Standards Committees to lay the charges at issue.

2 The hearing of the judicial review proceedings commenced on 9 September 2013 and was adjourned part heard on 13 September 2013. However, the High Court was unable to allocate a further hearing date, and ultimately, on 13 February 2014, the trial Judge, Katz J, directed that the hearing of the proceedings be adjourned until the disciplinary charges are determined. She did so primarily for two reasons – the fact that Mr Deliu had said that he was unavailable for a resumed hearing until March 2014 at the earliest and the observations of this Court in a similar situation involving another practitioner, Mr Orlov. 1 There, this Court noted that issues about the decisions of Standards Committees to lay charges could be raised before the Disciplinary Tribunal and thereafter, if necessary, on an appeal to the High Court against a decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal. In such a case, any extant judicial review proceedings would likely be consolidated with the appeal. 2

3 Mr Deliu then appealed to the Court of Appeal against the High Court Judge's decision to adjourn the proceedings pending the outcome of the disciplinary charges. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. 3 It did so because it considered, consistently with this Court's observations in Orlov, that the High Court had erred in commencing the hearing of Mr Deliu's judicial review proceedings before the disciplinary charges were resolved, so that the decision to adjourn them was not wrong. Mr Deliu now seeks leave to appeal from that decision.

4 Mr Deliu raises a number of grounds of appeal,...