Jeremy James Mcguire v Secretary for Justice

JurisdictionNew Zealand
JudgeElias CJ,William Young,Glazebrook,O'Regan JJ,William Young J,Ellen France J
Judgment Date27 November 2018
Neutral Citation[2018] NZSC 116
Docket NumberSC 22/2018
CourtSupreme Court
Date27 November 2018
Between
Jeremy James Mcguire
Appellant
and
Secretary for Justice
Respondent

[2018] NZSC 116

Court:

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ

SC 22/2018

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

Civil Procedure, Law Practitioners — appeal against a Court of Appeal (“CA”) decision which allowed a cross-appeal by the respondent to strike out the appellant's judicial review claim — respondent declined appellant's application for approval to provide legal aid services as a lead provider in family law — appellant had failed to seek review under s82 LSA (review of decisions of Secretary regarding approvals) before seeking a judicial review under s83 LSA (judicial review) — whether self-represented lawyer should be awarded costs

Counsel:

Appellant in person

U R Jagose QC and G L Melvin for Respondent

P N Collins for New Zealand Law Society as Intervener

S W B Foote and T J Mackenzie for New Zealand Bar Association as Intervener

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
  • A The appeal is dismissed.

  • B There is no order for costs.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
REASONS

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook and O'Regan JJ

[1]

Ellen France J

[90]

Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook AND O'Regan JJ (Given by William Young J)

Table of Contents

Para No.

The appeal

[1]

The legislative scheme

[6]

The background to Mr McGuire's application for approval

[13]

The 2013 decision

[19]

Subsequent events

[23]

Challenges to the result of the disciplinary proceedings

[23]

The 2015 decision

[25]

Mr McGuire's claim against the New Zealand Law Society

[26]

Mr McGuire's later interactions with the Ministry of Justice

[28]

The grounds upon which the 2013 decision is challenged

[29]

The High Court judgment

[33]

The Court of Appeal judgment

[37]

Our approach

[41]

The process provided for by s 83

[41]

The privative effect of ss 82(3) and 83

[43]

The application for review of the 2013 decision is misconceived

[46]

Costs

[52]

How the issue arose

[52]

The position as it was understood to be before Joint Action Funding

[55]

The costs rules

[62]

Controversies over the primary rule and the lawyer in person exception

[68]

Joint Action Funding

[71]

The approach of the Court of Appeal in the present case

[74]

Commissioner of Inland Revenue v New Orleans Hotel (2011) Ltd

[75]

The arguments before us

[77]

Our position

[82]

Disposition

[89]

The appeal
1

In issue in this appeal is a decision by the respondent, the Secretary for Justice,

to decline an application by the appellant, Mr Jeremy McGuire, for approval to provide legal aid services as a lead provider in family law. This decision was made on 7 November 2013 (the 2013 decision).

2

On 19 September 2016, Mr McGuire, representing himself, issued judicial review proceedings in the High Court in respect of the 2013 decision and also a certificate of standing issued by the New Zealand Law Society (the Law Society). 1 He subsequently amended his statement of claim to include a challenge to another decision made by the Secretary in 2015 (the 2015 decision) to refuse him approval to provide legal aid services as a lead provider in criminal law and as a duty solicitor. Mr McGuire's challenges to the certificate of standing and the 2015 decision are not in issue in this appeal.

3

The Secretary applied to strike out the claim in respect of the 2013 decision. This was on the basis of s 83 of the Legal Services Act 2011 (the Act) which provides:

83 Judicial review

A person may not apply for judicial review of any decision made under this subpart until the person has sought and obtained a review of the Secretary's decision under section 82.

As we will explain, Mr McGuire had a statutory right under s 82 of the Act to seek a review of the 2013 decision, a right which he did not exercise. The position of the Secretary is that as Mr McGuire has not sought and obtained a review under s 82, he is not entitled to apply for judicial review of the 2013 decision.

4

The Secretary's application was dismissed by Cull J 2 but a cross-appeal against her decision was allowed by the Court of Appeal. 3

5

The primary question for this Court on appeal is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the cross-appeal. As will become apparent, however, the case has also given rise to important and controversial issues as to costs which merit consideration.

The legislative scheme
6

Section 75 of the Act provides that a person must not provide a legal aid service unless approved by the Secretary to do so. Applications for approval are made under

s 76. Under s 77(1) approval can only be granted “if the Secretary is satisfied that the person meets the criteria prescribed in regulations”. 4 Section 77(4) requires the Secretary to provide reasons for his or her decision to give or decline approval
7

Section 78(1) provides for the establishment of selection committees to assess applications for approval to provide legal aid services and to advise the Secretary of the suitability of applicants.

8

As noted above, s 82 allows for review of a decision of the Secretary regarding approval. It provides:

The right of review under s 82 extends to decisions imposing conditions on approvals to provide legal aid services, 5 interim restrictions 6 (imposed under s 101), sanctions 7 (imposed under s 102) and cancellations 8 (made under s 103). This subpart also includes s 83 which we have set out above.

  • (1) A person may apply to the Review Authority for a review of a decision of the Secretary in respect of that person–

    (a) declining the person's application for approval to provide 1 or more legal aid services or specified legal services:

  • (2) An application for review must be lodged with the Review Authority within 20 working days from the date of notice of the Secretary's decision.

  • (3) The Review Authority may accept a late application no later than 3 months after the date on which notice of the relevant decision was given to the person, if the Review Authority is satisfied that exceptional circumstances prevented the application from being made within 20 working days after the date on which notice is given.

9

The Review Authority is established by s 84 of the Act. Section 84(2) requires the Minister of Justice to appoint one person to be the Review Authority and empowers the Minister to appoint one or more Deputy Review Authorities. Such persons must

be enrolled as barristers and solicitors of the High Court, and have at least seven years' legal experience. 9
10

The Review Authority determines a review by confirming, modifying, or reversing the decision under review. 10 It must provide reasons for its decision 11 and its decision is binding on the Secretary and the person to whom the decision applies. 12

11

Regulation 27 of the Legal Services (Quality Assurance) Regulations 2011 provides:

27 Conduct of review

(1) In conducting a review, the Review Authority–

  • (a) must consider the application and any written submissions made by the person seeking the review; and

  • (b) must consider any written submissions made by the Secretary; and

  • (c) may consider any statement, document, information, or matter that in the Review Authority's opinion may assist the Authority to deal effectively with the subject of the review, whether or not it would be admissible in a court of law.

(2) The Review Authority may–

  • (a) request further information from the Secretary or the person seeking the review; and

  • (b) have regard to that information; and

  • (c) specify a date by which the information must be provided; and

  • (d) refuse to consider any information provided after that date.

12

Part 3 of sch 3 to the Act contains further provisions applying to the Review Authority. 13 Clause 19(1) and (2) of that schedule provide that the Review Authority must perform his or her functions independently of the Minister and that the Minister cannot direct the Review Authority in relation to its functions. And cl 20 requires the Review Authority to conduct reviews “with all reasonable speed”.

The background to Mr McGuire's application for approval
13

Mr McGuire was admitted as a barrister and solicitor in 1992. He practised initially in Wellington and later moved to Palmerston North.

14

Mr McGuire has faced a number of professional complaints and some of these have resulted in adverse findings by various standards committees of the Law Society. Most of these were of only limited significance. As well, since the 2013 decision, Mr McGuire has achieved a reasonable measure of success in judicial review proceedings challenging those findings. There was, however, one complaint which was of far more moment. It resulted in disciplinary charges before the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal and was of critical significance to the 2013 decision.

15

In 2008 Mr McGuire entered into contingency fee arrangements with a legally aided client. In late 2008, Mr McGuire's client complained to the Legal Services Agency (LSA) (operating under the now repealed Legal Services Act 2000) that Mr McGuire was seeking the payment of a fee additional to the grant of legal aid. The LSA took the view that the contingency fee arrangements were precluded by the terms of the Legal Services Act. Accordingly, on 13 September 2010 the LSA cancelled his legal aid approvals and terminated his legal services contract. As a result of this decision, Mr McGuire was no longer able to provide legal aid services.

16

Mr McGuire initiated a review of this decision and, when this was unsuccessful, he sought judicial review in proceedings which were eventually dismissed by Dobson J in the High Court in April 2013. 14 His subsequent attempts to challenge this in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Bell Lawyers Pty Ltd v Pentelow
    • Australia
    • High Court
    • 4 September 2019
    ...424–425. 52 (1994) 179 CLR 403 at 416–417. 53 Litigants in Person (Costs and Expenses) Act 1975 (UK). 54 McGuire v Secretary for Justice [2018] NZSC 116 at 55 Skidmore v Blackmore (1995) 122 DLR (4th) 330. 56 (1994) 179 CLR 403 at 414. 57 (1994) 179 CLR 403 at 414–415. 58 Buckland v Watts ......
  • Vladimir Niyazov v Maples and Calder
    • British Virgin Islands
    • Court of Appeal (British Virgin Islands)
    • 12 October 2020
    ...J was correct in this regard.” (emphasis mine) 67 This dovetails with the approach taken in the New Zealand case of Jeremy James McGuire v Secretary for Justice: 36 “It was, however, directly addressed by the Court of Appeal in Henderson Borough Council v Auckland Regional Authority. There,......
  • Fmv v Tzb
    • New Zealand
    • Supreme Court
    • 20 August 2021
    ...Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2011] NZSC 158, [2012] 2 NZLR 153 and subsequently addressed in McGuire v Secretary for Justice [2018] NZSC 116, [2019] 1 NZLR 335 and H (SC 52/2018) v Refugee and Protection Officer [2019] NZSC 13, [2019] 1 NZLR 433. As noted above at [59], the judi......
  • Stringer v Craig
    • New Zealand
    • Court of Appeal
    • 9 May 2022
    ...v Registrar of the High Court at Christchurch [1996] 2 NZLR 438 at 439–440 (citations omitted); see also McGuire v Secretary of Justice [2018] NZSC 116, [2019] 1 NZLR 335 at 68 Jagwar Holdings Ltd v Julian (1992) 6 PRNZ 496 at 499 (citations omitted). 69 McGuire, above n 67, at [55]. 70 At......
  • 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