McGuire v Wellington Standards Committee (No 1)

• Jurisdiction: New Zealand
• Judge: Mallon J
• Judgment Date: 12 March 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] NZHC 448
• Docket Number: CIV 2014-485-3007
• Court: High Court
• Date: 12 March 2015

Under the Judicature Amendment Act 1972

and

Part 30 of the High Court Rules

Between

Jeremy James McGuire

Applicant

and

Wellington Standards Committee (No 1)

First Respondent

The Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal

Second Respondent

[2015] NZHC 448

CIV 2014-485-3007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

WELLINGTON REGISTRY

Decision as to costs following an application for judicial review of disciplinary proceedings that were brought against a practitioner — the application was brought on a number of grounds but the practitioner succeeded in having a decision to censure him quashed on only one of them and he failed in his claim for damages and in having the costs order of the second respondent, the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) set aside — court had indicated its preliminary view that practitioner was entitled to costs, reduced by around 25 per cent to reflect the significant number of other issues that practitioner had raised, on which he did not succeed — practitioner sought indemnity costs in respect of both the disciplinary proceedings ($141,000) and his subsequent application for judicial review ($89,000) — whether practitioner was entitled to indemnity costs.

JUDGMENT OF Mallon J

(Costs)

1 I refer to my judgment on Mr McGuire's application for judicial review of disciplinary proceedings that were brought against him. 1 That application was brought on a number of grounds. Mr McGuire succeeded in having the decision to censure him quashed on only one of them. He failed in his claim for damages and in having the costs order of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) set aside.

2 As to costs in respect of his judicial review application, I said:

[93] My preliminary view is that Mr McGuire should be entitled to costs because he has succeeded in having the censure quashed. Any such costs order should be reduced to some extent (perhaps by around 25 per cent) to reflect the significant number of other issues that Mr McGuire raised, on which he did not succeed. It would be preferable if the parties reach an agreement on costs in light of this indication. If that is not possible, they may file brief submissions (no more than five pages each) confined solely to the particular aspects of costs that are in dispute. Such submissions are to be filed by 30 January 2015.

3 The parties have been unable to agree. Mr McGuire seeks indemnity costs in respect of both the disciplinary proceedings ($141,033.60 GST inclusive) and his subsequent application for judicial review ($89,527.50 GST inclusive). 2 The first respondent seeks that no order be made in Mr McGuire's favour. In the alternative it seeks that costs be reduced by an amount greater than that indicated in my preliminary view set out above.

4 Mr McGuire's claim for any costs in respect of the disciplinary proceedings in misconceived. I have already upheld the Tribunal's order for costs against him. 3 That also answers Mr McGuire's alternative submission that he should have costs against the Tribunal in respect of what he says was an “unnecessary hearing” on “penalty and costs”.

5 Mr McGuire's claim for indemnity costs in respect of the application for judicial review is an unrealistic one. I had indicated a preliminary view that any costs order in his favour should be reduced. Mr McGuire submits that such reduction would be “unprecedented”. However a reduction where a party has succeeded overall but has “failed in relation to a cause of action or issue which significantly increased the costs of the party opposing costs” is provided for in the High Court Rules 4 and is an orthodox approach to the costs discretion. 5 All but one of the grounds set out under the “procedural matters” heading in my judgment were completely without merit. 6 They nevertheless required a detailed review of the

evidence relating to those procedural matters and accordingly increased the first respondent's costs. 7

6 Mr McGuire submits that his claim against the second respondent was wholly successful and that the first respondent “vigorously defended the claims made against both respondents”. First, it is not correct that his claim against the second respondent was...