Deliu v National Standards Committee of the New Zealand Law Society

[2015] NZCA 492

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA95/2015
[2015] NZCA 492

BETWEEN	FRANCISC CATALIN DELIU Appellant
AND	THE NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE OF THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY Respondent

Counsel:

Appellant in Person
P J Morgan QC for Respondent

Judgment:

(On the papers)

20 October 2015 at 2.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF WILD J

The application to review the decision of the Registrar sealing judgment is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

1. By an email to the Court Registry on the evening of 15 October, Mr Deliu seeks “judicial review” of the Registrar’s decision to seal judgment in this appeal, which she did, also on 15 October.

2. I am treating Mr Deliu’s application as one under s 61A(3) of the Judicature Act 1908.

3. I put to one side the obvious issue of whether, having sealed judgment, this Court is now functus officio, and look to see whether there is substance in the points Mr Deliu has raised.

4. Mr Deliu’s concern is with the following two items in the Schedule of Costs and Disbursements attached to the sealed judgment:[1]

   [1]Mr Deliu had initially also disputed costs in relation to a memorandum of opposition he claimed was not filed and the sealing fee. These grounds had no merit: a memorandum of opposition was filed and Mr Deliu is liable to pay the sealing fee (Court of Appeal Fees Regulations 2001, s 4 and Sch).

Item	Details	Days	Amount
4	Preparation for hearing of defended application	2.0	$3,980.00
5	Appearance at hearing of defended application	0.5	$1,115.00

1. In an email to the Court on 14 October Mr Deliu made these points about these two items:

   2.In re: Item 4, 2 days for preparation for a :15 hearing is excessive.  My learned friend spoke for about 2 minutes.  He is a Queen’s Counsel and thus was able to argue the matter succinctly without requiring 2 days in his office in advance;

   3.In re Item 5, claimed costs cannot exceed actual costs.  As the hearing took :15 it is not just to claim for .5 days.

2. As to item 4, in its judgment of 28 August 2015 the Court ordered Mr Deliu to pay the respondent’s costs of the application on a band B basis and usual disbursements.[2]  The application was for leave to appeal.  Schedule 2 to the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, band B, allows two days to prepare for the hearing of a defended application for leave to appeal.  Mr Deliu submits two days is excessive.  That was obviously not the view of this Court in making its costs order, because it allowed costs on a band B basis, indicating it considered a comparatively large amount of time for preparation was reasonable:  r 53D(2)(b).  Thus, item 4 was correctly allowed by the Registrar.

   [2]Deliu v The National Standards Committee of the New Zealand Law Society [2015] NZCA 399.

3. As to item 5, Schedule 2 allows for an appearance in Court “measured in half days”.  Half a day is therefore the minimum.  The Court does not measure appearance costs in minutes.  Thus, the Registrar was correct to allow half a day, and to reject Mr Deliu’s submission that only 15 minutes should be allowed.

4. Having reviewed the Registrar’s decision to seal the judgment, I uphold it.  The application for review is accordingly dismissed.

Solicitors:
Glaister Ennor, Auckland for Respondent