Dorbu v New Zealand Law Society

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2011-404-6219 [2012] NZHC 1239

IN THE MATTER OF the Law Practitioners Act 1982 and the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006

BETWEEN JOHN EVANS DORBU Appellant

ANDNEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY
Respondent

Hearing: 31 May 2012 (On papers) Court: Miller, Andrews and Peters JJ Counsel: J E Dorbu (In person) Appellant
H Keyte QC and M Treleaven for Respondent

Judgment: 31 May 2012

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Costs Judgment)

[1] In our judgment of 2 April 2012 we dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the New Zealand Disciplinary Tribunal striking his name from the roll of barristers and solicitors.

[2] The respondent now moves for costs of $3,008, calculated on a 2B basis with provision for one counsel. That sum is reasonable.

[3] The appellant submits that he is bankrupt, so costs should not be awarded against him. Alternatively, he submits that any award should take into account his inability to pay. He has lost his means of livelihood, is on the sickness benefit, and
has a young family to support. The respondent has not contested these claims.

DORBU V NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY HC AK CIV-2011-404-6219 [31 May 2012]

[4] In the normal course, costs follow the event.[1] The appellant’s bankruptcy

does not affect the jurisdiction to order costs.[2]

[1] High Court Rules, r 14.2(a).

[2] Kaye v Auckland District Law Society [1998] 1 NZLR 151.

[5] Ability to pay is relevant and we will assume in the appellant’s favour that, the award not being provable as a debt in his bankruptcy, his liability to pay will survive his eventual discharge. The award may prove futile, but we cannot be sure about that.

[6] In all the circumstances we are not prepared to depart from the normal rule that costs follow the event, but we will reduce the amount to reflect the appellant’s circumstances. The respondent will have costs of $1,500.

Miller J Andrews J
Peters J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dorbu sought to appeal against the decision of the New Zealand Disciplinary Tribunal, which had found him guilty of professional misconduct and struck his name from the roll of barristers and solicitors. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal’s decision to be correct. The New Zealand Law Society then applied for costs of $3,008, calculated on a 2B basis with provision for one counsel. Dorbu submitted that he was bankrupt and unable to pay the costs, and that any award should take into account his inability to pay. The court acknowledged Dorbu’s financial difficulties, but held that costs follow the event. The court also noted that Dorbu’s liability to pay the costs would survive his eventual discharge from bankruptcy. However, the court was not prepared to depart from the normal rule that costs follow the event, but reduced the amount to reflect Dorbu’s circumstances. The respondent was awarded costs of $1,500.

The court considered whether Dorbu’s bankruptcy affected its jurisdiction to order costs. The court held that bankruptcy did not affect its jurisdiction to order costs, and that the normal rule that costs follow the event applied. The court also considered Dorbu’s submission that his inability to pay should be taken into account when determining the amount of costs. The court held that Dorbu’s ability to pay was relevant and would assume in Dorbu’s favour that his liability to pay would survive his eventual discharge from bankruptcy. However, the court was not prepared to depart from the normal rule that costs follow the event, but reduced the amount to reflect Dorbu’s circumstances.

The court held that the normal rule that costs follow the event applied, but reduced the amount to reflect Dorbu’s circumstances. The court was not prepared to depart from the normal rule that costs follow the event, but took into account Dorbu’s financial difficulties when determining the amount of costs. The respondent was awarded costs of $1,500.

The court made no further orders.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established