Legal Research
Cases
Mailley v Shaw

Mailley v Shaw

Case [2023] NZCA 33 1 March 2023

Appeal

Abuse of Process

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA402/2022
[2023] NZCA 33

BETWEEN	MARTIN MAILLEY Applicant
AND	ANTONY SHAW First Respondent NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY Second Respondent

Counsel:	Applicant in person D A Cowan and JEG San Diego for First Respondent T P Mullins, DAC Bullock and T N Sussman for Second Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	1 March 2023 at 2.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF MILLER J
(Recall Application)

The application for recall is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The application for recall is an abuse of process and is declined. The Registrar is to refuse to accept any further applications from Mr Mailley in connection with the decision under appeal.

Solicitors:
Ord Legal, Wellington for First Respondent
Lee Salmon Long, Auckland for Second Respondent

Details

AGLC: Mailley v Shaw [2023] NZCA 33
Case: [2023] NZCA 33
Decision Date: 1 March 2023 at 2.00 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the New Zealand Court of Appeal, Martin Mailley applied for a recall of a previous decision made in his appeal against Antony Shaw and the New Zealand Law Society. The appeal was a result of an earlier decision that denied Mr Mailley's application for admission as a solicitor. The Court of Appeal considered the application for recall and examined whether it was an abuse of process. The court found that the application for recall was indeed an abuse of process.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the application for recall was appropriate, and whether it should be allowed or dismissed as an abuse of process. The court examined the nature of the recall application and its implications for the legal process. The court determined that the application for recall was not appropriate and concluded that it was an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal, represented by Miller J, declined the application for recall and ordered that the Registrar should refuse to accept any further applications from Mr Mailley in connection with the decision under appeal. The court found that the application for recall was an abuse of process, and therefore declined it. The court's decision was based on the nature of the application and its impact on the legal process.

No further orders were made in this appeal. The Court of Appeal's decision was final and binding on the parties involved.

Orders