Name Suppressed v National Standards Committee (no.1) of the New Zealand Law Society

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2021-404-656

[2021] NZHC 1053

UNDER Section 253 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006

BETWEEN

NAME SUPPRESSED

Appellant

AND

NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE (No. 1) OF THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY

Respondent

Hearing: 4 May 2021

Appearances:

J Long and J Grimmer for the Appellant D La Hood for the Respondent

Judgment:

12 May 2021

RESULTS JUDGMENT OF HINTON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 12 May 2021 at 11:00 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………………………………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Duncan King Law,
Julian Long, Barrister, Auckland
Luke Cunningham & Clere, Barristers & Solicitors, Wellington

NAME SUPPRESSED v NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE (No. 1) OF THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2021] NZHC 1053 [11 May 2021]

[1] On 4 May 2021 I heard an appeal by the appellant, a legal practitioner, against a decision of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal to extend a period of interim name suppression until 9:30 am on Monday 17 May 2021 being the date that professional disciplinary proceedings commence against the appellant. The appellant says that suppression should have been allowed down to the date of the Tribunal’s determination.

[2] Having read and heard submissions from the appellant and the National Standards Committee (No. 1) and considered all relevant documents, I have determined to allow the appeal. The order of the Tribunal is therefore modified such that name suppression is to continue down to the date of the Tribunal’s determination.

[3]Due to the shortage of time, my reasons will follow.

[4]The name of the practitioner’s partner (in life) is also to be suppressed.

Hinton J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Name Suppressed v National Standards Committee (No.1) of the New Zealand Law Society was heard on 4 May 2021, with judgment delivered on 12 May 2021. The appellant, a legal practitioner, sought to appeal the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal's decision to extend the period of interim name suppression until 9:30 am on 17 May 2021. The appellant argued that the suppression should have continued until the date of the Tribunal’s determination.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had correctly decided to extend the interim name suppression until the start of the disciplinary proceedings, or if it should have been maintained until the date of the Tribunal’s determination. The court was required to consider the balance between the appellant's right to a fair hearing and the public interest in transparency and openness in disciplinary proceedings.

After considering the submissions from both the appellant and the National Standards Committee (No.1) and reviewing all relevant documents, Hinton J determined to allow the appeal. The court found that the Tribunal had not adequately justified the extension of the suppression period and that it should have been maintained until the Tribunal’s determination. Consequently, the order of the Tribunal was modified accordingly. The court emphasized the importance of ensuring that the appellant's right to a fair hearing was protected while also considering the public interest in the proceedings. The suppression of the appellant's name, as well as that of their partner, was to continue until the date of the Tribunal’s determination.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	4 May 2021
Appearances:	J Long and J Grimmer for the Appellant D La Hood for the Respondent
Judgment:	12 May 2021