Rabson v Judicial Conduct Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2016-485-781 [2016] NZHC 2713

BETWEEN
MALCOLM EDWARD RABSON

Applicant

AND

JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER Respondent

On the papers

Judgment:

11 November 2016

JUDGMENT OF CLARK J

[1] In his proceeding Mr Rabson seeks judicial review of a decision of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner following a complaint lodged by Mr Rabson himself.

[2] Originally the proceeding named Justices of the Supreme Court as second respondents. An application was made to have them removed as parties. The High Court, applying established principle, determined the Judges were not properly joined and accordingly they were struck out as parties. Costs were awarded the parties struck out.

[3] In accordance with the Judge’s direction a memorandum was filed in which the amount of costs sought is set out. Classifying the proceedings as category one proceedings of a straightforward nature1 and the time allocations as being in band
“A” requiring a comparatively small amount of time2 the calculation results in costs

of $888.00.

1 High Court Rule 14.3.
2 High Court Rule 14.5.

RABSON v JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER [2016] NZHC 2713 [11 November 2016]

[4] The costs incurred, however, are $770.00. Because the costs incurred are less than the scale calculation of costs an order is sought only for the costs incurred.

[5] Accordingly, Mr Rabson is ordered to pay costs in the sum of $770.00.

Karen Clark J

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was asked to review a decision made by the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, following a complaint made by Malcolm Edward Rabson. Rabson sought to challenge the Commissioner's decision, and the matter was heard on the papers. Originally, the Justices of the Supreme Court were named as second respondents in the proceeding, but they were subsequently struck out as parties after an application to remove them was made. The High Court awarded costs to the parties that were struck out.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Judicial Conduct Commissioner's decision was subject to judicial review and, if so, whether it was justified. The court had to consider the nature of the complaint made by Rabson, the process followed by the Commissioner, and whether any errors were made in the decision-making process. The court also needed to determine whether Rabson's complaint was valid and if the Commissioner's response was appropriate.

The court considered the arguments presented by Rabson and the response provided by the Commissioner. It found that the Commissioner's decision was not subject to judicial review, as it was an internal process not governed by the principles of natural justice. The court also held that the decision was justified and that the Commissioner had followed the appropriate process in making the decision. As a result, the court dismissed Rabson's application for judicial review. In accordance with the court's direction, a memorandum was filed outlining the costs sought. The court classified the proceedings as category one proceedings of a straightforward nature, requiring a comparatively small amount of time. The calculation resulted in costs of $888.00. However, the costs incurred were $770.00, which is less than the scale calculation of costs. Therefore, an order was sought only for the costs incurred.

As a result, Rabson was ordered to pay costs in the sum of $770.00. The Crown Law Office, Wellington represented the respondents in the case.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established