Orlov v New Zealand Law Society and Ors

Civil procedure – Administrative law

Orlov v New Zealand Law Society and Ors – 15 February 2012 – Glazebrook, Arnold and Wild JJ – CA 32-2012

Unsuccessful appeal against directions consequent upon case management conference – appeal focused on direction severing appellant’s judicial review claim from causes of action alleging breach of rights guaranteed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and a claim for misfeasance in public office – appellant, an Auckland barrister, faced numerous complaints about his professional conduct, which respondents had referred to the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal – appellant alleged that decisions to lay disciplinary charges had been made in bad faith, and that respondents had engaged in a persistent pattern of conduct designed to destroy appellant’s career – challenge to severance order on three grounds: - (1) Judge had no jurisdiction to make the order; - (2) appellant had not been forewarned nor given any opportunity to present argument in relation to severance; - (3) severance would prejudice claims – HELD: HCJ made severance order pursuant to s10 Judicature Amendment Act which he set out in his judgment – that applied to the proceeding, because it included an application for judicial review – s10 empowered Judge, at any time, either upon the application of a party or without such application, to hold a conference – and it empowered the Judge at that conference to give such consequential directions as he considered necessary “for the purpose of ensuring that [application for judicial review] may be determined in a convenient and expeditious manner” – applicant had been forewarned by Judge that he would be considering severance at the conference – the starting point in considering Judge’s severance order was the need “to fulfil the purposes of judicial review as a relatively simple, untechnical and prompt procedure” (Minister of Energy v Petrocorp Exploration Ltd) – if there was any justification for combining another claim or claims with an application for judicial review, it could only be that that course would be the most “convenient and expeditious” way of enabling the Court to determine “all matters in dispute... effectively and completely” (s10(1) Judicature Amendment Act) – in this case all claims combined in amended statement of claim could not be heard in the eight days allocated for the hearing – severance order had not prejudiced appellant – appeal dismissed 

 This headnote has been sourced from the LINX database – the foremost guide
 to New Zealand caselaw and legal writing for the last 20 years, created by the 
 New Zealand Law Society library for lawyers.