Mailley v Shaw [2022] NZCA 558 (16 November 2022)

Last Updated: 22 November 2022

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA402/2022 [2022] NZCA 558

BETWEEN	MARTIN MAILLEY Applicant
AND	ANTONY SHAW First Respondent
AND	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)	16 November 2022 at 3.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF MILLER J

(Review of Registrar’s Decision)

The application for review of the Registrar’s decision is declined. Mr Mailley must pay security for costs by 2 December 2022.

REASONS

• [1] Mr Mailley applies for review of a Registrar’s decision declining to waive security for costs.

• [2] The litigation has an intense and convoluted history. I do not intend to repeat it, but rather adopt the account given by Collins J when refusing to waiver security in

MARTIN MAILLEY v ANTONY SHAW [2022] NZCA 558 [16 November 2022]

connection with another appeal stemming from the same dispute between Mr Mailley and his former counsel.¹

• [3] Costs awarded in the High Court are in issue.² Mr Mailley says his appeal has merit because the daily rate used in fixing costs was wrong and there is an element of double recovery.

• [4] I observe that Mr Mailley does not advance impecuniosity in this appeal. So it is not a case in which inability to pay might preclude an appeal that a reasonable litigant might bring.³ Rather, Mr Mailley argues that there is a public interest in having his appeal heard.

• [5] The Registrar did not see it, and neither do I. The argument was rejected by Collins J in a recall decision.⁴ It can confidently be said that the appeal has no merit.

• [6] Nor is this a case, having regard to the procedural history, in which the respondents should be denied the protection afforded by security. In particular, Mr Mailley has not paid that portion of the costs awards that he does not now dispute.

• [7] The application for review is declined. Security must be paid by 2 December 2022.

Solicitors:

Ord Legal, Wellington for First Respondent

Lee Salmon Long, Auckland for Second Respondent

¹ Mailley v Shaw [2022] NZCA 41at [1]–[9].

² Mailley v Shaw HC Auckland CIV-2015-404-1185, Minute of Toogood J, 13 July 2022.

³ Reekie v Attorney-General [2014] NZSC 63, [2014] 1 NZLR 737 at [35].

⁴ Mailley v Shaw [2022] NZCA 180. The Supreme Court declined Mr Mailley’s subsequent applications for leave and recall: Mailley v Shaw [2022] NZSC 93; and Mailley v Shaw [2022] NZSC 100.