NZLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of New Zealand Decisions

You are here:  NZLII >> Databases >> High Court of New Zealand Decisions >> 2012 >> [2012] NZHC 1239

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

Dorbu v New Zealand Law Society [2012] NZHC 1239 (31 May 2012)

Last Updated: 11 June 2012


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2011-404-6219 [2012] NZHC 1239

IN THE MATTER OF the Law Practitioners Act 1982 and the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006

BETWEEN JOHN EVANS DORBU Appellant

AND NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY

Respondent

Hearing: 31 May 2012 (On papers) Court: Miller, Andrews and Peters JJ Counsel: J E Dorbu (In person) Appellant

H Keyte QC and M Treleaven for Respondent

Judgment: 31 May 2012

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Costs Judgment)

[1] In our judgment of 2 April 2012 we dismissed the appellant’s appeal against the decision of the New Zealand Disciplinary Tribunal striking his name from the roll of barristers and solicitors.

[2] The respondent now moves for costs of $3,008, calculated on a 2B basis with provision for one counsel. That sum is reasonable.

[3] The appellant submits that he is bankrupt, so costs should not be awarded against him. Alternatively, he submits that any award should take into account his inability to pay. He has lost his means of livelihood, is on the sickness benefit, and

has a young family to support. The respondent has not contested these claims.

DORBU V NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY HC AK CIV-2011-404-6219 [31 May 2012]

[4] In the normal course, costs follow the event.[1] The appellant’s bankruptcy

does not affect the jurisdiction to order costs.[2]

[5] Ability to pay is relevant and we will assume in the appellant’s favour that, the award not being provable as a debt in his bankruptcy, his liability to pay will survive his eventual discharge. The award may prove futile, but we cannot be sure about that.

[6] In all the circumstances we are not prepared to depart from the normal rule that costs follow the event, but we will reduce the amount to reflect the appellant’s circumstances. The respondent will have costs of $1,500.

Miller J Andrews J

Peters J



[1] High Court Rules, r 14.2(a).

[2] Kaye v Auckland District Law Society [1998] 1 NZLR 151.


NZLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2012/1239.html