Supreme Court Temporarily Halts Lawyer's Suspension

OUTCOME: [APPELLANT] v [RESPONDENT] 1 [2026] NZSC 83 [24 June 2026]

NOTE: [NAME] TRIBUNAL ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE COMPLAINANT’S NAME, HIS FIRM’S NAME AND ANY OTHER DETAILS WHICH MIGHT LEAD TO HIS IDENTIFICATION PURSUANT TO S 240 OF THE LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS ACT 2006 REMAINS IN FORCE.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA SC 62/2026 [2026] NZSC 83

[APPELLANT] Applicant AND [RESPONDENT] 1 Respondent Counsel: [redacted] [NAME] and [NAME] [APPELLANT] for Respondent Judgment: 24 June 2026

JUDGMENT OF COOKE J

The application for a stay of the suspension order is granted pending the Court’s decision on the application for leave to appeal. ___________________________________________________________________

REASONS [1] By application dated 9 June 2026, Mr [APPELLANT] seeks a stay of the commencement of the six-month suspension from practice imposed as a penalty by the [NAME] Tribunal following its finding that he was guilty of one charge of misconduct.1 Given that orders have earlier been granted by

1 [RESPONDENT] 1 v [APPELLANT] [2024] NZLCDT 45; and [RESPONDENT] 1 v [APPELLANT] [2025] NZLCDT 26.

the High Court,2 and then the Court of Appeal,3 staying the suspension while appeal rights have been exercised, the application is effectively to extend the stay that has earlier been granted. [2] The application is supported by an affidavit from Mr [APPELLANT] sworn on 15 June 2026. He deposes that if he is not granted a stay he will be required to resign from his employment. The application is opposed by the respondent. [3] Notwithstanding the public interest in decisions of the Tribunal being implemented in a timely way,4 I accept that a temporary stay should be granted in the particular circumstances of this case. As a consequence of the earlier decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal, a stay of the suspension was in place until 2 June 2026,5 and it will only be a reasonably short period of time until the Court decides the application for leave to appeal. If the Court grants leave it can consider whether a continuation of the stay is appropriate. Whilst the applicant has not explained why the application to continue the stay was not made until more than a week after it had expired, given the above background, a short further continuation of the stay is appropriate. [4] For these reasons, the suspension order of the Tribunal is stayed until the Court determines the application for leave to appeal. Result [5] The application for a stay of the suspension order is granted pending the Court’s decision on the application for leave to appeal.

Solicitors: [redacted] [APPELLANT], Auckland for Respondent

2 [APPELLANT] v [RESPONDENT] 1 [2026] NZHC 454 ([APPELLANT] J) at [2] and [27]. 3 [APPELLANT] v [RESPONDENT] 1 [2026] NZCA 192 ([NAME], [RESPONDENT] JJ) [[NAME] judgment] at [21]–[22] and [36]–[37]. 4 [NAME] v [NAME] [RESPONDENT] (No 1) [2025] NZCA 395 at [21]. 5 [NAME] judgment, above n 3, at [37].