Justice111
High court judge on very thin ice
by , 13-04-2016 at 06:15 PM (11023 Views)
In the High Court of Auckland on Monday (11 April 2016) a memorandum was filed by two plaintiffs' putting Faire J ("the Court") on Notice that they, in a hearing on Monday (set to commence at 11.45) would be filing an oral application (in reliance of 1.7 of the High Court Rules) requesting Faire to disbar Barrister Peter Wright (of Shortland Chambers Auckland) from acting for his clients (Another Barrister and a High Ranking Police Officer).
Faire J has been well aware (since early 2015) that Barrister Wright has been ignoring (on the precipice of assisting) his clients' non compliance with discovery.
This non-compliance of discovery relates to a substantial amount of one of Peter Wright's client's financial records (bank statements) which have been, and continue to be, the main pivotal documents required, since 2009, to be discovered in a lengthy and ongoing litigation which has been, and continues to, request the Court to address what financial transpired between the plaintiffs' family trust and Peter Wright's client (the police officer) during a 6 and a half year period.
Below is part of the plaintiffs' memorandum that put Faire J ("the Court") on Notice.
2. The plaintiffs’, in reliance of r13.9 and r13.9.1 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (“The Rules”) request the Court to immediately disbar Counsel Peter Wright from acting for the defendants/respondents in ALL matters relating to CIV 2014-404-xxxx; and CIV 2014-404-xxxx/xx effective from, and including the 11 April 2016.
3. “The Rules” are not up to interpretation that would bring fourth the Court allowing itself to employ discretion.
4. The word “must” recorded in “The Rules” is fatal to any argument that would lend the Court having any discretion to permit Counsel from continuing to act for a client/s who refuses (via lengthy and ongoing conduct) to adhere to their discovery obligations owed to the Court via r8.7 of the High Court Rules.
5. As the Court is aware, Counsel Peter Wright (since early 2013) has continued to ignore (boarding on the precipice of assisting) his clients’ non-compliance with their discovery obligations which are unambiguously demanded via r8.7 of the High Court Rules.
6. The non-compliance of “The Rules” by any legal practitioner which favourably leads clients’ into an opportunity to breach r8.7 of the High Court Rules should be, and must be, judicially unaccepted by virtue of, but not limited to, s27 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 which guarantees the fundamental rights of ALL litigants.
7. Given the aforementioned, it is very apparent that the plaintiffs’ adjudication of/in bankruptcy, on 15 December 2015, has stemmed from a prior, and very serious and ongoing fundamental breach/s of both a legal practitioner’s obligations owed under “The Rules”; and two litigants’ (an officer of the Court and a high ranking Police Officer) obligations owed to the High Court under 8.7 of the High Court Rules.
8. The plaintiffs, in reliance, but not limited to, r1.7 of the High Court Rules, put the Court on “Notice” that they will be seeking an order from the High Court on the 11 April 2016 during the hearing before Faire J.
9. The aforementioned order sought (in reliance of scrupulousness) requests the Court to grant the immediate suspension of ALL enforcement of Faire J’s 15 December 2015 order of adjudication which was, and continues to be, governed by an ongoing fundamental breach by a legal practitioner regarding “The Rules” which has led the practitioner’ clients to follow suit and breach their own discovery obligations unambiguously demanded under r8.7 of the High Court Rules.
In Monday's hearing before Faire J, the oral application, in reliance of 1.7 of the High Court Rules was made. Faire J, despite knowing Barrister Wright had not removed himself as Counsel after his clients had refused to comply with their discovery obligations, rejected the plaintiffs' application with a quick answer "No".
It seems that Faire J is a willing participate to enable his fellow lower class legal colleagues to hide evidence.
Upon the hearing being adjourned for lunchtime break, the plaintiffs refused to return back to the Court room and left.
The plaintiffs reason for doing so was that they refused to go through one more hearing while a judge is ignoring a serious breach and defiance of the Conduct and Client Care Rules by a legal practitioner; and ignoring the actions of two litigants who are refusing to give over discovery of financial records. The plaintiffs believe this amounts to a judge assisting in fraud.
Just so happens that the Supreme Court (In Commissioner of IRD v Redcliffe) held, amongst other things that "the suppression of material evidence will be fraud".
There has been no judgment at present issued by Faire J regarding Monday's hearing.
Email Blog Entry
Go to Profile
Mark as Read
