Ruling says lawyer’s requested relief fell within court’s inherent powers
New Zealand’s Employment Court has issued an order giving counsel permission to withdraw because it found a good reason for the lawyer to cease acting as the representative of the third and sixth plaintiffs in the underlying proceeding.
In CG v Calendar Girls NZ Limited [2026] NZEmpC 4, the plaintiffs’ counsel filed an interlocutory application seeking leave to withdraw as the third and sixth plaintiffs’ counsel and solicitor, accompanied by an affidavit supporting the application.
The court acknowledged that neither the Employment Relations Act 2000 nor the Employment Court Regulations 2000 required a particular procedure for such applications.
Thus, the court applied the procedure provided in r 5.41 of the High Court Rules, which required counsel to apply for withdrawal via an interlocutory application, supported by an affidavit stating the application’s grounds.
Except if the court has ordered otherwise, counsel should serve the notice of the application and any relevant documents on the party for whom counsel acted. The court noted that the notice should inform the party of r 5.42’s effect on their address for service purposes in the event of the withdrawal application’s success.
The court explained that the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 required lawyers to complete a retainer unless:
According to the court, it should find sufficient grounds before issuing an order granting leave to withdraw. The court explained that this requirement seeks to ensure the adequate protection of the affected party’s rights and reflect counsel’s obligations as a court officer.
The Employment Court of New Zealand granted the plaintiffs’ counsel leave to withdraw, effective upon counsel’s service of a copy of this order on the defendant company and filing an affidavit of service with the court.
Considering the affidavit and its contents, the court saw compliance with the steps required in the High Court Rules.
The court ruled that the current application fell within its inherent powers. The court acknowledged that it lacked an express statutory power relating to the withdrawal of a party’s counsel or solicitor.
However, the court held that it enjoyed all the powers inherent in a court of record. According to the court, these inherent powers:
