Legal qualifications alone fall short without professional and disciplinary oversight
The Court of Appeal refused to let an employment advocate represent a party, finding that legal qualifications alone did not justify permission.
In Health New Zealand v Healey [2026] NZCA 351, the court declined an application by an employment advocate to appear for a self-represented respondent in an employment appeal.
Health New Zealand had applied for permission to appeal an Employment Court decision under s. 214 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. The advocate, who had acted for the respondent at earlier stages, filed a document opposing that application without first obtaining permission to represent her in the Court of Appeal. After Health New Zealand objected, she applied for permission to appear as a lay advocate, meaning a representative who is not a practising lawyer, and Health New Zealand opposed that application.
The court said the general rule was that only lawyers holding a current practising certificate, and people representing themselves, could speak in court and run a case. That rule came from the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, which reserved certain work for practising lawyers. Courts kept a limited power to let non-lawyer advocates appear, but the court described that power as "wide but exercised sparingly."
The court found that the application had focused almost exclusively on the advocate's legal experience and skill. She was a fully qualified lawyer who had held a practising certificate from 2002 to 2005. But the court said such experience "will seldom be sufficient to justify a grant of leave on a standalone basis," and noted that her experience in the Court of Appeal was very limited.
The court also assumed that the advocate was charging a fee. It said the court was usually entitled to expect that paid representatives were "properly trained in the law and are subject to comprehensive professional and ethical obligations, backed by a disciplinary regime." The advocate met the first requirement but not the second.
The court added that the advocate had filed documents in the Court of Appeal without first seeking permission in three successive years, in cases in 2024 and 2025 as well as this one, which raised further concern. It also noted that employment appeals were "generally far from straightforward," that there was no urgency, and that no other factor supported a grant.
The court declined the application and ordered the respondent to pay Health New Zealand's costs for a standard application on a band A basis, together with usual disbursements.
