Tribunal finds causes of action abusive of process or beyond its jurisdiction
New Zealand’s Human Rights Review Tribunal has entirely struck out a former New Zealand legal practitioner’s proceeding alleging three causes of action based on disability discrimination against the New Zealand Law Society (NZLS).
The plaintiff in Chambers v New Zealand Law Society (Strike out) [2026] NZHRRT 16 practised law in New Zealand for about 25 years until 30 June 2020, after having trouble maintaining his legal practice. In June 2021, he obtained admission to practise law in Western Australia.
The plaintiff claimed that the NZLS – the defendant in the present proceeding – subjected him to disability discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1993 on three occasions. He had three causes of action.
First, the plaintiff alleged that the Auckland Standards Committee (ASC) subjected him to disability discrimination by failing to properly consider his mental health in making a decision. The NZLS was allegedly vicariously liable for the ASC’s supposed discriminatory treatment.
In the 8 May 2020 decision, the ASC ordered the plaintiff to pay a fine and costs upon determining that he had engaged in unsatisfactory conduct under s 152(2)(b) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (LCA).
Second, the plaintiff asserted that the NZLS subjected him to disability discrimination by denying his 29 June 2020 request for a deferral or waiver of his annual practising fees for the 2020–21 year, based on the request’s untimeliness.
Third, the plaintiff contended that the NZLS subjected him to disability discrimination by failing to give his mental health information and other information in a June 2021 letter to the Western Australian Legal Practice Board.
This letter sought to offer updated information on the law society’s complaints and disciplinary matters regarding the plaintiff.
The NZLS applied to strike out the plaintiff’s claim for having no reasonable cause of action and for being frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise abusive of process.
The NZLS also alleged that the Human Rights Review Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear the second and third causes of action because these matters were not part of the plaintiff’s complaint with the Human Rights Commission (HRC), as notified to the law society.
Regarding the first cause of action, the New Zealand Human Rights Review Tribunal found it abusive of process, as an attempt to relitigate a matter previously determined, and not reasonably arguable against the NZLS.
The tribunal said the NZLS could not be vicariously liable for the ASC’s acts or omissions because it lacked control over how the ASC exercised its functions under the statutory scheme. The tribunal also determined that the first cause of action lacked prospects of success.
Regarding the second and third causes of action, the tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction over them.
The tribunal explained that the plaintiff’s HRC complaint, as notified to the NZLS, centred on the 8 May 2020 ASC decision and did not include the matters raised in the second and third causes of action.
