High Court assessed value of legal services on quantum meruit basis
In proceedings originating from the High Court’s assessment of a lawyer’s legal services on a quantum meruit basis, the New Zealand Court of Appeal dismissed the client’s interlocutory application that sought various orders, directions, and additional evidence.
Haines v Official Assignee [2026] NZCA 291 arose from a lawyer’s work for a specific client, his family trust, and his associated companies from October 2016 to August 2018. The lawyer-client relationship worsened.
In August 2018, shortly prior to the end of his practice, the lawyer issued the client an invoice for legal fees totalling $1m, plus goods and services tax (GST). Later, the client was deemed bankrupt.
Under s 252 of the Insolvency Act 2006, the official assignee referred the lawyer’s proof of debt to the High Court to fix the legitimate quantum.
On 24 May 2023, an associate judge of the High Court acknowledged that the parties had no valid fixed‑fee contract, as asserted by the lawyer. However, the High Court ordered the official assignee to accept the lawyer’s proof of debt for his legal services amounting to $525,000 plus GST, assessed on a quantum meruit basis.
In June 2023, both the lawyer and the client brought notices of appeal. The lawyer wanted to increase the award to $1.0252m plus GST. He alleged that the High Court wrongly found no contract and should have assessed his work at the higher hourly rate of $500.
On the other hand, the client sought to overturn the award altogether. He argued that the lawyer failed to disclose conflicts of interest and that the High Court lacked enough contemporaneous evidence to determine quantum meruit and improperly aggregated fees for work done for the client personally with work done for his family trust and companies.
The court stayed the appeal hearings until the resolution of proceedings before the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal.
Through a 1 June 2026 interlocutory application, the client requested orders and directions, including an order for the official assignee to identify which parts of the lawyer’s proof of debt corresponded to the client personally, to his companies, and to the trust before the appeal hearing.
The Court of Appeal of New Zealand ruled that the client should have pursued – prior to the High Court trial – the orders, directions, and further evidence he was currently seeking.
The appeal court determined that the client had made no efforts to obtain the requested evidence, which was clearly not fresh and seemingly not cogent, before the High Court trial.
The appeal court held that the client could not now pursue pre-hearing orders to interrogate the official assignee and belatedly obtain additional evidence in this matter.
According to the appeal court, the client apparently misunderstood the appellate process. The appeal court explained that these appeals would proceed via a rehearing based on the evidence in the lower court's record and any other evidence admissible on appeal.
If the client believed the High Court of New Zealand had inappropriately considered company debt, he could raise that issue in his submissions.
The appeal court considered the client’s other requested orders or directions equally unjustified for being ancillary, related to his primary application, or irrelevant to the determination of the appeal issues.
