Graduate takes fight to be lawyer all the way to Supreme Court

A law graduate who failed the Law Society's good character test has appealed the decision all the way to the Supreme Court where a judge has now decided his case is "weak but not wholly devoid of merit".

The man, referred to by the court as Mr Gold, was refused a certificate of good character on grounds the Law Society said included a Family Court case where a judge made previously reported findings of physical and psychological abuse of his wife.

While he denied the allegations, he completed a stopping violence programme required by the court. The Law Society said there were other aspects of his character indicating he was unfit, and his character references were "insubstantial".

The beneficiary's bid to practise the law then became a matter for the courts as he challenged the decision.

Years on, it has now arrived at the country's highest court where Justice Campbell overturned a decision allowing Gold to file an application for leave to appeal without paying the fee of about $1500.

It meant Gold could now apply for permission to challenge an earlier lower court ruling that he was out of time for further appeals.

The Law Society was approached by RNZ, and declined to comment on the judgment made publicly available last week.

An appeals journey begins

The Law Society's refusal to grant Gold a certificate of character - necessary for admission to the bar - prompted his application to the High Court, challenging the decision.

But in a February 2025 High Court ruling, Justice O'Gorman upheld the society's decision.

She said she was not satisfied that Gold was "a fit and proper person", claiming "a defect in character reflected in disproportionate and misguided aggravation against persons he perceives to have wrongly challenged him, coupled with the tendency to blame others".

She declined to admit him as a barrister and solicitor. Gold was also ordered to pay court costs.

Gold then tried to appeal the judgments but didn't do so within the required timeframe, and the Court of Appeal declined to extend the timeframe.

Gold sought leave to appeal that decision not to give an extension in the Supreme Court, where he also asked for the $1500 filing fee to be waived on the basis that he was on the benefit and couldn't afford it.

In his judgment published last week, Campbell said the deputy registrar had to weigh whether waiving the fee would promote access to justice.

He said the deputy registrar accepted that Gold was unable to pay, but declined the waiver, considering the proposed appeal was "wholly devoid of merit, was vexatious and would not be pursued by a reasonable and solvent litigant".

It appeared to be a further manifestation of what the High Court characterised as a "tendency to make personalised attacks and retaliate by inappropriate use of legal processes", Campbell said.

"The vast majority of the submissions were not relevant to an appeal against the Court of Appeal decision and instead were devoted to alleging misconduct by the NZLS [Law Society], officers of the court and the judiciary."

Gold asked for the deputy registrar's decision to be reviewed alongside his revised submissions supporting his application for leave to appeal.

In assessing both, Campbell said the merits of Gold's application were "weak, but not wholly devoid of merit".

"His underlying claim is not frivolous. While he has pursued the proceeding with much vigour, he has not crossed the border into vexatiousness.

"I therefore do not consider that the high threshold for declining to waive the filing fee has been met," Campbell said.

"The filing fee payable for the application for leave to appeal is waived."

The Supreme Court said Gold's application for leave to appeal had been accepted for filing.