|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
New Zealand Law Foundation Research Reports |
Last Updated: 28 March 2021
A PRELIMINARY STUDY ON CIVIL CASE PROGRESSION TIMES IN NEW ZEALAND
Rachel Laing, Saskia Righarts, Mark Henaghan A report by the University of Otago Legal Issues Centre, Faculty of Law
15 April 2O11
1. Executive Summary1
1.1 Research from court users and anecdotal evidence from members of the legal profession raises concerns about the time it takes for civil cases to progress through the system.2 Such sentiments are not unique to New Zealand, with research from other jurisdictions (e.g., USA, Canada, England and Australia) also raising concerns about the time it takes to resolve civil cases.
- 1.2 As such, we have conducted a preliminary study to investigate whether there is empirical data to support the concerns raised. We obtained data from the Ministry of Justice which measure the time it takes general civil proceedings that are initiated by a statement of claim or notice of proceeding to be resolved in the District and High Court. Consequently, the data presented in this report only represents a portion of the overall civil proceedings that are dealt with by these courts (e.g., appeals, judicial reviews, bankruptcy, are not included).3 We also obtained data on case progression times in the Disputes Tribunal given the large number of civil disputes this forum hears every year.
- 1.3 The focus of the data in this report is on the average time4 it takes for specific cases to progress through the system in these three forums since 2005. The data is averaged for each year and is separated into two categories: those cases that are resolved prior to the allocation of a hearing date, and those that proceed further and are resolved after being allocated a hearing date. This study found that the large volume of cases that the Disputes Tribunal manages
http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/about/system/rules_committee/meetings/21-February- 2011.pdf at 3.
data for this report. We also wish to thank Kyle Matthews for his assistance in converting the data into graphs, and for the senior members of the profession who spoke to us about the issues involved in civil case progression.
High Court the resolution date is either when a notice of discontinuance was filed, or when the case was resolved at a hearing or by way of summary judgment. As lawyers can file notices of discontinuance many months after a case has actually been resolved, the data presented in this report likely overestimate the actual time these cases take to resolve.
are resolved quickly (cases disposed of in this forum last year took an average of 82 days to resolve). For the District and High Court, the majority of cases initiated by statement of claim or notice of proceeding do not proceed to the point of being allocated hearing dates and are resolved relatively quickly and this includes cases dealt with by way of summary judgment. Nationally in the High Court in 2010 the cases resolved prior to being allocated a hearing date were disposed of in an average of 252 days (1706 or 84% of cases), with the remaining cases that proceeded to the point in the legal process of being allocated hearing dates taking an average of 608 days to resolve (318 or 16% of cases). In the District Court last year the bulk of these types of cases are disposed prior to the allocation of a hearing date (21,629 or 99% of the cases) and were resolved in an average of 307 days, with those allocated hearing dates (277 cases or 1%) taking an average of 589 days to resolve. As the numbers reported above are averages, some cases will be taking less time to be resolved, but more worringly, other cases are taking substantially longer periods of time to be resolved.
1.4 There are some encouraging trends in this data as even though the numbers of these types of cases disposed in the High Court has increased substantially over the past few years, there has not been a corresponding increase in the average time taken to resolve these cases. Further, one of our busiest courts has in fact slightly decreased the average time it takes to resolve cases that proceed to the point of being allocated a hearing date. This would indicate increasing efficiency. However, the data provided do raise some concerns about a subset of cases that are taking a long time to progress through the system.
1.5 The reasons why some cases take many months or years to resolve are not clear. Overseas research in this topic often cites factors such as lack of judicial specialisation, lack of early judicial intervention, complexity of discovery, finite court resources, a legal culture that is not geared towards efficiency, and lawyer behaviour as factors contributing to slow case progression.
1.6 The role that the above factors have on slow civil case progression times for some cases in New Zealand is unknown. While the data in this report suggests many of the specific civil cases investigated were resolved relatively quickly, there are a proportion of cases that are slow to resolve. One approach is to target improving case progression times of these cases. However, there is a point at which the focus on speed and efficiency risks undermining a just and fair determination of the dispute, and as such we must keep in mind that it is unwise to consider case progression times as the only measure of efficiency.
1.7 This study provides a snapshot of the average time it takes for a category of civil cases to be resolved in the court system. More empirical data is needed before we can fully understand how long civil cases take to be resolved, and the factors that can contribute to lengthy litigation. We also need to develop a model for measuring civil case progression that takes into account the fact that efficiency is just not about how long a case takes to resolve but also about the quality of the process. While overseas research is helpful in this endeavour, given our unique court structures and culture in New Zealand, we need to be wary of applying overseas research to the New Zealand court system without first understanding the landscape of civil litigation. In particular, we need to extend the current work the judiciary is undertaking targeting case management and discovery procedures and more thoroughly understand the factors that impact on the time it takes to resolve civil disputes before we can develop specific and meaningful proposals for civil justice reform in New Zealand.
2. Perceptions of delay in the civil justice system
2.1 There have been increasing concerns about the time it takes for civil cases to progress through the system. In fact, there have been two conferences in recent years dedicated to the issue of delay in the civil jurisdiction.5 Further, this topic is often the discussion among the profession at informal meetings and articles about this subject regularly appear in the media and press.6 However, there is a dearth of research investigating civil case progression. In fact, the majority of research on the issue of delay in civil proceedings has focussed on whether participants in the court system (lawyers, judges, court administrators, and litigants), and the general public, perceive that civil cases take too long to progress through the system. Such research demonstrates that civil litigation is considered by most to take too long, and that delay adds unnecessarily to the hardship, both financial and emotional, experienced by litigants. For example, in a 2006 survey carried out by the Ministry of Justice, 59% of respondents (who were members of the public selected at random) disagreed, or strongly disagreed, with the statement “Courts provide services without unnecessary delay”.7 Further, in a recent study of 1875 adults randomly selected from the electoral role, more than half of them disagreed, or strongly disagreed, that their case would be completed in a reasonable time if they went to court.8 When the Law Commission undertook an in-depth review of the operation of the courts in 2004,9 submissions from individuals, organisations, and law firms expressed widespread dissatisfaction with the
5 “Civil litigation in crisis – what crisis?” conference held 22 February 2008 in Auckland; “Civil litigation in crisis – beyond the crisis” conference held 24 September 2009 in Auckland.
6 For example see, Anthony Grant “Is the High Court’s civil jurisdiction in ‘a death spiral’? – Part 3” (2010) 153 NZLawyer Magazine 9;
7 Ministry of Justice Public Perceptions of the New Zealand Court System and Processes
(2006) at 23. This study was not limited to the civil justice system, but is reflective of the court system as a whole.
8 Saskia Righarts and Mark Henaghan “Public Perceptions of the New Zealand Court System: An Empirical Approach to Law Reform”(2010) 12 OLR 329 at 337.
9 Law Commission Delivering Justice For All: A Vision for New Zealand Courts and Tribunals (NZLC R85, 2004).
duration of court proceedings.10 While this research does not provide concrete data about civil case progression times, it is important because if individuals perceive that civil cases take far too long to resolve in our courts, then it may result in parties choosing another avenue to resolve their dispute,11 or put them off pursuing a claim altogether.
2.2 Commentators from within the court system also have raised concerns about the time it takes civil cases to be resolved in the New Zealand justice system. Justice John Hansen has noted that even though timeframes set down by the National Case Management Committee in the mid-1990s (i.e., that 75% of cases are to be disposed of within 52 weeks from date of filing, 90% within 65 weeks, and 100% within 78 weeks) have often been shown to be achievable, “few hearings are held within those timeframes”.12 Justice Hansen argues “the effect of delay on participants in the court process is all too frequently overlooked by judges and lawyers.”13
Overseas research
2.3 Research carried out in other jurisdictions shows that the perception that civil proceedings take too long to be resolved is not unique to New Zealand courts. Recent Australian studies reveal that the public and members of the legal
10 Law Commission Seeking Solutions: Options for change to the New Zealand Court system
(NZLC PP52, 2002) at 21–22.
11 John Green recently established the “New Zealand dispute Resolution Centre” in response to the efficiency issues in the civil jurisdiction. This Centre offers litigants an alternative
avenue from formal court proceedings for resolving their disputes and offers a wide range of mediation and arbitration services. See Darise Bennington “New Zealand Dispute Resolution Centre opens to respond to litigation crisis” 150 New Zealand Lawyer Magazine 4.
12 Justice John Hansen “Courts Administration, the Judiciary and the Efficient Delivery of Justice: A Personal View” [2007] OtaLawRw 2; (2005-2008) 11 Otago Law Review 351 at 354.
13 Justice John Hansen “Courts Administration, the Judiciary and the Efficient Delivery of Justice: A Personal View” [2007] OtaLawRw 2; (2005-2008) 11 Otago Law Review 351 at 353.
profession are highly concerned by the slow pace of civil proceedings.14 These concerns are also echoed in the United States of America.15
2.4 The civil court systems in Canada and the United Kingdom are also perceived to involve unnecessary delays. A 2001 article focussing on civil trials in Ontario notes “there is a generally accepted view that many long trials take too long.”16 In the United Kingdom, significant civil justice reforms were implemented in 1999, following a 1996 report by Lord Woolf on the civil justice system in England and Wales in which he concluded that the system was “too slow in bringing cases to a conclusion”.17 A 2005 follow-up report that examined whether the reforms were successful concluded that “the case managed court based dispute resolution system is delivering quality at a much improved pace, but probably at a higher cost.”18
- 2.5 It is important that courts deal with civil disputes in a timely manner as lengthy litigation can have many negative effects. First, there is the emotional and financial cost of protracted litigation (both directly in the form of legal fees, and indirectly in the form of opportunity costs). Second, evidence may become unavailable or less useful over time, and witnesses may forget, move away, or pass away. Third, in a broad sense, the perception that cases take longer than necessary to proceed through the system has a negative impact on public confidence in the justice system. However, many commentators are
14 See for example: Annette Marfording and Ann Eyland “Civil Litigation in New South Wales: Empirical and Analytical Comparisons with Germany” (2010) 28 UNSWLRS at 129; Rachel Callinan “Court Delays in NSW: Issues and Developments” (Briefing Paper No 1/02, 2002).
15 See for example: John Beisner “Discovering a Better Way: The Need for Effective Civil
Litigation Reform” (2010) 60 Duke LJ at 549; John Zhou “Determinants of Delay in Litigation: Evidence and Theory (paper presented to the American Law and Economics Annual Meeting, New York, May, 2008).
16 Ronit Dinovitzer and Jeffrey S Leon “When Long Becomes Too Long: Legal Culture and Litigators’ Views on Long Civil Trials” (2001) 19 Windsor Y B Access Just. 106 at 107; See Canadian Bar Association Report of the Canadian Bar Association: Task Force on Systems of
Civil Justice (Canadian Bar Association, Ottowa, 1996) at 12, in which a survey of lawyers indicated that the areas of civil justice in most need of reform were the affordability of dispute resolution, followed by the speed with which cases are resolved.
17 Lord Woolf Access to Justice: final report to the Lord Chancellor on the civil justice system in England and Wales (HMSO, 1996) at [2] of Overview.
18 Department for Constitutional Affairs The management of civil cases: the courts and post- Woolf landscape (DCA Research Series 9/05, 2005) at iii.
quick to point out that faster is not always better, and that there may be a point at which the focus on speed and efficiency risks undermining a just and fair determination of the dispute. Reforms aimed at improving case processing times must take into account the importance of striking this delicate balance.
3. Current data from the High Court, District Court and Disputes Tribunal
3.1. Detailed below are the total number of cases and the average time it takes a subset of civil cases19 to resolve over the past 6 years, for the above forums.20 The data in the figures that follow are for civil cases disposed since 2005. For the High Court, the data only includes cases that were originally initiated by a statement of claim or notice of proceeding. For the District Court, the data presented is for cases disposed during these years that were originally filed by a statement of claim or a notice of claim (from 1 November 2009). The resolution date is calculated as either the date when the court was informed by lawyers/parties that the case had settled during the process (notice of discontinuance, or enquiries from the court), the date of the hearing, or the date that summary judgment was entered. The data is averaged for each year and separated into two categories: those that resolve prior to the allocation of a hearing date, and those that resolve after a hearing date has been allocated. We have included the figures for the national data in this section, with the figures
19 This data was provided to us by the Ministry of Justice and was extracted from their Case Management system (CMS). While the data presented provides the most accurate picture of time to disposal for general civil proceedings, as the Ministry does not usually report the data in this way, the data is provided with the caveat that it may be subject to revision or refinement. For the Disputes Tribunal we have excluded cases transferred to the District Court.
20 The average length data was calculated from the time of filing in the court to the time they
were resolved (for the Disputes Tribunal the time of resolution is when the order was made, the date of the hearing, or the date of withdrawal if settled prior to the hearing). Notices of Discontinuance are not always filed immediately after resolution, and in some cases can be filed many months after a case has in fact been resolved. As such, the data provided are likely to show an average time to resolution than is longer than what it really is. Given the preliminary nature of this project, the data is not broken down by procedural steps/events nor is it broken down into different categories of civil actions. The data has, however, been separated into two quite distinct categories – those that are resolved prior to the allocation of a hearing date, and those that are resolved after the allocation of a hearing date. Further, it was beyond the scope of this project to look at the progression of civil actions in the appeal courts.
for each District and High Court, and each Disputes Tribunal detailed in the attached appendices.21
3.2 High Court Figures
Figure 1: National Data for the number of cases initiated by statement of claim or notice of proceeding disposed each year.
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
The above figure shows a steady increase in the number of these types of cases that have been disposed of by the High Court, with an increase from
1,295 in 2005, to 2024 cases disposed last year. The bulk of these cases were resolved prior to the allocation of a hearing date with 84% (1706) of cases last year falling into this category.22
Figure 2: National Data for the average number of days these cases take from filing to resolution.
700
600
500
400
300
200
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Over the past 6 years the average time it take cases to be resolved that are yet to be allocated are hearing date has being steadily tracking down from an average of 384 days in 2005 to 252 days last year. In contrast, for the cases that proceed to the point of being allocated hearing dates, the average time it takes for these cases to be resolved has increased slightly from an average of 572 days in 2005 to 608 days in 2010, but has remained relatively constant since 2006. The average time these cases take to resolve has remained relatively constant in recent years despite the fact that the High Court has been
experiencing an increase in applications in cases that are complex (e.g., social welfare claims, leaky homes claims). Further, despite the increase in the number of these types of cases that have been disposed over the preceding 6 years, one of our busiest courts has in fact slightly decreased the average time it takes to resolve cases that proceed to the point of being allocated a hearing date (see City A, in the attached appendix). While the reasons for variation across the courts is not yet clear (see Appendix A), it should be noted as this data above is an average across all the courts, it is likely the smaller circuit courts that have Judges sitting on a rotational basis are slower to resolve cases, which in turn impacts on the overall national average time these cases take to resolve.
3.3 District Court Figures
Figure 3: National data for the number of cases initiated by
statement of claim or notice of claim (from 1 November 2009) disposed
of each
year.
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
10000
5000
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
The past 6 years has seen a steady decrease in the number of these specific types of cases disposed in the District Court, from 31,486 in 2005 to 21,909 in 2010. Further, most of these types of cases in the District Court do not proceed to the point where they are allocated a hearing date, with only 277 (1%) of cases last year falling into this category.
Figure 4: National Data for the average number of days these cases take from filing to resolution.
800
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
For those cases that were resolved prior to the allocation of a hearing date in 2010, they took an average of 307 days (approximately 10 months) to resolve.23 For the small percentage that proceed to the point of being allocated a hearing date, the average time it takes for these cases to be resolved has decreased from 652 days in 2005 to 589 days in 2010. Significant changes to the District Court procedures were implemented on the 1st of November 2009, with the aim of decreasing the time cases take to resolve. As many cases
disposed of last year were filed before the rule changes took effect, the impact of the rule changes will not be reflected in the 2010 data presented above.
3.4 Disputes Tribunal Figures24 25
Figure 5: National Data for the number of cases disposed each year.
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
4000
2000
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
In the Disputes Tribunal the number of cases resolved prior to the allocation of a hearing date has remained relatively constant over the past 6 years, from 3,065 cases in 2005 to 3,167 cases in 2010. The number that proceed further in the process and are allocated a hearing date has declined very slightly over the past 6 years from 16,049 in 2005 to 15,596 in 2010.26
25 Saskia Righarts and Mark Henaghan are presently conducting research on the outcomes for
litigants in this forum. The study is due to be completed by June 2011.
data set as they had incorrect resolution dates entered on CMS. So the actual number of cases disposed by this Tribunal is slightly higher than what is represented in these figures.
Figure 6: National Data for the average number of days these cases take from filing to resolution.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
20
10
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
For those cases that are resolved prior to the allocation of a hearing date, there has been a decrease in the time it takes from filing to resolution over the past 6 years from 84 days in 2005 to 65 in 2010. For the cases that are allocated hearing dates, the time taken to resolve these has increased from 80 days in 2005 to 86 days in 2010, with cases in 2010 taking an overall average of 82 days to be resolved.
3.5 Summary
The majority of cases in the Disputes Tribunal are resolved quickly, with the cases disposed last year taking an overall average of 82 days. For the District and High Court, most civil cases initiated by statement of claim or notice of proceeding do not proceed to the point of being allocated hearing dates and are also resolved relatively quickly. Nationally in the High Court last year, those cases resolved prior to the allocation of a hearing date were resolved in an average of 252 days (accounting for 84% of these specific types of cases disposed), with the remaining that proceeded to the point of being allocated
hearing dates taking an average of 608 days to resolve (accounting for 16% of these types of cases disposed last year). In the District Court, those that were resolved prior to the allocation of a hearing date were resolved on average in 307 days last year (accounting for 99% of the cases) with those allocated hearing dates taking an average of 589 days to resolve (accounting for 1% of the cases). This data indicates that a proportion of cases appear on the surface to be taking some time to progress through the system.
4. Why are some cases slower to progress than others?
4.1 While the data above raises some concerns, the lack of empirical research in New Zealand means that it is impossible to know exactly what is causing slow progression times for some cases. There are many factors that are likely to have an influence on the pace of civil litigation, and it is important that no factor is looked at in isolation from the justice system as a whole. For example, the following factors are likely to have had some impact on case processing time in recent years: methamphetamine trials (which had a large impact on the High Court’s workload until they were re-classified in 2008); the impact of the 2009 changes to the District Court Rules; and the recent economic climate and consequent increase in the number of cases being filed in the High Court.27
- 4.2 While the specific causes of slow progression times for some cases in New Zealand is unknown, research from other jurisdictions can give us an indication of the possible reasons for slow progression. The following discussion provides an overview of the causes of slow progression times commonly identified.
- 4.3 Lack of judicial control over proceedings. Research from overseas, and in particular from the United States, repeatedly identifies early and continuous court control over proceedings as a crucial factor in reducing case progressing
times. For example, in a 1988 study of trial courts in New Jersey, Colorado and California, the judicial characteristics that were considered by lawyers and judges to have the greatest influence on trial length included decisiveness, the extent to which a judge exercises control over the trial, and whether other docket matters are allowed to interrupt a trial.28 This finding is supported by research from Australia which suggests that timely dispute resolution is put most at risk when litigants and their advocates are allowed to control the pace of proceedings, largely because slowing down proceedings may be in the interests of one of the parties (and thus used as a tactic),29 or in the interests of the lawyers.30 Although New Zealand already has a case management system in place,31 there are other ways in which the powers of judges to move cases expeditiously through the court process can be augmented. In a recent Australian study, it is noted that because party control over proceedings is so entrenched, effective case management might only be achieved by statutory reform obliging, rather than merely empowering, judges to control the pace of proceedings.32 Other possible solutions include obliging judges to refuse requests for adjournments where counsel are not prepared and do not have a good reason for not being prepared, or imposing sanctions on counsel for causing unnecessary delay.
4.4 Judgment delivery. A second potential source of slow case progression in civil proceedings is the length of time it takes judges to deliver written judgments. Barrister Anthony Grant argues that “the adage, ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’, applies not just to delays in getting to Court but also to delays in the
28 Dale Sipes and Mary Oram “On Trial: The Length of Civil and Criminal Trials” (National Center for State Courts, Virginia, 1988) at 53–54. See also Steven Gensler “Judicial Case Management: Caught in the Crossfire” (2010) 60 DLJ at 669-744.
29 Rachel Callinan “Court Delays in NSW: Issues and Developments” (Briefing Paper No 1/02, 2002) at 25.
30 Annette Marfording and Ann Eyland “Civil Litigation in New South Wales: Empirical and Analytical Comparisons with Germany” (2010) 28 UNSWLRS at 293.
31 The rollout of the Case Management System (CMS) to all District Courts was completed in 2003:http://www.courts.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/r/report-of-the-ministry-of- justice-baseline-review/3-the-ministrys-working-environment]
32 Annette Marfording and Ann Eyland “Civil Litigation in New South Wales: Empirical and Analytical Comparisons with Germany” (2010) 28 UNSWLRS at 295.
delivery of judgments.”33 34 As pointed out by Justice Hansen, New Zealand does not formally measure the efficiency of its judges; in comparison, the Productivity Commission considers judicial output in Australia.35 There are many reforms that may achieve speedier judgment delivery. For example, in a 2007 review of the civil court system in Scotland undertaken by Lord Gill, it was recommended that judges be required to provide an explanation for judgments that have been outstanding for more than three months, and to give an indication as to when the judgment is likely to be released.36 Other possible reforms include establishing statutory timeframes for the delivery of judgments,37 requiring shorter judgments,38 and allowing judges more writing days.
4.5 Demand on court resources. Given that court resources are limited, it is inevitable that the demand on court resources in other areas will have a negative impact on case progression times in the civil jurisdiction. However, simply adding more judges, or encouraging the use of alternative dispute resolution procedures, will not necessarily solve this problem. Some American researchers have discovered that the consequences of reducing court congestion in this way are counter-intuitive; freeing up court time may provide an incentive for more people to file claims, thus increasing (or at least not decreasing) the demand on court resources.39 It has even been suggested that reducing the number of cases per judge may result in a reduction in
33 Anthony Grant “Is the High Court’s civil jurisdiction in ‘a death spiral’? – Part 2” (2010) 152 NZLawyer Magazine 8.
34 There is presently no empirical data on the length of time it takes for Judges to deliver their Judgments to support (or not support) this perception that is common in the profession.
35 Justice John Hansen “Courts Administration, the Judiciary and the Efficient Delivery of
Justice: A Personal View” [2007] OtaLawRw 2; (2005-2008) 11 Otago Law Review 351 at 352.
36 Report of the Scottish Civil Courts Review (2009), volume 2, at 7. See also Hon Christopher Finlayson, Attorney General of New Zealand “Access to Justice, Legal Representation and
the Rule of Law” (Speech to Legal Research Foundation, 23 October 2009).
37 Annette Marfording and Ann Eyland “Civil Litigation in New South Wales: Empirical and Analytical Comparisons with Germany” (2010) 28 UNSWLRS at 345; Simon Power, New
Zealand Minister of Justice “Challenging Tradition” (Speech to Otago University Legal Issues Centre, Moot Court, Richardson Building, 25 August 2010) at 2.
38 Annette Marfording and Ann Eyland “Civil Litigation in New South Wales: Empirical and Analytical Comparisons with Germany” (2010) 28 UNSWLRS at 346.
39 Thomas Church and others Pretrial Delay: A Review and Bibliography at 20; See also
George Priest “The Simple Economics of Civil Procedure” (1999-2000) 9 Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy 389.
productivity of existing judges.40 Therefore, it may be that the focus of reforms ought to be on making the use of existing court resources more efficient.
4.6 Increase in case complexity. The issues involved in civil litigation are increasingly more complex,41 and in New Zealand there has been an increase in claims filed over the past 5 years that fall into this category (e.g., leaky homes claims, social welfare claims). Complex cases take a longer time to resolve than more straightforward claims and thus may be contributing factor. In fact, several studies from overseas found that case complexity is a factor influencing court delay in civil trials.42 On the other hand, some researchers have concluded that case complexity is not a significant factor, and that the courts which process simple cases quickly also process more complex cases quickly.43 More investigation is needed into the nature and extent of complex civil cases in New Zealand and whether specific reforms are required to better manage the progression of these types of cases through the court system.
4.7 Lack of judicial specialisation. It is often noted that the lack of judicial specialisation in New Zealand civil courts is a crucial factor in slowing the progression of civil disputes through the court system. Specialised judges are able to deliver their judgments more quickly because they are more familiar with the specific area of law.44 The benefits of judicial specialisation are particularly noticeable in today’s environment of increasing case complexity. Barrister Anthony Grant believes that the highly technical nature of many civil
40 Thomas Church and others Pretrial Delay: A Review and Bibliography at 20
41 Justice John Hansen “Courts Administration, the Judiciary and the Efficient Delivery of Justice: A Personal View” [2007] OtaLawRw 2; (2005-2008) 11 Otago Law Review 351 at 359.
42 Dale Sipes and Mary Oram “On Trial: The Length of Civil and Criminal Trials” (National
Center for State Courts, Virginia, 1988) at 37; Rachel Callinan “Court Delays in NSW: Issues and Developments” (Briefing Paper No 1/02, 2002) at 23.
43 Steven Flanders and Others Case Management and Court Management in United States District Courts (FJC-R-77-6-1, 1977) at 18–19.
44 Lawrence Baum “Probing the Effects of Judicial Specialization” (2009) 58 Duke Law
Journal 1667 at 1676; Annette Marfording and Ann Eyland “Civil Litigation in New South Wales: Empirical and Analytical Comparisons with Germany” (2010) 28 UNSWLRS at 346.
disputes entails that “the age of the generalist has passed”,45 and suggests that litigants are wary of generalist judges, causing them to opt for alternative dispute resolution procedures such as specialist arbitration.46 Anecdotal evidence suggests litigants are increasingly choosing this option over formal court procedures, despite the risks involved in forgoing trying the dispute in court, such as limited rights of appeal. As well as potentially being a cause of delay in civil proceedings, the lack of judicial specialisation is logically also an effect of the slow turnover of civil cases, because, as pointed out by Grant, “if the system stays as it is, there isn’t a sufficient volume of work for each judge to acquire a specialist expertise in any area of the civil law.”47 Grant suggests several ways to increase the specialist knowledge of judges, including assigning judges to sit mainly in the civil jurisdiction, and further assigning to those judges a specific area of legal responsibility (e.g. intellectual property, taxation, technology/engineering/construction, equity, RMA), as is the practice in the State of Victoria.48 It is important to note that there is some opposition to judicial specialisation as a solution to slow civil case progression times on the basis that it risks the impartiality of a judge’s assessment of an individual case.49
4.8 Discovery. Overseas research has demonstrated that the discovery process is becoming increasingly complex, which in turn increases the time it takes to resolve cases.50 The complexity of the discovery process is largely a result of the electronic era and the increasing complexity of commercial transactions, resulting in a large number of documents that are discoverable in civil disputes.51 Given the quantities of documents that are discoverable under
45 Anthony Grant “Is the High Court’s civil jurisdiction in ‘a death spiral’? – Part 3” (2010) 153 NZLawyer Magazine 9.
46 Anthony Grant “Is the High Court’s civil jurisdiction in ‘a death spiral’? – Part 3” (2010) 153 NZLawyer Magazine 9.
47 Anthony Grant “Is the High Court’s civil jurisdiction in ‘a death spiral’? – Part 2” (2010) 152 NZLawyer Magazine 8.
48 Anthony Grant “Is the High Court’s civil jurisdiction in ‘a death spiral’? – Part 3” (2010) 153 NZLawyer Magazine 9.
49 Lawrence Baum “Probing the Effects of Judicial Specialization” (2009) 58 Duke Law
Journal 1667 at 1678.
current New Zealand discovery rules, this process inevitably will add to the time it takes cases to progress through the system.52
4.9 Counsel behaviour. Research unequivocally shows that the style and work habits of lawyers have a significant influence on the duration of civil proceedings. Further, inexperienced counsel may raise their client’s hopes of success in the proceedings, and only come to a more reasoned view of their client’s chances of success well into the proceedings, when much time (and money) has been spent. However, the conclusions of overseas researchers do not always point in the same direction. While some studies suggest that counsel inexperience causes an increase in trial duration,53 it has also been posited that inexperienced lawyers may settle more often than more experienced lawyers and may therefore actually reduce delay.54 Reforms aimed at increasing counsel competency may include introducing a certification process for trial advocates, ongoing and mandatory CLE, providing courts with the power to order barristers to meet the whole or part of any wasted costs, and imposing on counsel a “duty to cooperate”.55 However, caution must be exercised when considering imposing duties and liabilities on lawyers, because of the risk of encouraging “defensive lawyering”,56 which will undoubtedly slow proceedings even further.
4.10 Local legal culture. In New Zealand our current legal procedures and behaviour are not geared towards efficiency (e.g., protracted discovery). It is often mentioned in the literature that the support of professionals from within the court system is essential to the success of reforms aimed at reducing civil
53 Ronit Dinovitzer and Jeffrey S Leon “When Long Becomes Too Long: Legal Culture and
Litigators’ Views on Long Civil Trials” (2001) 19 Windsor Y B Access Just. 106 at 138.
54 Hans Zeisel “Court Delay and the Bar: A Rejoinder” (1969) 53 Judicature 111 at 113.
55 Hon Christopher Finlayson, Attorney General of New Zealand “Counsel’s Duty to Cooperate – Achieving Efficiency and Fairness in Litigation” (Speech at New Zealand Bar Association Conference, 12 September 2009); Toby Futter “The proposed ‘duty to cooperate’
in civil litigation: Are things really that bad?” (2010) 139 NZLawyer Magazine 14.
case processing time.57 That is, externally imposed reforms will only be effective if the local legal culture responds to the changes and is committed to instituting them. “Local legal culture” refers to informal court system attitudes, practices, expectations, practitioner incentives, and professional courtesy. For example, Geoff Davies has warned that there may be a subconscious reluctance on the part of lawyers (due to their adversarial mindset, legal training, and perception of litigation as a business) to embrace reforms, which they perceive will reduce the fees they are able to charge.58 Further, Justice Hansen argues that New Zealand’s implementation of its Case Management System has achieved “only limited success” because not all judges, administrators and lawyers have embraced the system.59 On the other hand, several overseas studies suggest that case processing times can be improved where lawyers, judges and court administrators all share the goal and expectation of reducing delay.60 It is, therefore, important to consider whether specific reforms aimed at improving case processing times should be accompanied by initiatives focused on creating a legal culture that is supportive of delay reduction initiatives.
5. Current Judicial Initiatives
5.1 The problem of perceived (or real) delays in resolving civil disputes is not a new one, and the Judiciary has been in recent times investigating ways in which they can contribute and make the processing of civil cases more efficient. Two of the projects presently being undertaken are the streamlining of discovery procedures, and judicial case management procedures.
- For example, see Ronit Dinovitzer and Jeffrey S Leon “When Long Becomes Too Long: Legal Culture and Litigators’ Views on Long Civil Trials” (2001) 19 Windsor Y B Access Just. 106 at 113.
Delay Reduction in Urban Trial Courts (National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg, Va, 1988) at 197-205; Horace W Gilmore “Comment Upon ‘The “Old” and “New” Conventional Wisdom of Court Delay’” (1982) 7 The Justice System Journal 413 at 415; Steven Flanders “Modelling Court Delay” (1980) 2 Law & Policy Quarterly 305 at 316;
5.2 Discovery. As mentioned previously, discovery is becoming increasingly complex and time consuming. Having a drawn-out discovery period is problematic as it not only adds cost to the litigant, but lawyers may not be prepared to take positive steps to resolve the case until many months is spent on finding “a smoking gun.” A drawn-out discovery process is also problematic for court management, as it adds more time the case is managed by the court, and consequently has an impact on court resources (e.g., judicial and court staff time spent managing the progression of the case). As such, the judiciary and senior members of the profession have formed a working group to develop proposals for reforming discovery process in New Zealand in an effort to streamline the process. In particular, this group is focussing on ways discovery can be more targeted, faster and less costly.61
- 5.3 Case Management. Civil case management was introduced into New Zealand as it was seen as necessary to increase the speed at which cases progress, a viewpoint that is supported by overseas research.62 Despite our current case management procedures, some cases are not resolved within the ideal timeframes. Given concerns about how cases are managed, the Judiciary have been investigating how case management can be improved, and are currently investigating the viability of several options to improve present case management procedures (e.g., setting down fixture dates earlier, placing time limits on case processing, identification and testing of the contentious issues and witnesses at a pre-trial conference).63 64
Center for State Courts, Virginia, 1988) at 53–54. But see Steven Gensler “Judicial Case Management: Caught in the Crossfire” 60 DLJ at 670-743 for a discussion of the pitfalls of having highly prescriptive judicial case management practices.
http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/about/system/rules_committee/meetings/21-February- 2011.pdf
6. Conclusion
6.1. In New Zealand there is increasing concern that civil cases take too long to resolve. In fact there have been two recent conferences on the ‘crisis’ in civil litigation, and the perception from both court users and legal professionals that there is unnecessarily long waiting times in the court system.
6.2 A preliminary study of sample of civil court cases (those initiated by statement of claim or notice of proceeding) showed that in the High Court last year those cases resolved prior to the allocation of a hearing date were resolved in an average of 252 days (accounting for 84% of these specific types of cases disposed), with the remaining that proceeded to the point of being allocated hearing dates taking an average of 608 days to resolve (accounting for 16% of these types of cases disposed last year). In the District Court, those that were resolved prior to the allocation of a hearing date were resolved on average in 307 days last year (accounting for 99% of the cases) with those allocated hearing dates taking an average of 589 days to resolve (accounting for 1% of the cases). This data indicates that a proportion of cases are taking, what appears to be on the surface, some time to progress through the system.
6.3 While some of this data is of concern, there is a dearth of robust New Zealand based research in this area and clearly more empirical data needs to be gathered before we can fully understand the issues involved. For those cases that are slow to resolve, we can surmise that factors such as the complexity of the case, the complexity of discovery, counsel incompetence, lack of judicial specialisation, finite court resources, and lack of early judicial intervention, all may play a role in contributing to slow progression times in these cases.
6.4 While there are presently some positive judicial initiatives under way to try and decrease the time civil cases (especially complex cases) take to resolve, further research is needed before we can more clearly understand why some cases are slower to resolve than others. In particular, we need to identify the types of cases that are taking long periods of time to resolve, and investigate
the factors that contribute to the slow progression times seen in these cases. Only by conducting such an investigation can we understand why some cases are slow to resolve, and in turn develop meaningful proposals for reform. Any such reforms must strike the balance between ensuring that the system is efficient and that speed does not jeopardise the court system’s ability to provide a just and fair determination of the issue.
APPENDIX A - HIGH COURT FIGURES
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
600
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Number of Applications (National)
Average Age (days
from filing to outcome) (National)
700
600
500
400
300
200
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome)
(National)
600
500
400
300
200
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
City “A”
Number of Applications (City A)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (City
A)
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing
date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (City A)
City “B”
180
160
140
120
100
80
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
60
40
20
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Number of Applications (City B)
800
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (City B)
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (City B)
City “C”
35
30
25
20
15
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
10
5
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Number of Applications (City C)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (City C)
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing
date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (City C)
City “D”
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
30
20
10
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Number of Applications (City D)
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (City D)
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing
date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (City D)
City “E”
250
200
150
100
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
50
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Number of Applications (City E)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (City E)
900
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (City E)
Town “A”
12
10
8
6
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
4
2
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Number of Applications (Town A)
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
600
400
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town A)
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
600
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town A)
Town “B”
6
5
4
3
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
2
1
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Number of Applications (Town B)
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town B)
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town B)
Town “C”
6
5
4
3
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
2
1
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Number of Applications (Town C)
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing
date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town C)
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing
date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town C)
Town “D”
30
25
20
15
10
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
5
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Number of Applications (Town D)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town D)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town D)
Town “E”
7
6
5
4
3
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
2
1
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Number of Applications (Town E)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town E)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town E)
Town “F”
40
35
30
25
20
15
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
10
5
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Number of Applications (Town F)
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing
date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town F)
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing
date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town F)
Town “G”
25
20
15
10
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
5
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Number of Applications (Town G)
900
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town G)
900
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town G)
Town “H”
12
10
8
6
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
4
2
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Number of Applications (Town H)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town H)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town H)
Town “I”
35
30
25
20
15
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
10
5
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Number of Applications (Town I)
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing
date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town I)
800
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town I)
Town “J”
30
25
20
15
Cases disposed prior
to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
10
5
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Number of Applications (Town J)
800
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town J)
800
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town J)
Town “K”
70
60
50
40
30
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
20
10
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Number of Applications (Town K)
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing
date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town K)
900
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town K)
Town “L”
14
12
10
8
6
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
4
2
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Number of Applications (Town L)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town L)
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing
date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town L)
Town “M”
16
14
12
10
8
6
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
4
2
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Number of Applications (Town M)
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
600
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town M)
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
600
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town M)
Town “N”
40
35
30
25
20
15
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
10
5
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Number of Applications (Town N)
800
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town N)
800
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town N)
APPENDIX B - DISTRICT COURT FIGURES
National
Number of Applications
(National)
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
10000
5000
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (National)
800
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome)
(National)
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation
of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
City “A”66
Number of Applications (City A)
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
1500
1000
500
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
66 As some cities have more than one District Court (e.g., Auckland), the number of courts we have classed as city courts rather than town courts is greater in this Appendix than for Appendix A.
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (City
A)
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a
hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (City
A)
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
City “B”
Number of Applications (City B)
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
600
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (City
B)
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a
hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (City B)
450
400
350
300
250
200
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
150
100
50
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
City “C”
Number of Applications (City C)
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (City
C)
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a
hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (City C)
900
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
City “D”
Number of Applications (City D)
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
600
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (City D)
800
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (City D)
City “E”
Number of Applications (City
E)
6000
5000
4000
3000
Cases disposed prior to allocation of
a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
2000
1000
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (City E)
800
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (City
E)
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
City “F”
Number of Applications (City F)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (City F)
900
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (City F)
800
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
City “G”
Number of Applications (City G)
900
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (City
G)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (City
G)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
City “H”
Number of Applications (City H)
1200
1000
800
600
400
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (City H)
800
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (City
H)
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a
hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
City “I”
Number of Applications (City I)
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (City
I)
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a
hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (City I)
900
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
City “J”
Number of Applications (City J)
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (City
J)
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a
hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (City
J)
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a
hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
City “K”
Number of Applications (City K)
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
600
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (City K)
800
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (City
K)
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation
of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Town “A”
Number of Applications (Town A)
350
300
250
200
150
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
100
50
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town A)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town A)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Town “B”
Number of Applications (Town B)
140
120
100
80
60
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
40
20
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town B)
800
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town B)
800
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Town “C”
Number of Applications (Town C)
120
100
80
60
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing
date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
40
20
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town
C)
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town C)
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Town “D”
Number of Applications (Town D)
250
200
150
100
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
50
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town D)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town
D)
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a
hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Town “E”
Number of Applications (Town E)
12
10
8
6
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing
date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
4
2
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town
E)
350
300
250
200
150
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
100
50
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town
E)
350
300
250
200
150
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
100
50
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Town “F”
Number of Applications (Town F)
60
50
40
30
Cases
disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
20
10
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town F)
900
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town F)
900
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Town “G”
Number of Applications (Town G)
140
120
100
80
60
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
40
20
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town
G)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town
G)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Town “H”
Number of Applications (Town H)
90
80
70
60
50
40
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
30
20
10
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town H)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town H)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Town “I”
Number of Applications (Town I)
1200
1000
800
600
Cases
disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town
I)
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a
hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town
I)
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a
hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Town “J”
Number of Applications (Town J)
180
160
140
120
100
80
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
60
40
20
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town J)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
150
100
50
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town J)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
150
100
50
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Town “K”
Number of Applications (Town K)
140
120
100
80
60
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
40
20
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town
K)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town
K)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
TOWN “L”
Number of Applications (Town L)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town
L)
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a
hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town L)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Town “M’
Number of Applications (Town M)
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town
M)
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a
hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town
M)
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a
hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Town “N”
Number of Applications (Town N)
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
150
100
50
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town
N)
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a
hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town N)
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Town “O”
Number of Applications (Town O)
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
60
40
20
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town O)
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town O)
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Town “P”
Number of Applications (Town P)
800
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town P)
800
700
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town
P)
600
500
400
300
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a
hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
200
100
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Town “Q”
Number of Applications (Town Q)
350
300
250
200
150
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
100
50
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town Q)
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
600
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town Q)
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
600
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Town “R”
Number of Applications (Town R)
250
200
150
100
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing
date
50
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town R)
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town R)
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to allocation of a hearing date
Cases disposed after allocation of a hearing date
600
400
200
0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/NZLFRRp/2011/1.html