AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

Administrative Review Council - Admin Review

You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Administrative Review Council - Admin Review >> 2004 >> [2004] AdminRw 25

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Author Info | Download | Help

Editors --- "Proposals for Reform of Courts and Tribunals In New Zealand" [2004] AdminRw 25; (2004) 56 Admin Review 73


Proposals for reform of courts and tribunals in New Zealand

On 16 March 2004 the New Zealand Law Commission released Delivering Justice for All: a vision for New Zealand courts and tribunals. The report completes the Commission’s work on a reference to review the structure of all state-based adjudicative bodies in New Zealand, including consideration of the role of tribunals and their relationship to the courts.[1]

The report recommends the creation of a Community Court as one of a collective group of ‘primary courts’. The Court would deal with high-volume, less serious matters in both criminal and civil jurisdictions. The report emphasises the importance of the Court as the place where most people would encounter the court system. For particularly small civil claims, the current Disputes Tribunal and Tenancy Tribunal would be maintained as the Disputes and Tenancy Divisions of the Community Court.

Several of the other primary courts—the Primary Civil Court, the Primary Criminal Court, the Family Court, the Youth Court and the Environment Court—are currently parts of or closely associated with the District Court, which would no longer exist as a separate entity. The existing Employment Court, the Maori Land Court and the Coroners Court would be maintained as primary courts.

Appeals from the primary courts would generally be as of right on both fact and law to the High Court, the only exception being the Maori Land Court, which would have an intermediate appeal process before proceeding to the High Court. Further appeal from the High Court would be on a matter of law only and would require leave of the Court of Appeal.

The Commission’s report recommends the creation of a unified tribunal framework or umbrella structure, which would have a Primary Civil Court judge as its president and two deputy presidents with legal qualifications. The report identifies the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal as a desirable model. It envisages that tribunals or groups of tribunals would operate in a manner analogous to the Victorian Tribunal’s divisions and lists. The president of the unified framework would be in a position to consider rationalisation of the number, function and processes of tribunals. The report also specifies bodies that should not be included in the new structure.

The proposed appeals process is partly modelled on the Administrative Decision Tribunal in New South Wales. Appeals would be heard by a three-member panel consisting of the president or deputy president, a member of the tribunal being appealed from, and a member of another tribunal within the unified framework. Appeals to the panel would be on matters of both fact and law. Unlike the New South Wales Tribunal, leave would not be required for an appeal on the facts or merits. Further appeal to the High Court would be confined to matters of law and would require leave.

The report also makes recommendations on broad matters such as improving access to the legal system, use of alternative processes, and the openness of proceedings. It is available on the Law Commission’s website <www.lawcom.govt.nz>.


[1] The Law Commission published two preliminary papers for discussion in 2002—Striking the Balance and Seeking Solutions.


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AdminRw/2004/25.html