find the latest legal job
Senior Associate - Litigation & Dispute Resolution
Category: Litigation and Dispute Resolution | Location: Melbourne CBD & Inner Suburbs Melbourne VIC
· Come work for a firm ranked in Lawyers Weekly Top 25 Attraction Firms
View details
Associate - Workplace Relations & Safety
Category: Industrial Relations and Employment Law | Location: Brisbane CBD & Inner Suburbs Brisbane QLD
· Employer of choice · Strong team culture
View details
Freelance Lawyers
Category: Banking and Finance Law | Location: All Perth WA
· Freelance opportunities through Vario from Pinsent Masons
View details
Freelance Lawyers
Category: Other | Location: All Adelaide SA
· • Qualified lawyer with a strong academic background
View details
Freelance Lawyers
Category: Other | Location: All Melbourne VIC
· • Qualified lawyer with a strong academic background
View details
17-hour judgment a case for change

17-hour judgment a case for change

Four days of oral reasons delivered by a presiding judicial officer may have been common place 200 years ago, but times have changed, a full bench of the NSW Supreme Court has found.

A decision delivered orally and spanning four days in the NSW District Court has been described as a waste of court resources and an undue cause of stress for litigants.

Judge Garry Neilson’s 17-hour long verbal judgment for a civil matter presided over in Wagga Wagga last May was met with scrutiny by a full bench in the NSW Court of Appeal.

The case which attracted the four-day reasoning of Judge Neilson involved a question of liability in a motor accident incident. It was not until day three of Judge Neilson’s verbal judgment that the claimants learned their evidence had not been accepted by the judge.

Appeal Judge Mark Leeming said it was easy to see how the lengthy time spent getting to the point would increase the stress of litigation for the parties.

Justice Leeming also observed that the district court judge had a history of delivering his reasons for days on end. He cited three separate matters in 2015, when Judge Neilson chose to deliver his oral reasons between three to four days.

“The course taken causes me to share the Appeal President’s concern as to whether, having due regard to the important right of judges to deliver reasons in the manner they regard as the most appropriate in accordance with their office, there may not be a different approach which better accords with what is mandated by the Civil Procedure Act and which better enhances the administration of justice,” Justice Leeming said in the joint decision yesterday.

He later went on to say that the oral delivery of reasons for more than a day had become “extremely unusual”.

Justice Leeming said the convention of judges handing down the reasons for the decision for days on end started to be rolled back 100 years ago. However, modern day exceptions tended to be made in complex and lengthy cases, which he identified as falling into another category all together to the civil case in question.

“Two centuries ago, all judgments were delivered orally. A century later, the tradition was in the process of being substantially eroded, but there were occasions when even extensive and important judgments were delivered orally,” Justice Leeming said.

“The judgment from which this appeal has been brought is extremely important to the litigants, but falls into an entirely different category from those [in Tito v Waddell (No 2) [1977] Ch 106]. And times have changed,” he later went on to say.

The 1977 case of Tito v Waddell was argued before Megarry VC over 100 days. Justice Leeming described the four-day oral reasoning for that case as “a decision of the first order of importance in private law and constitutional law”.

“His Lordship delivered reasons occupying just over four days from Monday, 29 November 1976, spilling into Friday, 3 December 1976. Those reasons occupy 218 pages of the law reports, and are regularly cited today.

“It had been an exceptionally long trial, but even so delivering judgment over just over four days was exceptional. Until I encountered this appeal, I was unaware that there were modern counterparts,” Justice Leeming said.

Court of Appeal President Justice Ruth McColl added her own observations, noting that neither the transcript of the District Court hearing or Judge Neilson’s reasons explained the need for such a lengthy delivery. The settled reasons in the matter were ultimately 138 pages long.

Justice McColl suggested that lengthy oral reasons made by a judge in a matter of this kind worked against the overriding purpose of a requirement for the “quick and cheap” disposition of proceedings in the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).

Devoting four days to the oral delivery of judgment also does not make proper use of judicial resources in a busy trial court, she said.

“I accept that not all members of the judiciary have access to the same resources and that, at times, exigency may require the delivery of quite extensive reasons in a court sitting. However, nothing on the face of these proceedings indicated any such necessity,” Justice McColl said.

“It is difficult, with respect, in such circumstances, to justify the utilisation of judicial resources, court resources, let alone the costs burden imposed on the parties, and the time lost to the legal practitioners present in court by this exercise.”

Like this story? Read more:

QLS condemns actions of disgraced lawyer as ‘stain on the profession’

NSW proposes big justice reforms to target risk of reoffending

The legal budget breakdown 2017

17-hour judgment a case for change
lawyersweekly logo
Promoted content
Recommended by Spike Native Network
more from lawyers weekly
Quentin Bryce
Oct 18 2017
DV has worsened in a generation: Quentin Bryce
Former governor-general of Australia Dame Quentin Bryce AD CVO has spoken of her deep distress about...
Lawyers
Oct 18 2017
Academics entertain the idea of law without lawyers
Researchers from Queensland will explore some of the most disruptive trends tipped to transform the ...
Please, Continue (Hamlet), Melbourne Festival
Oct 16 2017
Hamlet suffers slings and arrows of top Victorian barristers
Victorian judges and barristers have performed the unique play Please, Continue (Hamlet) at the Melb...
APPOINTMENTS
Allens managing partner Richard Spurio, image courtesy Allens' website
Jun 21 2017
Promo season at Allens
A group of lawyers at Allens have received promotions across its PNG and Australian offices. ...
May 11 2017
Partner exits for in-house role
A Victorian lawyer has left the partnership of a national firm to start a new gig with state governm...
Esteban Gomez
May 11 2017
National firm recruits ‘major asset’
A national law firm has announced it has appointed a new corporate partner who brings over 15 years'...
opinion
Nicole Rich
May 16 2017
Access to justice for young transgender Australians
Reform is looming for the process that young transgender Australians and their families must current...
Geoff Roberson
May 11 2017
The lighter side of the law: when law and comedy collide
On the face of it, there doesn’t seem to be much that is amusing about the law, writes Geoff Rober...
Help
May 10 2017
Advocate’s immunity – without fear or without favour but not both
On 29 March 2017, the High Court handed down its decision in David Kendirjian v Eugene Lepore & ...