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
1
The authors gratefully acknowledge the generous support of the New Zealand Law
foundation who provided a grant to enable this project to be undertaken.
2
For a recent discussion of some of the concerns raised by the profession see
http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/about/system/rules_committee/meetings/21-February2011.pdf at 3.
3
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the Ministry of Justice in preparing the
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.
4
The average time was calculated from date of filing until resolution. For the District and
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.
2
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.
3
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.
4
2.
Perceptions of delay in the civil justice system
New Zealand
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).
5
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” (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” (2005-2008) 11 Otago Law Review 351 at 353.
6
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 postWoolf landscape (DCA Research Series 9/05, 2005) at iii.
7
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.
8
for each District and High Court, and each Disputes Tribunal detailed in the
attached appendices.21
High Court Figures
3.2
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing
date
1000
800
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing
date
600
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
21
As we have not investigated at this stage the potential explanations for the trends in the
data, we have chosen to make the city/town location anonymous (Appendix A – High Court,
Appendix B – District Court, Appendix C – Disputes Tribunal). We have included the data
for both the average and median times taken for these cases to progress through the courts.
The median data is particularly important when looking at the courts with small numbers of
applications as this measure tells us more accurately where the bulk of the data lie, and
outliers (e.g., one particularly long drawn out case) do not have such a impact on the overall
data. Further, as many of the smaller towns in New Zealand have relatively low numbers of
cases disposed, one or two particularly long cases can have a large impact on both the average
and median times reported.
9
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing
date
400
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing
date
300
200
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
22
Matters are set down for hearing by judicial direction according to the HC rules, with the
majority set down at the second preliminary conference. Further, for many of the cases that
resolve prior to the allocation of a hearing date, judicial time is spent managing these cases.
The data in this category will include for instance cases dealt with by way of summary
judgment.
10
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.
District Court Figures
3.3
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing
date
20000
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing
date
15000
10000
5000
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
11
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing
date
400
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing
date
300
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
23
Anecdotal evidence suggests that lawyers do not routinely file notices of discontinuance in
a timely manner in District Court proceedings, and often it is discovered that the proceedings
have come to an end only after enquiries from the Court. As such, this data likely overrepresents the true time it takes to resolve these cases.
12
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.
Disputes Tribunal Figures24 25
3.4
Figure 5: National Data for the number of cases disposed each year.
18000
16000
14000
12000
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing
date
10000
8000
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing
date
6000
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
24
We have included data for the Disputes Tribunal in this report as while it is not considered
part of the traditional court system, many civil cases are resolved in this forum per year. This
data is important as it shows (in conjunction with the data above from the District and High
Court) that many civil disputes in New Zealand are processed through the system relatively
quickly.
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.
26
Approximately 200 cases (each year over the 6-year period) had to be withdrawn from the
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.
13
Figure 6: National Data for the average number of days these cases take from filing
to resolution.
100
90
80
70
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing
date
60
50
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing
date
40
30
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
14
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
27
http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/from/statistics/statistics-2010/10-12-High-Court-WorkloadInfo.pdf
15
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-ofjustice-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.
16
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” (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.
17
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
Justice John Hansen “Courts Administration, the Judiciary and the Efficient Delivery of
Justice: A Personal View” (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.
41
18
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.
50
See for example John Beisner “Discovering a Better Way: The Need for Effective Civil
Litigation Reform” (2010) 60 Duke LJ pgs 563-581.
51
Ibid at 550.
19
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
52
A committee of judges and senior barristers has been established in New Zealand to
develop proposals for reform to address the issue of complex and costly discovery processes.
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.
56
Anthony Grant “Is the High Court’s civil jurisdiction in ‘a death spiral’? – Part 3” (2010)
153 NZLawyer Magazine 9.
20
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.
57
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.
58
Honourable Geoff Davies “Civil Justice Reform: Why We Need To Question Some Basic
Assumptions” (2006) 25 CJQ 32 at
59
Justice John Hansen “Courts Administration, the Judiciary and the Efficient Delivery of
Justice: A Personal View” (2005-2008) 11 Otago Law Review 351 at 356.
60
Barry Mahoney and others Changing Times in Trial Courts: Caseflow Management and
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;
21
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
61
For a discussion of the current proposals formulated by this group see the recent public
consultation paper on proposals for the reform of discovery processes
www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/about/system/rules_committee/consultation/Consultation-paper-ondiscovery-2010.pdf
62
Dale Sipes and Mary Oram “On Trial: The Length of Civil and Criminal Trials” (National
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.
63
Forrest Miller “Civil Case Management” (paper delivered to LEADR Conference,
Wellington, November 2010).
64
For a discussion of the Case Management project presently underway see
http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/about/system/rules_committee/meetings/21-February2011.pdf
22
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
23
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.
24
APPENDIX A - HIGH COURT FIGURES
National65
Number of Applications (National)
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
800
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
600
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
65
2009
2010
We have attached each courts data in this section. However, given that we cannot yet account for the
variation seen across different courts we have not provided a commentary on it. Further, some of the
smaller courts have very few applications per year, and even fewer cases that proceed to the point of
being allocated hearing dates. As such, there are breaks in the data and in some cases the median age
graphs for cases that are allocated hearing dates is representing the progress of one case only. Given
that many factors can account for how long on particular case may take, caution should be used when
interpreting the data from the graphs provided in these appendices.
25
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (National)
700
600
500
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing
date
400
300
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
200
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing
date
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
26
2010
City “A”
Number of Applications (City A)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
400
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
27
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (City A)
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
City “B”
Number of Applications (City B)
180
160
140
120
100
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
80
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
60
40
20
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
28
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (City B)
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
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)
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
29
2010
City “C”
Number of Applications (City C)
35
30
25
20
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
15
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
10
5
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (City C)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
400
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
30
2009
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (City C)
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
City “D”
Number of Applications (City D)
100
90
80
70
60
50
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
40
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
30
20
10
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
31
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (City D)
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
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)
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
32
2010
City “E”
Number of Applications (City E)
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) (City E)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
400
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
33
2009
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (City E)
900
800
700
600
500
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
400
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Town “A”
Number of Applications (Town A)
12
10
8
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
6
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
4
2
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
34
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town A)
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
800
600
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 A)
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
800
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
600
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
35
2009
2010
Town “B”
Number of Applications (Town B)
6
5
4
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
3
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
2
1
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town B)
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
36
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town B)
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Town “C”
Number of Applications (Town C)
6
5
4
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
3
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
2
1
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
37
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town C)
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
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)
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
38
2009
2010
Town “D”
Number of Applications (Town D)
30
25
20
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
15
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
10
5
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town D)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
400
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
39
2009
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town D)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
400
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Town “E”
Number of Applications (Town E)
7
6
5
4
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
3
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
2
1
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
40
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town E)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
400
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)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
400
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
41
2009
2010
Town “F”
Number of Applications (Town F)
40
35
30
25
20
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
15
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
10
5
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town F)
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
42
2009
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town F)
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Town “G”
Number of Applications (Town G)
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
43
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town G)
900
800
700
600
500
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
400
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)
900
800
700
600
500
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
400
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
44
2010
Town “H”
Number of Applications (Town H)
12
10
8
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
6
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 H)
1400
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
45
2009
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town H)
1400
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Town “I”
Number of Applications (Town I)
35
30
25
20
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
15
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
10
5
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
46
2009
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town I)
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
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)
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
47
2010
Town “J”
Number of Applications (Town J)
30
25
20
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
15
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
10
5
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town J)
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
48
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town J)
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Town “K”
Number of Applications (Town K)
70
60
50
40
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
30
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
20
10
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
49
2009
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town K)
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
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)
900
800
700
600
500
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
400
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
50
2010
Town “L”
Number of Applications (Town L)
14
12
10
8
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
6
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 L)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
400
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
51
2009
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town L)
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Town “M”
Number of Applications (Town M)
16
14
12
10
8
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
6
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
4
2
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
52
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town M)
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
800
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)
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
800
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
600
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
53
2008
2009
2010
Town “N”
Number of Applications (Town N)
40
35
30
25
20
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
15
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
10
5
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town N)
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
54
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town N)
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
55
2010
APPENDIX B - DISTRICT COURT FIGURES
National
Number of Applications (National)
35000
30000
25000
20000
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
15000
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
56
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (National)
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
2000
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
1500
1000
500
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
66
2009
2010
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.
57
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (City A)
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
58
2010
City “B”
Number of Applications (City B)
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
800
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
59
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (City B)
450
400
350
300
250
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
200
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
60
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (City C)
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
400
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
61
2010
City “D”
Number of Applications (City D)
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
800
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
62
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (City D)
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
City “E”
Number of Applications (City E)
6000
5000
4000
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
3000
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
2000
1000
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
63
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (City E)
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
64
2010
City “F”
Number of Applications (City F)
1400
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
400
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
65
2009
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (City F)
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
400
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
66
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (City G)
1400
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
67
2010
City “H”
Number of Applications (City H)
1200
1000
800
600
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
400
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
68
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (City H)
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
69
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (City I)
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
400
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
70
2008
2009
2010
City “J”
Number of Applications (City J)
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
71
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (City J)
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
800
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
600
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
72
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (City K)
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
73
2010
Town “A”
Number of Applications (Town A)
350
300
250
200
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
150
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
400
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
74
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town A)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
400
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
60
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
40
20
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
75
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town B)
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
76
2010
Town “C”
Number of Applications (Town C)
120
100
80
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
60
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
77
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town C)
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
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
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
78
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town D)
1400
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
79
2010
Town “E”
Number of Applications (Town E)
12
10
8
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
6
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
150
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
100
50
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
80
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town E)
350
300
250
200
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
150
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
30
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
20
10
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
81
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town F)
900
800
700
600
500
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
400
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
400
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
82
2010
Town “G”
Number of Applications (Town G)
140
120
100
80
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
60
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
83
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town G)
1400
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
40
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
30
20
10
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
84
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town H)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
400
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
400
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
85
2010
Town “I”
Number of Applications (Town I)
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
86
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town I)
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
80
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
60
40
20
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
87
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town J)
500
450
400
350
300
250
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
200
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
200
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
150
100
50
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
88
2010
Town “K”
Number of Applications (Town K)
140
120
100
80
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
60
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
89
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town K)
1400
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
400
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
90
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town L)
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
400
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
300
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
91
2010
Town “M’
Number of Applications (Town M)
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
92
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town M)
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
200
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
150
100
50
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
93
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town N)
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
94
2010
Town “O”
Number of Applications (Town O)
200
180
160
140
120
100
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
80
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
95
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town O)
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
96
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town P)
800
700
600
500
400
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
300
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
200
100
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
97
2010
Town “Q”
Number of Applications (Town Q)
350
300
250
200
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
150
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
800
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
600
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
98
2010
Median Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town Q)
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
800
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
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
99
2010
Average Age (days from filing to outcome) (Town R)
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
600
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
Cases disposed prior to
allocation of a hearing date
800
Cases disposed after
allocation of a hearing date
600
400
200
0
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
100
2010