LegalResearchFoundation

This article discusses the desirability of arbitrators having the authority to dispose of meritless claims by a summary procedure thus avoiding the need for a full hearing in such cases. The article notes arguments that an award obtained through summary disposition procedure akin to summary judgment may be unenforceable or may be set aside because of concerns that the affected party has been denied a full opportunity of presenting its case under arts 18 and 24 of sch 1 to the Arbitration Act 1996. It is argued that summary disposition differs from a full trial and that the art 18 rights applied to the former but not the latter. Authorities explaining the function of summary disposition are considered and its purpose of filtering out cases where there is no substantial issue is noted. The possibility that summary disposition contravenes the requirements of natural justice is dealt with, as well. Overseas authorities relevant to these issues are considered and it is noted that in those jurisdictions summary disposition is not viewed as contravening fair hearing entitlements. The article also contends that in the absence of express authority in the submission to arbitration, the authority for arbitrators to proceed by way of summary disposition is to be found in art 19 which authorises the arbitrator to conduct the arbitration as it considers appropriate.

Law schools and the legal profession have, in recent years, been awake and vocal as to the need for gender and ethnic diversity among their members. The same cannot be said, however, in regard to socio-economic diversity, despite research published in 2018 revealing a stark lack of students from low socio-economic backgrounds in New Zealand law schools. This underrepresentation of low socio-economic background students affects the profession and society more broadly. And although law school admission schemes are not the root of the issue, they have a role to play in both its cause and in its resolution. This article initiates a conversation around how a more nuanced approach to law school admission schemes could shape and change these socio-economic demographics.

In December 2019 the New Zealand Law Commission (NZLC) disclosed the terms of reference pursuant to which, over the next two years, it will conduct a review of the law relating to class actions and litigation funding in New Zealand. The aim of this article is to assist the NZLC's study by providing a review of the Australian experience, over the last 15 years or so, with the involvement of commercial litigation funders in proceedings brought pursuant to the five legislative class action regimes that currently operate in the country. This review will place reliance on the first-named author's comprehensive empirical data on class actions funded by litigation funders and will also include an evaluation of the responses of Australian courts, governments and law reform commissions to the challenges created by the activities of litigation funders in the context of class action litigation. The recommendations made by New Zealand's Rules Committee in 2009, in relation to the regulation of funding agreements entered into with respect to class action litigation, will also be considered.