Proposed Changes to the Disputes Tribunal: Enhancing Access to Justice

The New Zealand government is introducing the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill, a legislative change aimed at improving access to justice by increasing the financial jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal. This amendment is expected to have significant implications for individuals seeking cost-effective dispute resolution while also raising questions about the broader civil justice system.

The Proposed Change

The Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill proposes to increase the Tribunal’s financial jurisdiction from $30,000 to $60,000. This change allows individuals to bring higher-value claims before the Tribunal, providing an alternative to the more expensive and complex District Court process. The amendment also introduces a new tiered filing fee of $468 for claims exceeding $30,001, designed to reflect the increased private benefits of using the Tribunal for higher-value disputes while contributing to cost recovery.

Impacts of the Change

The increase in financial jurisdiction is expected to enhance access to justice in several ways:

• More Affordable Dispute Resolution: The Tribunal offers a lower-cost alternative to the District Court, making justice more accessible for individuals and small businesses with disputes above $30,000 but who may find court proceedings too expensive.
• Reduced Court Congestion: By diverting mid-range claims from the District Court to the Tribunal, the change may ease pressure on court resources, leading to faster resolution times in both jurisdictions.
• Potential Concerns: While the increase in jurisdiction is a positive step, some concerns remain about safeguards for higher-value claims. The New Zealand Law Society has noted that expanding the Tribunal’s jurisdiction without addressing appeal rights, the quality of decisions, or the potential burden of increased filing fees could pose challenges.

The Law Society’s Support and Recommendations

The New Zealand Law Society Te Kāhui Ture o Aotearoa supports the amendment, recognising its contribution to improving access to justice. However, the Law Society has emphasised that this change should be considered as part of a broader review of the civil justice system. Key points raised in its submission include:

• Further Consideration of Tribunal Jurisdiction: The Law Society recommends a comprehensive assessment of the Tribunal’s role, including appeal rights and decision-making safeguards, to ensure fairness in higher-value disputes.
• Fee Waiver Provisions: The proposed $468 filing fee for higher-value claims may pose a financial barrier for some users. The Law Society advocates for a fee waiver system similar to that in the District Court, allowing for exemptions in cases of financial hardship.

Our experience with the Disputes Tribunal

As lawyers we are not allowed to appear in the Disputes Tribunal with our clients however, we often assist clients with preparing their evidence and drafting submissions to present. The advantage of the Disputes Tribunal is the speed that matters can be dealt with (especially now that most matters are heard by teleconference) and the low cost of filing fees. However, there can be inconsistencies in the approaches taken by the Referees, less strict rules with new evidence being presented at the hearing, and the Referees are only required to consider the law and are not bound by it when making a decision. There are also extremely limited rights of appeal.

Conclusion

The Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill represents a step forward in enhancing access to justice by allowing more significant claims to be resolved in a cost-effective manner. However, if you are unsure whether to make a claim in the Disputes Tribunal or the District Court, we are able to provide you with advice on the options and assist you with preparing your claim so that you are in the best position to achieve a successful outcome.

This article is current as at the date of publication and is only intended to provide general comments about the law. Harkness Henry accepts no responsibility for reliance by any person or organisation on the content of the article. Please contact the author of the article if you require specific advice about how the law applies to you.