(1) the upper bench doing middle level work
at the expense of high level work;
(2) an under-esteemed upper bench;
(3) the middle bench doing low level work; (4) an under-employed middle bench;
(5) an under-esteemed middle bench;
(6) an
under-employed lower (or small claims) bench;
(7) a general failure to make the best use
of human resources;
(8) high litigation cost;
(9) discouragement
plaintiffs."
of some
prospective
9.
The case for relieving the High Court of some of its work seems to me to be very strong. This can best and most readily be done by appreciably raising the $60,000 ceiling on the District Court's Jurisdiction.
10.
One argument against this is that the scales of costs in the District Court, even as recently increased, are to the detriment of the successful litigant and are therefore disliked by the legal profession. It is also argued that the interlocutory procedures are inefficient and not conducive to summary judgment. It is also said that having come from the Magistracy many District Judges lack experience of civil work.
11.
If these arguments are accepted as conclusive then either the unbalanced loading continues or the establishment of the High Court is increased and that of the District Court reduced. And if any degree of monetary inflation persists the High Court will continue to grow and the civil side of the District Court to wither. The need to rectify the situation is much too important to be defeated by the arguments I have mentioned or by concerns about rights of audience. Costs and procedure, can be reviewed and kept under review. Judicial experience can be gained by selective temporary appointments; the learning process can be considerably accelerated with help from experienced judges in a system of judicial studies; and questions of rights of audience ought not to determine levels of jurisdiction; the question of rights of audience is an important consideration but not the primary one.
-
- 86 -
1
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.