Appeals
John finnegan made this Official Information request to Ministry of Justice
The request was successful.
From: John finnegan
Dear Ministry of Justice,
1)Total number of hearings lodged at disputes tribunals.
2)Out of the total no how many were applied to be reheard.
3)Out of the total no how many were appealed against the initial decision made in the hearing.
4)Out of those who applied for a rehearing how many got through to a rehearing, how many of them didn’t get reheard, of those who didn’t get reheard how many appealed against the decision to be reheard.
Also number of successful appeals for each of these questions.
Could you also provide in the answers to questions 2 to 4 answers not only as numbers but has a percentage.
Yours faithfully,
John finnegan
From: OIA@justice.govt.nz
Ministry of Justice
Thank you for contacting the Ministry of Justice [1][Ministry of Justice request email]
mailbox. You can expect to hear from us within two business days of your
email being received.
The Ministry of Justice holds a wide range of information that we can
provide to you. If you would like to see more about how we can help you
please see our [2]Official Information Act Requests page.
Please note that the Ministry of Justice can't give legal advice. For
legal advice, you should contact a lawyer, Community Law or Citizens’
Advice Bureau.
If you are requesting information held by the courts, such as sentencing
notes, court records or information about a case currently before the
court, the records of courts and tribunals are not subject to the Official
Information Act 1982. Access to these is subject to separate legislation
and [3]court rules and you will need to contact the relevant court
directly. The details for the courts can be found [4]here.
For information held by other agencies, such as the New Zealand Police,
check out the [5]Directory of Official Information to find out what
information each agency holds and their contact details.
Ngā mihi
Ministerial Relations and Services
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidentiality notice:
This email may contain information that is confidential or legally
privileged. If you have received it by mistake, please:
(1) reply promptly to that effect, and remove this email and the reply
from your system;
(2) do not act on this email in any other way.
Thank you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/offici...
3. https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/going-to-...
4. https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/utilities...
5. https://www.justice.govt.nz/about/offici...
hide quoted sections
From: OIA@justice.govt.nz
Ministry of Justice
Good morning John,
Acknowledging receipt of your Official Information Act request regaring information on the disputes tribunal.
We have passed this on to the relevant business unit for response.
You can expect a response on or before 15th February 2021.
Thank you for writing.
Kris Taylor
Advisor | Ministerial Relations and Services
Strategy, Governance and Finance
Aitken Street | DX SX 10088 | Wellington
-----Original Message-----
From: John finnegan <[FYI request #14417 email]>
Sent: Thursday, 7 January 2021 8:38 pm
To: [Ministry of Justice request email]
Subject: Official Information request - Appeals
Dear Ministry of Justice,
1)Total number of hearings lodged at disputes tribunals.
2)Out of the total no how many were applied to be reheard.
3)Out of the total no how many were appealed against the initial decision made in the hearing.
4)Out of those who applied for a rehearing how many got through to a rehearing, how many of them didn’t get reheard, of those who didn’t get reheard how many appealed against the decision to be reheard.
Also number of successful appeals for each of these questions.
Could you also provide in the answers to questions 2 to 4 answers not only as numbers but has a percentage.
Yours faithfully,
John finnegan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[FYI request #14417 email]
Is [Ministry of Justice request email] the wrong address for Official Information requests to Ministry of Justice? If so, please contact us using this form:
https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidentiality notice:
This email may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you have received it by mistake, please:
(1) reply promptly to that effect, and remove this email and the reply from your system;
(2) do not act on this email in any other way.
Thank you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hide quoted sections
From: Kauri, Ariana
Ministry of Justice
Kia ora Mr Finnegan
Thank you for your OIA request regarding the Disputes Tribunal. We just
need to clarify a couple things with you:
o Can you please clarify the time period you’re wanting your information
broken down by? (i.e. the last five years).
o For question 1 of your request we’ve interpreted this as the number of
new claims heard with the Disputes Tribunal. Please note, this data
will exclude those claims not requiring a hearing and data will be
counted by disposal date.
o For questions 2-4 of your request, we will be able to provide data for
rehearing and appeals which will also be counted by their outcome
dates.
Can you please confirm you’re happy with that interpretation?
Please note that we cannot provide data as percentages. This is because
application types are counted separately, and the Ministry reporting is
not structured in a way that allows there representation as a percentage.
Thank you
Ariana
Ariana Kauri
Senior Advisor | Communications Services
Ministry of Justice | Tâhû o te Ture
[1][email address] | [2]justice.govt.nz
-----Original Message-----
From: John finnegan <[3][FOI #14417 email]>
Sent: Thursday, 7 January 2021 8:38 pm
To: [4][Ministry of Justice request email]
Subject: Official Information request - Appeals
Dear Ministry of Justice,
1)Total number of hearings lodged at disputes tribunals.
2)Out of the total no how many were applied to be reheard.
3)Out of the total no how many were appealed against the initial decision
made in the hearing.
4)Out of those who applied for a rehearing how many got through to a
rehearing, how many of them didn’t get reheard, of those who didn’t get
reheard how many appealed against the decision to be reheard.
Also number of successful appeals for each of these questions.
Could you also provide in the answers to questions 2 to 4 answers not only
as numbers but has a percentage.
Yours faithfully,
John finnegan
-------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an Official Information request made via the FYI website.
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[5][FOI #14417 email]
Is [6][Ministry of Justice request email] the wrong address for Official Information
requests to Ministry of Justice? If so, please contact us using this form:
[7]https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[8]https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
If you find this service useful as an Official Information officer, please
ask your web manager to link to us from your organisation's OIA or LGOIMA
page.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidentiality notice:
This email may contain information that is confidential or legally
privileged. If you have received it by mistake, please:
(1) reply promptly to that effect, and remove this email and the reply
from your system;
(2) do not act on this email in any other way.
Thank you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.justice.govt.nz/
3. mailto:[FOI #14417 email]
4. mailto:[Ministry of Justice request email]
5. mailto:[FOI #14417 email]
6. mailto:[Ministry of Justice request email]
7. https://fyi.org.nz/change_request/new?bo...
8. https://fyi.org.nz/help/officers
hide quoted sections
From: John finnegan
Dear Kauri, Ariana,
Yes thats fine and dandy
Yours sincerely,
John finnegan
From: Kauri, Ariana
Ministry of Justice
Kia ora,
I am out of the the office until Tuesday 8 February. If you're contacting
me in regards to a media enquiry, please email [email address]. If
you need to contact me urgently for other matters, please email
[email address]
Kind regards,
Ariana
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidentiality notice:
This email may contain information that is confidential or legally
privileged. If you have received it by mistake, please:
(1) reply promptly to that effect, and remove this email and the reply
from your system;
(2) do not act on this email in any other way.
Thank you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
hide quoted sections
From: Media
Ministry of Justice
Tēnā koe Mr Finnegan,
Please see attached the response to your OIA request of 7 January 2021.
Ngā mihi,
Barnaby
Media Team
Communications Services
Ministry of Justice | Tāhū o te Ture
P +64 4 918 8836
[1][email address] | [2]justice.govt.nz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Confidentiality notice:
This email may contain information that is confidential or legally
privileged. If you have received it by mistake, please:
(1) reply promptly to that effect, and remove this email and the reply
from your system;
(2) do not act on this email in any other way.
Thank you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]
2. http://www.justice.govt.nz/
hide quoted sections
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid requests for Official Information (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this requestAct on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Audio recording of disputes tribunal hearing case number CIV-2014-044-001149
To Ministry of Justice by J Beck
K Roe (Account suspended) left an annotation ()
I want to raise another possibility that the requestor may not have considered. I had a case heard in the tenancy tribunal (rather than the disputes tribunal).
The judgment of the first adjudicator was in my favor. But the court then granted a re-hearing on the grounds that the respondent had evidence that was relevant that he failed to provide in the first hearing. That is to say the first judgment was thrown out and a re-hearing was granted.
The judgment of the second adjudicator was in my favor. The judicial reasoning was the same. The respondent had not produced the evidence that was the reason or grounds for the re-hearing. But the court then granted a re-re-hearing on the grounds that the respondent had evidence that was relevant that he failed to provide in the first and second hearing. That is to say the second judgment was thrown out and a re-re-hearing was granted.
The judgment of the third adjudicator states that: 1) The respondent provided the evidence that was reason or grounds for the re-hearing (which is blatantly false if you look at the court records no such evidence was produced). 2) The respondent 'Mike Cotton and Gulf View Property Management LLC' (who I named from the courts from my lease) was not Mike Cotton it was the LLC company which cannot be liable.
3) An importer counts as a reasonably skilled and qualified tradesperson to okay the installation of a hard-wired electrical applicance in a manner that was expressly prohibited by the manufacturers (in a manner that the manufacturers states voids the warantee on the applicance).
The judgment of the third adjudicator (Tam) was apparently 'suppressed' even though the respondent did not apply for name suppression (that I know of) and I had no opportunity to oppose suppression.
I appealed the 3rd ruling from the Tenancy Tribunal with the District Court.
The District Court delayed and delayed and delayed the proceedings. The respondent no-showed and they re-scheduled.
Finally there was a hearing.
The judge upheld the judgment of the third adjudicator. The judgment is apparently 'suppressed'. I don't have any idea what that means.
Apparently I owe no court fees. It is just that the entire thing has been 'supressed'. Well, actually, I paid $40 filing fee to file things with the tenancy tribunal.
So, you see, justice does not live here. Is not to be found here. The NZ courts and tribunals choose not to uphold the law. Reading the judgments... Well, it's a farce. Obviously and clearly. Just nonsense garbage output.
I am not sure what it is. The first two were sensible (not just because they were in my favor, but they were sensible). But then something happened. I am not sure what... If the intstallation was Prestige Building Compliance and the Auckland City Council has wired up most of the cheaper high-rise buildings in Auckland in such a manner in order to kick-start the fire-economy (burn the city down for insurance money) or quite what is going on.
I suppose it is a lesson to me in how it is that nobody in their right mind would voluntarily choose to study or practice law, in New Zealand. Because the courts are some combination of unwilling / unable to do their job at the most basic level.
I think this is relevant because you are trying to understand what is going on. Throwing out a published judgment (or suppressing judgments for no other reasons than trying to hide or cover up shitty judgments by adjudicators or judges who assert false facts or refuse to acknowledge obvious facts, who refuse to acknowledge half the laws, who cannot or will not reason appropriately over the laws is something that tenancy tribunal and district court have chosen to engage in as a matter of (documented and published) fact.
Also simply not granting a hearing.
Another strategy that there is is that the judge orders the file be re-filed and re-re-filed and re-re-re-filed. That is to say the Justice takes their job to be to order or instruct the applicant to write a thesis for them! To bloat their filings. To ensure the findings are lengthy enough so the judge thinks they can reasonably claim to have become genuinely confused and ignored various aspects of pieces of evidence etc. Teh judge can order for there to be case management conference after case management conference after case management conference so the Judge can bully and abuse the applicant for their filings that need to be re-worked and re-done and re-filed.
It's quite the scummy scummy scam.
It's how the Universities conduct their 'business' where they refuse to allow graduate research students to complete their research in a timely fashion because they spend all their time bullying the student saying they will be forced to fail them if they submit their thesis and they need to make all these changes which they only suggest or demand or require because they are trying to set the student up to fail.
Why?
In the academic context apparently it's because it's sooooooo competitive. The people who presently get the funding (who are on staff etc) need to be seen to be most productive, I guess. So their students need to straggle along behind them. Or be seen to be.
I don't know what it is with the courts. You pay tehm you pay them you pay them you pay them you pay them and when you are done paying them then you lie flat or die or walk away from everything you have and die.
or similar.
It's the great kiwi plan for 'how low can we go' to ensure nothing of any value is produced, here.
Justice does not live here.
Link to this