Specialist Administrative Tribunals

Specialist Justice versus Generalist Court Systems

Principle all citizens are equal before the ordinary law whereas modern administrative law departs from Dicey's model with specialist justice mechanisms

Examples of specialist courts in NZ

Family Court

Maori Land Court

Environment Court

Taxation and Charities Review Authority

Legomsky's Criteria for Specialisation

General Law vs. Discretion

Technical Complexity

Volume and Similarity

Isolation (Standalone dispute categories can be compartmentalized)

Consistency

Procedural Design: (adversarial v inquisitorial models)

Adversarial System

competition between two opposing parties, judge acting as an impartial referee

Inquisitorial System

Decision-maker takes an active role in questioning parties, gathering evidence, and investigating the underlying factual truth

Key Features of Tribunals

Specialist adjudicative bodies created by statute to resolve specific categories of disputes, not bound by inflexible court procedure

Law Commission Classification

1. Inter Partes Tribunals

2. Regulatory and Professional Bodies

3. Administrative Tribunals

Inter Partes Tribunals

Disputes between private legal individuals/entities

Regulatory and professional bodies

Disciplinary and licensing boards governing professions

Administrative tribunals

Resolve disputes between private citizens and the state across approximately $17$ to $20$ distinct bodies

Systemic criticisms of NZ tribunal system

Lack of coherence/overarching structure

Independence concerns

Accessibility and visibility

Reform attempts of NZ tribunal system

Law Comission reports

Tribunal Powers and Procedures Legislation Act 2018

Cause of Law Comission reports reform failure

Comprehensive reform stalled due to political shifts and implementation cost concerns

Cause of Tribunal Powers and Procedures Legislation Act 2018 reform failure

Risk of over-judicialisation by excessively linking tribunals to the court structure