New Zealand is a unitary jurisdiction which is part of the Commonwealth. It has therefore inherited the English judicial system and the common law.

The judicial system consists of three levels of courts in New Zealand: The District Court with civil jurisdiction up to $200,000, the High Court with general civil jurisdiction, and the Court of Appeal. There is right of appeal from the Court of Appeal to the Privy Council in London and 10 or so cases are appealed each year. In addition to the general court system, there is a small claims jurisdiction, called the Disputes Tribunal, with jurisdiction up to NZ$12,000 and power to increase that to NZ$15,000 by agreement of the parties.

The High Court commenced working under a new set of High Court Rules on 1 January 1986, [2] which was probably too early for procedure to take account of modern technology to be introduced. There is a Standing Rules Committee which has oversight of the operation of the Rules and promotes amendments regularly.

The District Court civil jurisdiction has increased rapidly from NZ$12,000 in 1981 [3] through NZ$50,000 [4] to the present level. Before 1981 its civil jurisdiction was largely one of small debt collection and the rules of procedure were therefore somewhat basic. The District Court Rules were completely revised in 1992 [5] when the civil jurisdiction limit was increased to $200,000. The procedures were brought into line with those of the High Court and there is now a commitment to keep the two sets of rules together. There is now to be a single Rules Committee to deal with both sets of rules.

The population of New Zealand is about 3.6 million and so the civil workload is small by international standards. In the 12 months to 30 June 1998 174 civil appeals were disposed of in the Court of Appeal, 1,180 civil cases were disposed of in the High Court and 29,885 in the District Court [6] . The Disputes Tribunals disposed of 27,576 cases [7]. Because many cases are settled before they are determined by the court, the number of proceedings filed is significantly higher. In the year to 30 June 1998 325 civil appeals were received by the Court of Appeal, 1,552 civil proceedings and 547 civil appeals were received by the High Court, and 51,119 civil claims were filed in the District Court [8]. The Disputes Tribunal received 30,553 claims. [9] There is also an Environment Court and a Family Court which are divisions of the District Court, an Employment Court and a number of Tribunals, but statistics relating to those jurisdictions are no included as they are not considered to be relevant to this paper.

Another aspect of the New Zealand judicial system which is relevant to this paper is that the High Court sits at 17 different cities and towns in New Zealand and there are two other registries of the High Court. [10] The District Court sits at and has registries at 64 venues. [11] Many of these registries handle very small volumes of cases. This would tend to reduce incentives to move to electronic litigation. Again, there are 1,409 solicitors’ offices [12] in New Zealand and 417 barristers. [13] Some firms of solicitors practice in several offices so the number of firms is probably about 1,300. As with courts, many of these lawyers would handle comparatively few civil litigation cases in a year. On the other hand, a sample of the practices appearing in the latest law directory suggests that between 40% and 50% of legal practices publish an e-mail address. The courts do not have e-mail connections.

Even after the new High Court Rules in 1986, the court process remained local, personal and paper-based. Thus, the old rule dating back to the days of horse and buggy requiring the party to litigation to have “an address for service” (usually the litigant’s solicitor’s office) within 3 miles

(5 kms) of the court in which the case was lodged, remained until the beginning of 1991. [14] At the same time in 1991, the requirement that documents be served personally at that address for service was abolished and service by way of mail, document exchange, or facsimile was allowed. [15] There have been, however, some amendments recognising the advance of technology. These will be considered in the next section of the report.

PROVISIONS OF THE HIGH COURT RULES

Rule 3 of the High Court Rules contains an expansive definition of “document”:

“‘Document’ means a document in any form whether signed or initialled or otherwise authenticated by its maker or not; and includes -

The width of the definition would seem to be primarily intended to ensure that the process of discovery of an opposite party’s documents relevant to the litigation recognises modern means which information is transmitted and held. However, the litigation process is defined in terms of documents throughout the High Court Rules and unless the context otherwise requires, that wide definition will apply whenever the word “document” appears. It is obvious from the definition that a computer file, whether held on a hard drive, a compact disk, a removable drive or a floppy disk, is a document. For purposes of this paper parts of the definition extending to film etc will be ignored and application of the definition to computer files will be the subject.

The writer has identified each use of the word “document” in the High Court Rules and considered whether definition of a document to include a computer file would, might, or would not be applicable. The conclusion reached is that there are comparatively few uses of the word “document” which would not apply to a computer file.

Occasions where the definition could not apply, seem to be limited to rules within the set of rules from 23 to 40 insofar as they deal with the form of documents filed in court. The second set of occasions is where the rules require a document to be “signed” which the writer considers would be taken to mean signature in the traditional sense. This latter category extends to the notice of proceeding which is the formal document instituting a proceeding, applications for orders, such as injunctions, memoranda from counsel (the lawyers representing parties before the courts), affidavits, and court orders and judgments. The rules dealing with the form of documents make it plain that what is being dealt with is a piece of paper. Thus, Rule 24 requires that A4 paper of medium weight be used, and Rule 30 prescribes the way in which sheets of the paper are to be fastened.

The consequence is that as the High Court Rules stand, it is considered that they cannot be used to effect any electronic case processing. On the other hand, because the rules which force that conclusion are small in number and are capable of isolation, amendment to the rules to allow for electronic-based processing would not be a major task. Problems that arise in that connection are those of the matters protected by the underlying policy of those rules, and identifying forms of words to meet the protection underlying them. The definition of document could then take its full effect. Those problems and means of resolving them are considered in the next major section of this paper.

Initiating the proceedings

One object of the High Court Rules was, so far as possible, to unify the method of commencing proceedings. There are still some exceptions, such as obtaining “probate” of a will, or “originating applications” in specified cases. The vast majority of cases, however, are commenced by a notice of proceeding and statement of claim. These documents are, in general, filed in the court nearest to the place where the first-named defendant resides or has its registered office (if a company).

This subsection can be divided into three parts: The documents, process of filing, and the handling within the court.

The documents are in the form prescribed by Rules 23 to 40 which have been discussed above, and are therefore paper documents.

Although the process of filing most naturally consists of a person handing the documents over a counter to an officer of the registry and paying the necessary fee, this physical process is not essential. Documents may be filed by post or courier as a matter of practice provided filing fees are paid. “Filing” in the Rules, would seem to mean acting so that the documents commencing the proceeding are received by the court and the fees paid. Although in the recent case of Business Associates Ltd v New Zealand Post Ltd [16] the court referred to filing “in the sense of physically taking it to court and handing it to a member of the Court Staff” [17] the Master was there concerned with differentiating the obligation of the principal of a firm of solicitors to take responsibility for the case and “file” it in that sense on behalf of the client, and the physical process of “filing” the documents. He was not specifically addressing the way in which documents may be “filed” in this latter sense. The process of “filing” in this latter sense, if the Rules requirement of paper documents is overcome, can be achieved electronically as easily as physically.

Once the notice of proceeding and statement of claim has been filed, the court stamps the number of copies necessary for each defendant with the seal of the court and gives them back to the person filing the documents for service. In New Zealand, in civil matters, service is undertaken not by the court but by the parties. Within the court, the documents are used to commence a physical file in which each document filed in court is contained in order so that the judge or judicial officer handling the matter can have to hand all the documents officially with the court. Again, if the requirements of paper documents are overcome, there is no reason why process cannot be electronic. The court staff then enter the details of the case, ie its file number, name and the nature of each document filed in the court register which is available for public examination on payment of a fee. This aspect, too, may readily be undertaken electronically.

File management and case management

The court registries are equipped with computers so that a computerised management system is available. That system is additional to the paper system. Thus, electronic file management is used for management purposes, the paper for the use of judicial officers and in the courtroom itself. Communication with lawyers involved in the case may be by telephone, facsimile or letter. There is the court staff that determine the court room in which any hearings take place and notification of a hearing is notification of the date and time of the hearing, not the particular courtroom. That can be found at the Courthouse from the end of the previous week in the schedule of court fixtures for the coming week which identify the judge or judicial officer and the courtroom number as well as time and date. Because the courts do not have e-mail facilities, communication with the parties and their lawyers is not undertaken electronically. There is, of course, no reason why that cannot be done where the party, solicitor or counsel involved, as well as the courts, have e-mail facilities.

Delivering the initiation document (service)

Although the paper at this point is concerned with service of the notice of proceeding and statement of claim, general principles of service apply to subsequent documents as well. Rule 126 states the general principle that a statement of claim is to be served on a defendant personally. Personal service is effected by leaving the document with the person to be served or, if he does not accept it, by putting it down in his presence and bringing it to his notice, [18] Personal service of electronic documents in the form of floppy disks appears to be fully within the definition, once Rules 23 to 40 are amended to allow documents in other than paper form and it is known that the recipient has computer facilities. Since those facilities cannot be assumed, then service of the notice of proceeding and statement of claim would have to remain in paper form unless previously agreed between the parties. [19] Electronic service, eg e-mail, would not be personal service and so would not qualify, just as service by post or document exchange is not personal service.

A plaintiff filing a statement of claim or originating application and a defendant filing a statement of defence in protest to jurisdiction, or notice of opposition to an originating application, must, with the first document filed include a memorandum stating what is the address for service of that party and the way in which that party can be served in future. The consequence of failure to include an address for service is that the person is not entitled to receive notice of any further documents in the matter. The means of service of these later documents is: personal service, leaving the document physically at the address for service, forwarding the document by post, by document exchange or by facsimile. [20] Once electronic documents are permitted, then, with the exception of service by facsimile, all means of service can be achieved by serving a floppy disk of the relevant document in the manner prescribed. There are additional provisions where documents are served by post, document exchange or facsimile. [21] The first relates to the date when the document is deemed to be served: it is the 5 ^th working day after the day of postage, the 2 ^nd working day after the day the document was left in the document exchange, and the day on which a facsimile is transmitted. [22] In the first two cases, if the day the document was in fact was received is earlier, then it is deemed to have been duly served on that earlier day. [23] The Rule goes on to provide that where a document is served by facsimile after 5pm on any day, the document is deemed to have been duly served on the first working day after that day. The Rule also provides that a document is not served by facsimile until it has been received in a complete and legible condition. [24] Finally, where a document is served by post, document exchange or facsimile, the recipient of the document is obliged immediately to give the person serving the document an acknowledgement in writing or by facsimile that the document has been received, including the date on which it was received. [25] This last requirement in the writer’s experience is scarcely ever observed.

Preparation of the hearing

Any notices to be given by the Court Registrar may be given by ordinary post addressed to the solicitor or the party at the address for service given in the proceedings or at the solicitor’s place of business. [26] There is equivalent provision where the party is not acting by a solicitor. [27] The Rule also provides that notices may be given in such other manner as the court directs. [28] Once more, there is no inherent reason why the court could not direct that communications be made by e-mail.

In the last year or so, the High Court has introduced pilot schemes for case management. These involve considerable judicial control of the pace of proceedings. The practice note dealing with the case management pilot schemes provides that all data relating to the case management system will be on a computer, all conference listings will be recorded in an electronic diary and notices of relevant dates will be computer generated. [29] The first directions conference will be fixed by certain times in relation to the date of filing the proceedings, but all later events will be fixed at the proceeding conference or shortly thereafter in consultation with the parties and counsel. [30]

Hearing and evidence

It is in relation to this aspect that the use of modern technology has been most marked in the processes of the courts. Evidence may be received on video as well as orally and by affidavit and where cross-examination is required, evidence may be heard by video conferencing methods. These developments were initiated by the courts without the need for any legislative intervention. In the criminal context, evidence by video link was approved in R v Accused (CA 32/91 [31] , and in civil litigation it was approved in B v Dentists Disciplinary Tribunal [32] where the issue is discussed in detail by Williams J. In his judgment, Williams J considered various procedural rules in the District Court which have equivalent in the High Court Rules which it was suggested meant that evidence could only be received where the person was physically present in the court. In rejecting the need for legislation to allow any alternative, [33] Williams J quoted Cooke P in R v Accused (CA 32/91) [34] :

“... the paramount duty of the Court to adapt its procedure to ensure that justice is done. This adaptability should enable the adjustment of Court procedure to take advantage of technological advances.”

Williams J added [35] that there is every reason for that approach to be taken not only in relation to the District Court and High Court but also in relation to a specialist tribunal such as the Dentists Disciplinary Tribunal. Williams J then reviewed case law in other common law countries adopting video linking or tele-conferencing and concluded [36] :

“In view of this considerable body of opinion and experience there is no reason not to embrace this new technology. However, that the Court or Tribunal has the jurisdiction to employ this technology does not eliminate the need to ensure that it is used fairly.”

In considering whether it was fair in the circumstances to take a particular evidence by video link, the Judge considered the nature of the cross-examination which was expected to take place, the comparative effectiveness of cross-examination on a “live” and “video” witness, the effect of the short time delay between asking questions and receiving answers. [37] In the particular case, because the evidence was to be that of an expert witness and problems of assessing the demeanour of a witness in terms of credibility at present, the Judge held that a video conference hearing of the evidence was appropriate. [38] In addition to this Judge-made law, there are several statutory provisions dealing with taking evidence by video tape and these are mainly in the criminal area, particularly that of sexual crimes and child witnesses. [39] There is, however, also legislative provision of evidence by video tape in relation to evidence emanating from Australia in competition law cases. [40]

Legal information

Under the adversarial system, the primary obligation to identify the statutes, precedents and other authorities lies on counsel. In the New Zealand context, therefore, the questions under this heading are properly directed towards the general availability of electronic legal authorities. Complete sets of current and historical (repealed) statutes and regulations are available on CD Rom from competing sources. The two procedure texts for the High Court are available on CD Rom along with a set of reports dealing with procedural issues. There are numerous other sets of CD Roms containing texts, statutes and commentary, and specialist law reports. Sets of all decisions of the Court of Appeal and High Court in recent years (whether reported or unreported) are available, as are the official law reports back to 1958. The Encyclopaedia of New Zealand Law (“Laws of New Zealand”) is on CD Rom. In addition on-line sources of Lexis and “Austlii” (the Australian legal database) are available. The situation has now arrived that counsel can do 90% or more of their legal research from their own rooms using electronic media (on-line of off-line).

All High Court Judges are provided with a laptop computer. The use they make of it is for them alone. The Department for Courts does not provide judges with the CD Rom authorities referred to in the preceding paragraph. Since the Courts themselves do not as such maintain subscriptions to Lexis or internet connections, the on-line databases referred to in the preceding paragraph are not available to judges unless they choose to subscribe to them personally, to access the “free” databases on personal internet connections, or to use the electronic facilities of the main Law Society libraries that are situated within the courthouses.

Final decision

As can be seen from the preceding section, the extent to which judges use computers and word processing programmes themselves if a matter for them. If they choose to use these facilities they can. If they choose to use their Associates (secretaries) to provide this service, then that again is for them.

Decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal are handed down publicly, either by the judge orally stating his decision and reasons or by the judgments being notified to the parties by the Registrar that they are available and providing copies to the media. There is at present no provision for them to be published directly by the court in electronic form, although since the written judgment and reasons will have been prepared on a computer, that would be a short step.

Complex litigation proceedings

In the most highly complex litigation proceeding in New Zealand, Equiticorp Industries Group Ltd v The Crown [41] the documents discovered by the parties in the proceeding were scanned and subject to optical character recognition and then put on to a computer system available to all counsel, witnesses and the Judge on which they could be called up and referred to in the course of evidence. A computerised real time record of the oral proceedings was also taken.

Appeal

Since the court documents in the High Court are not kept electronically, the question of the use of the High Court electronic records for purposes of an appeal does not arise.

Particular procedures in the High Court

The Auckland High Court Registry operates a special commercial list which contains its own procedural provisions adapted to commercial cases and directed towards bringing them on for hearing as quickly as practicable. Because only the one registry operates a commercial list, cases all over the country are on it. Cases come on to the commercial list by endorsement to that effect on the statement of claim or statement of defence [42] or by order of the court. [43] Until that time, they are no different from ordinary proceedings in the High Court and the earlier discussions of institution of proceedings and service of the initiating document apply. Once the proceedings are on the commercial list, they are treated differently until they are set down for hearing. The hearing is exactly the same as in other cases.

Any applications to the court for interlocutory determination are made by “sending” the document to the court and to all other parties. [44] “Sending” is defined [45] as “by post, facsimile, telex, or other written communication”. Since an application is a document, the rules relating to the form of documents discussed earlier apply and would exclude electronic documents. There are additional powers for a commercial list judge to give directions in several relevant respects. [46] The Judge may order that the applications be dealt with or conferences held by way of telephone conference link up. [47] The court may deal with applications by way of “telegram, facsimile, telex message, or courier post”. [48] Curiously, this provision now includes a form of transmission which no longer exists in New Zealand, ie the telegram, but excludes e-mail. The court may by consent direct the use that is to be made of video tapes, film projections, computers, and other equipment. [49] This is the only reference to the use of computers in the Rules. It is noted that the power exists only by consent of the parties. Although it is unlikely in a commercial list case, it is still foreseeable that counsel for a party may be insufficiently experienced with computers to feel comfortable about conducting a case in which they are used.

There are also special provisions relating to proceedings in the High Court under the Commerce Act 1986 (New Zealand’s competition legislation) and proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Commonwealth) (the Australian equivalent). These provisions were introduced in 1990 recognising the Treaty for Closer Economic Relations between Australia and New Zealand which increasingly is making the two markets one. As with the commercial list rules, the rules here recognise that litigation is going to be undertaken at a distance. There is provision for the issuing of subpoenas in a New Zealand proceeding for service in Australia compelling an Australian witness to attend a New Zealand proceeding. [50] Service of the subpoena is by personal service in the usual way and the comments made earlier about personal service in ordinary proceedings will apply. [51] An application by a person to set aside such a subpoena may be filed by facsimile. [52] Communications between the Federal Court of Australia and the High Court of New Zealand are provided to be by way of facsimile. [53] The hearing of evidence and submissions may be by video link or telephone conference. [54]

NEW PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH ELECTRONIC LITIGATION PROCESSES

It can be seen from the preceding major section of this paper that it would be open to the courts now to operate an electronic litigation process but for the provisions relating to the form of documents and to the requirements for signatures. In order to identify the problems associated with a move to electronic litigation processes, a consideration of the policies underlying the provisions on the form of documents is revealing.

The key rule in this respect is Rule 25. That provides in Sub-rule (1) that the contents of each document shall be legible and shall be clearly “typewritten, printed, or produced in permanent form by photocopying”. Handwriting is authorised by Sub-rules (2)and (3) for the date of a document and its signature. The underlying policy is that documents at the court (and by inference with other parties on whom copies of the documents are served) have a clear content. That is something that (a) contains words that can be recognised without doubt and (b) is the authoritative statement of the party or witness unless it is later amended or revoked. The paper record held in the custody of a person (ie, the Court) other than a party in conditions of some security has the further policy that a document is not changed without everyone else knowing that it has been changed.

The court copy of the document can be examined and any alterations from that copy rejected. Conversion from paper to electronic medium allows documents to be changed and the re-saved document would not show that there has been a change other than by reference to the computer registry identifying the date and size of the file saved. Even that, can be avoided by altering the date on the computer while making the change and then restoring the correct date. Concern at electronic documents being changed by such a stratagem, it is considered, is pedantic because a person who wishes to alter a court document currently may do so if he or she can copy the exact font, paperweight and page set up and simply substitute a fresh page (making sure that the staple is inserted in exactly the same place as the previous one). The objective of an authoritative document is not, it is considered, to be measured by absolute security but by avoidance of accidental or unintentional changes. In that respect, making all documents filed “read only” avoids the problem. The problem of words that are clear to read is not a problem in electronic litigation as it is a problem arising from handwriting and avoided by the “typescript” in which documents are created electronically.

Electronic litigation raises one further risk and that is of hacking into the court computer. This, too, can be avoided easily. The solution is considered to be that court documents are held on floppy disks at all times and that the floppy disk is the authoritative version of any document, not what is (temporarily) on the central processing unit. This may involve a little los of efficiency in that when a Judge wants to deal with a file, the floppy disk would need to be brought to him or her but that is no different from the present situation where a paper file has to be brought. Indeed, it would be a substantial advantage in that even in very complex cases, a few disks could be carried rather than a trolley loaded with binders. If the case is so complex that a small number of floppy disks is insufficient, the use of zip disks or equivalent large volume removal media is available.

If the courts do not use e-mail because of the risk of hacking, that fear too may be less in fact. Save for exceptionally large documents, the internet connection is open only for short periods. Alternatively, use of a stand-alone (“quarantine safe”) computer for e-mail, would greatly limit risk.

Again, the question of being sure that a document is actually authorised by a party can be overcome to the same degree as it is currently. Court staff may recognise particular people coming to file documents as coming from particular firms of solicitors, but that would not necessarily be so and documents are accepted by the court and filed at face value. If a document has been filed by somebody not authorised to file it on behalf of a party, the first time that that document comes in question the party would disclaim it and an investigation would be necessary to see whether the document was authorised or not. The position is no different for an electronic document from a paper document. If a document is filed by post, there will be a covering letter. That will have on it the solicitor’s or party’s letterhead and a signature. There is no problem over letterheads electronically. A letter with the electronic letterhead of a firm or party can be attached to a standard form e-mail.

That leaves the question of signatures. There are two possible solutions here. The first is that signatures can be scanned and turned into files which can be attached to an e-mail or inserted in a letter form which is itself an attachment to an e-mail. They would be recognisable signatures. The second solution is the use of an “electronic signature”.

The one remaining problem associated with signatures is that of affidavits. At present, a person swearing or affirming evidence by affidavit takes the typewritten document to a solicitor of a firm not associated with the party on whose behalf the affidavit is being filed. It may or may not be signed before it is shown to that solicitor. There is a short question and answer session between solicitor and witness and the solicitor then signs his name and initials the pages.

It is considered that the solution to this question is again found by looking at the purpose of the formality of an affidavit and the question and answer session. The formality of the affidavit is to make the witness liable for perjury if the evidence is perjured. There is a secondary purpose in making it formal and tying it to an oath (for those who believe in God) that it may lead witnesses to be more careful with saying exactly what they believe and not something approximately right, as people tend to do in informal situations. The question and answer session is designed to obtain a statement from the witness that the person presenting the document is the witness and that this is the evidence that the witness wishes to put forward. All of this can be covered in one or both of two ways.

The first is to vary the introductory form of the affidavit to contain statements contained in the question and answer session with the witness appending the scanned image of his or her signature at the bottom. If it is thought that some external check is necessary, then the affidavit saved in Rich Text Format can be taken to a solicitor, brought up on the computer there, and the solicitor can undertake the question and answer session and insert a scanned image of his or her signature in the affidavit as at present. The document would then be saved again and made Read Only. It would then be filed.

CHANGING THE RULES

The definition of document can remain. The rules relating to the form of documents can be amended by the addition of new sub-rules aimed at electronic reproduction. Thus, Rule 24 headed “paper” could be amended by changing the heading to “document set up” and a new sub-rule added along the lines that where a document is filed electronically, the page set up shall be of international size A4. In Rule 25 headed “contents to be typed, etc”, there is no need for the heading to be changed. However, words such as “produced in electronic form” would need to be added to sub-rule (4). Rule 26 on margins requires only the addition of “or page setup” after the word “paper”. Rule 27 headed “signature to be original” may be amended by reducing the heading to “signature” and adding a new sub-rule referring to the use of scanned signatures in electronic documents. Rule 30 on fastening and number of sheets would require the word “pages” to be substituted for “sheets” and for new sub-rules respectively providing “if a paper document, the pages shall be securely fastened together”, and “if an electronic document, shall constitute a single document”. The existing sub-rule requiring each page to be numbered consecutively would require amendment to apply both to paper documents and electronic documents. Because electronic documents may be printed out and used from time to time, the general rules on formatting have equal application to both kinds of documents.

In relation to service, Rule 192(1)(d) providing for service other than physical service would require amendment by the insertion “e-mail address” before the reference to facsimile number in each situation. Rule 206A requiring acknowledgement would be similarly amended.

The other more general amendment would involve the insertion of a new definition “signature” saying that it “in respect of an electronic document includes a scanned signature”.

In respect of the other particular provisions identified in the second major part of this paper where it has been noted that the provisions are phrased in a way that would exclude electronic documents and which would not be cured simply by altering the rules relating to form of documents, a particular reference to electronic transmission would need to be inserted.

It is considered that the use of e-mail by lawyers is now sufficiently widespread to make it practical to include electronic documentation for litigation, that the amendments to the rules required would in fact be rather limited, and that the ability to search documents in litigation by the court and by party is sufficiently worthwhile to warrant the amendments.

Footnotes:

[1] LLM (VUW) Ph.D (Cantab), Barrister of the High Court of New Zealand.

[2] High Court Rules 1985. Replacing the Code of Civil Procedure which dates back to 1882.

[3] District Courts Act 1979, s 9(2).

[4] District Courts Amendment Act 1989 s 2(1).

[5] District Courts Amendment Act 1991, s 6(1).

[6] Department for Courts Annual Report 1998, p 35.

[7] Ibid, p 37.

[8] Ibid, p 75.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Brookers Law Directory 1999 pp 541-543. Some towns are as small as 12,000 people.

[11] Ibid, p 543-550. Some towns are as small as 3,500 people.

[12] Ibid, electronic version.

[13] Ibid.

[14] HCR 3 definitions of “address for service”.

[15] HCR 44 amended by High Court Amendment Rules 1991, R3(1).

[16] (Unreported) High Court, Wellington, (Master Thomson), CP 202/98, 13 November 1998.

[17] Ibid page 6 .

[18] Rule 197.

[19] Just as at present service can be on the defendant’s solicitor, if agreed.

[20] Rule 192.

[21] Rule 206A.

[22] Rule 206A(1)(a)(i), (h)(i) and (c),

[23] Rule 206A(1)(a)(ii) and (b)(ii).

[24] Ibid.

[25] Rule 206A(4).

[26] Rule 195(a).

[27] Rule 195(b).

[28] Rule 195(c).

[29] McGechan on Procedure page 6.29, Sims Court Practice , page N33, para 12.1 and 12.2.

[30] Ibid, para 12.2.

[31] [1992] 1 NZLR 257.

[32] [1994] 1 NZLR 95.

[33] Ibid, 104-105.

[34] [1992] 1 NZLR, 262.

[35] [1994] 1 NZL, 105.

[36] Ibid, 107.

[37] Ibid, 107-108.

[38] Ibid, 108.

[39] Evidence Act 1908, ss 23C-23I, Summary Procedure Act 1957, s 185CA, Evidence Ivideo taping of child complainants) Regulations 1990.

[40] Evidence Amendment Act 1994, s 21.

[41] [1998] 2 NZLR 481.

[42] Rule 446C.

[43] Rule 446D.

[44] Rule 446G(1).

[45] Rule 446G(2).

[46] Rule 446O.

[47] Rule 446O(2)(b).

[48] Rule 446O(2)(c).

[49] Rule 446O(2)(f).

[50] Rule 446U.

[51] Ibid.

[52] Rule 446X.

[53] Various rules.

[54] Rule 446ZC.