Chauvel Charles: Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Chauvel Charles: Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:649;Page:17955] 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 The High Court Rules set out the rules of operation for the High Court in its civil jurisdiction. As we have heard in 2004 the Rules Committee commenced separate projects to redraft the High Court Rules and District Court Rules respectively. That followed the Government’s acknowledgment that it was appropriate for the Rules Committee to decide on the content of any redrafting project as recommended by the Law Commission. In April 2007 an exposure draft of the new rules was produced. This was released for public consultation. Particular targets of that consultation exercise were the New Zealand Law Society; all of the 14 district law societies that then existed; the New Zealand Bar Association; the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants as it then was; the New Zealand Business Roundtable; the Ministry of Economic Development; and the Commerce Commission. The Ministry of Justice then commissioned an independent review from David Goddard QC and his report was included in the nine submissions that were examined in October 2007 which led to further drafting improvement. So it was that in June 2008 the Rules Committee concluded its redrafting project. 
I wish to commend the legislation to the House. In its full form it comprises 759 pages: the Judicature (High Court Rules) Amendment Bill which has 10 clauses the explanatory note of the bill and a schedule which is of course where the meat to the legislation is. It contains the new rules and prescribed forms totalling 223 pages. Although the legislation is massive in size it is quite straightforward and simple even for those provisions that require parliamentary authorisation. 
Most of the proposed High Court Rules in the new schedule follow the content of the existing rules but they also improve accessibility. They adopt a plain English drafting style. There is a new layout with a logical series of parts and subparts that follows the sequence of general proceedings and then special topics such as those dealing with the insolvency or admiralty jurisdictions of the High Court. 
One of the key changes that require the authorisation of this House and therefore of Parliament is the repeal of section 52 of the Judicature Act 1908 which is an obsolete provision. Also attachment orders are modernised. The practice available in the District Court that provides for attachment orders on wages and benefits to recover civil debts is brought to the High Court. As with District Court orders employers will on a conviction be liable for a fine of up to $1000 for failing to administer an order—that is by virtue of clause 10 which is an amendment to the Summary Offences Act—or for discriminating against an employee who is subject to an order. That is dealt with in clause 9 in an amendment to the District Courts Act. 
Service out of New Zealand is also modified. The legislation clarifies service out of New Zealand for civil proceedings and the High Court’s powers to grant interim relief in support of proceedings before a foreign court. Indeed Mr Finlayson and I were at a meeting of the rules subcommittee just this morning where this matter and several others were considered in some last-minute work on the rules that are now before the House. There are changes relating to international and trans-Tasman court proceedings. Of course the House will be aware that a treaty has been concluded between the Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand to make the enforcement of court judgments in all superior courts across the commonwealth and in New Zealand more easy and the rules that will ultimately emerge from this exercise will also facilitate that process. 
The rules codify some common law practices such as freezing orders encompassing Mareva injunctions; freezing assets including those of third parties where there is a real prospect that the assets may be required to satisfy a judgment; and search orders such as Anton Piller orders where the ability to search and seize evidence required for a civil proceeding is dealt with. 
There are four other important changes. The e-filing provisions which will commence at a later date by Order in Council once the operational and financial implications for the Ministry of Justice are settled are important provisions. The former rules relating to constituency election petition rules are omitted. They will be dealt with in stand-alone rules to be made by Order in Council. Rule 1.16 which I want to draw particular attention to operationalises the use of New Zealand Sign Language in the High Court. This was a matter that I raised at my first meeting of the subcommittee and I am delighted to see that the provisions have been incorporated appropriately into the rules. Then there is rule 1.22 which is an example of some of the new rules that enable the High Court to respond to modern requirements where procedural safeguards allow with the agreement of the parties the court to correspond with foreign courts. 
Some tributes have been paid tonight. I think it would be remiss if Justice Fogarty were not recognised. He is the new chair of the Rules Committee and the judge is doing a fine job in that role. It is not easy to bring together the differing arcane perspectives of lawyers who enjoy debating procedure as can probably be imagined but the judge is doing an excellent job in that respect if I may say so. 
It is delightful to hear that this very sensible series of amendments bringing in these new rules will receive support from across the House.