Supreme Court Orders First Opt-Out Class Action in New Zealand: Southern Response Earthquake Services Limited v Ross

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nikki Chamberlain
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Court Orders

scholarly journals Reforming New Zealand's Class Action Procedures to Enhance Efficiency and Improve Access to Justice

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle Thorne
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Efficient Procedure ◽  
Legislative Reform ◽  
Class Actions ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Action Type ◽  
Enhance Efficiency ◽  
Action Procedure

<b>Abstract </b><p>This thesis addresses the question of whether New Zealand should reform its class action procedures in order to better meet the class action objectives of efficiency and access to justice. Class actions are a mechanism whereby groups of claimants with the same or similar claims can band together and bring proceedings. The ability for groups of similarly affected claimants to bring proceedings together provides certain advantages, including efficiency (both judicial efficiency and cost efficiency) and access to justice (where there may otherwise be none). The existence of a class action mechanism can also have a regulatory effect and serve to discourage illegal or inappropriate conduct. </p> <b>Currently, New Zealand does not have a dedicated class actions regime, and instead operates a class action type procedure under r 4.24 of the High Court Rules (known as a representative action). A review of the New Zealand position in relation to r 4.24 indicates that while there is a substantial body of law relating to the use of the representative action procedure, the objectives of the representative action procedure are not being met. The lack of legislative guidance in relation to the representative action has created significant difficulties for claimants in New Zealand. </b><p>Reforming the New Zealand class action procedure through legislative reform would provide a more efficient procedure and enhance access to justice. Wholesale legislative reform in the form of a dedicated class actions statute would be the best way forward for New Zealand. Legislative reform would need to address particular issues that have arisen in Australia and Ontario, including issues associated with the same interest requirement, opt-in and opt-out mechanisms, settlement requirements and limitation periods. The experience in Ontario and Australia illustrates the importance of ensuring the legislation is as clear as possible, and learning from the experience in those jurisdictions is vital if the objectives of the class action procedure are to be met. </p>

scholarly journals Materi dan Prosedur Penetapan Gugatan Perwakilan Kelompok, Studi Perbandingan: Indonesia dan Amerika Serikat

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 346
Author(s):  
Laras Susanti
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Law System ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Formal Requirements ◽  
Court Process

Abstract. Background of this article is, although it was first emerged in Common Law system countries, the practice of class action has been growing in Indonesia. This mechanism brings an opportunity to simplified the court’ process and to reduce the risk of disparity judgements. This article found similarities and differences scope and procedure of certification in Indonesia and the USA. Before examining the case, a presiding judges, accordingly to Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 Year 2002 concerning Procedure of Class Action, have to determine whether the case is eligible to be examine as class action case. This procedure is universally well-known as certification mainly focuses on the fulfilment of class action’s substantive requirements: numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation and formal requirements. The similar requirements are also implemented in the USA accordingly to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 23 Class Action. However, in those countries have different procedure when it comes to legal remedy to the certification order, mechanism to opt-out in case of settlement or withdrawal, the role of judge in assisting poor litigants and determining counsel’s fee. This article recommends Indonesia has to amend the Supreme Court regulation to add provisions on legal remedy, and mechanism to opt-out in case of settlement or withdrawal. 

scholarly journals Making Class Actions Work: The Untapped Potential of the Internet

2008 ◽  
Vol 69 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert H. Klonoff ◽  
Mark Herrmann ◽  
Bradley W. Harrison
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Class Action ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Vital Importance ◽  
Class Actions ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
To Receive

Over twenty years ago, the Supreme Court recognized that in class action litigation, absent class members “must receive notice plus an opportunity to be heard and participate in the litigation, whether in person or through counsel.” Although the absent class members’ rights to receive notice and an opportunity to opt out are of vital importance, the ability to be heard and participate in the litigation are also important.

scholarly journals Reforming New Zealand's Class Action Procedures to Enhance Efficiency and Improve Access to Justice

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle Thorne
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Efficient Procedure ◽  
Legislative Reform ◽  
Class Actions ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Action Type ◽  
Enhance Efficiency ◽  
Action Procedure

<b>Abstract </b><p>This thesis addresses the question of whether New Zealand should reform its class action procedures in order to better meet the class action objectives of efficiency and access to justice. Class actions are a mechanism whereby groups of claimants with the same or similar claims can band together and bring proceedings. The ability for groups of similarly affected claimants to bring proceedings together provides certain advantages, including efficiency (both judicial efficiency and cost efficiency) and access to justice (where there may otherwise be none). The existence of a class action mechanism can also have a regulatory effect and serve to discourage illegal or inappropriate conduct. </p> <b>Currently, New Zealand does not have a dedicated class actions regime, and instead operates a class action type procedure under r 4.24 of the High Court Rules (known as a representative action). A review of the New Zealand position in relation to r 4.24 indicates that while there is a substantial body of law relating to the use of the representative action procedure, the objectives of the representative action procedure are not being met. The lack of legislative guidance in relation to the representative action has created significant difficulties for claimants in New Zealand. </b><p>Reforming the New Zealand class action procedure through legislative reform would provide a more efficient procedure and enhance access to justice. Wholesale legislative reform in the form of a dedicated class actions statute would be the best way forward for New Zealand. Legislative reform would need to address particular issues that have arisen in Australia and Ontario, including issues associated with the same interest requirement, opt-in and opt-out mechanisms, settlement requirements and limitation periods. The experience in Ontario and Australia illustrates the importance of ensuring the legislation is as clear as possible, and learning from the experience in those jurisdictions is vital if the objectives of the class action procedure are to be met. </p>

The exclusion of prison informant evidence for unreliability in new Zealand

2021 ◽  
pp. 136571272110112
Author(s):  
Anna High
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Social Science ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Social Science Evidence ◽  
Science Evidence

Prison informant or ‘jailhouse snitch’ evidence is a notoriously unreliable category of evidence. In light of reliability concerns, the New Zealand Supreme Court has adopted a progressive approach to the exclusion of prison informant evidence, centred on greater use of general exclusionary provisions as a threshold of reliability for the admission of suspect evidence. In so doing, the court has shifted the emphasis from deference to the jury as arbiter of ultimate reliability and towards more robust judicial gatekeeping as a safeguard against false testimony. This article critically analyses the New Zealand approach, including by way of comparison with Canada, Australia and England and Wales. The New Zealand approach is presented as a principled and important example of adapting fundamental evidentiary principles and provisions in line with emerging social science evidence. However, in light of the general concerns surrounding this class of evidence, ultimately further safeguards are still needed

scholarly journals A Law and Economics Perspective on the EU Directive on Representative Actions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Visscher ◽  
M. Faure
Keyword(s):  
Law And Economics ◽  
Class Action ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Collective Actions ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Contingency Fees ◽  
Party Funding ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThis article provides an analysis of the Directive on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers of 25 November 2020. The Directive enables qualified entities to bring representative actions on behalf of the consumer. The article uses a Law and Economics approach to stress the advantages of collective actions as a tool to remedy rational apathy and free-rider behaviour. The article therefore in principle welcomes the fact that this Directive will lead to all Member States having some form of collective redress. However, it is rather difficult to fit this Directive into the economic criteria for centralization as there is no obvious danger of cross-border externalities or a race-to-the-bottom. The article is critical of the fact that the Directive only provides for a representative action and does not mention the alternative of a group action (sometimes referred to as a class action). This is especially problematic if there are very few qualified entities that could bring the representative action. Furthermore, the fact that Member States may choose an opt-in procedure instead of an opt-out procedure is critically evaluated. The most problematic aspect of the Directive is the funding of the representative action. Punitive damages and contingency fees are rejected, and the possibility of third-party funding is restricted. It is therefore to be feared that this Directive, notwithstanding the good intentions, may not lead to much application in practice, since the question of how the representative action is to be financed is not resolved in any satisfactory manner.

Competition Litigation

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Class Action ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Class Actions ◽  
Joint And Several Liability ◽  
Litigation Process ◽  
Opt Out ◽  
Full Analysis ◽  
Deutsche Bahn ◽  
The Uk

This book provides a comprehensive guide to all aspects of competition litigation in the UK. It covers both practice and procedure in the UK courts as well as in the Competition Appeal Tribunal. All aspects of case work are covered, from commencement of proceedings, group litigation, jurisdiction, applicable law, evidence, remedies, costs, and arbitration to criminal proceedings, giving competition lawyers a full analysis of the litigation process. There are also new chapters dedicated to the practice and procedure in Scotland and Northern Ireland.Fully updated in its second edition, coverage reflects important amendments to the Competition Act 1998; for example, the introduction of rules for class actions in the Competition Appeal Tribunal. As a result of the implementation of the Damages Directive, Directive 2014/204, new rules have been introduced for disclosure and joint and several liability. The book also covers the new cartel offence, which no longer has the mens rea of dishonesty.The new edition covers a range of important new cases: to name but a few, Sainsbury’s v MasterCard on the pass-on defence; Dorothy Gibson and Walter Merricks on opt-out class action; Cooper Tire and Toshiba Carrier on anchor defendants; and Deutsche Bahn on applicable law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document