What Was That Thing You Said? the NZ Supreme Court's Vexing Vector Gas Decision

By Palmer, Jessica; Geddis, Andrew | University of Queensland Law Journal, December 2012 | Go to article overview

What Was That Thing You Said? the NZ Supreme Court's Vexing Vector Gas Decision


Palmer, Jessica, Geddis, Andrew, University of Queensland Law Journal


I WHAT IS IT WE ARE LOOKING FOR?

our task in this themed issue is to identify the worst decision handed down by New Zealand's top court in the last quarter-century (and, presumably, defend our choice through some form of reasoned analysis). To accomplish this undertaking, we must resolve a number of preliminary matters. First of all, we need to specify the object of our inquiry. An immediate complicating factor is that before 1 January, 2004, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sat at the apex of New Zealand's judicial pyramid. Following that date, a newly formed domestic Supreme Court took up the role. (1) Consequently, we must choose whether to include in our pool of potential contenders those decisions made at 9 Downing Street, or limit it to the output of the still quite young domestic institution. Including the Privy Council's contribution to New Zealand jurisprudence would have the benefit of permitting cases such as Buchanan v Jennings (2) or Bottrill v A (3) to have a chance of grabbing the dubious honour at stake. However, insofar as choosing a 'worst decision' involves an element of criticism and condemnation of judicial practice, we would prefer to level this at judges deliberately appointed to oversee New Zealand's case law and responsible for that task alone. (4) In short, castigating a judicial body sitting some 18,000 kilometres distant for doing a bad job when deciding what New Zealand's law ought to be--a job its members undertook alongside a range of others, and no longer have to perform--seems a bit beside the point. So for that reason, we have decided to confine the range of potential 'worst decisions' to the 167 final judgments with reasons handed down by the New Zealand Supreme Court as of the end of 2011.

Having thus identified the eligible contenders, the next matter to decide is how to decide which of these is the 'worst'. Deciding how to decide this question involves formulating a set of evaluative criteria that can distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' examples of judicial practice. In some fields of human endeavour, ranking an outcome or achievement relative to others is relatively straightforward. So, for example, it is possible to say definitively that the All Blacks are better at rugby than the Wallabies as they have emerged victorious on 99 of the 146 occasions that the two teams have met on the field. (5) Similarly, we can say that the Tampa Bay Buccaneers of 1976-77 are the worst ever team to play in the National Football League, due to the 0-26 record they amassed over that period. Or, we can say that Usain Bolt is the best sprinter in modern history as the only man to hold both the 100 and 200 meter world records at the same time. (As to whether he is the 'greatest athlete to live', as he proclaimed himself to be, (6) is then a further question that can only be resolved by extensive alcohol-fuelled barroom debate.) Such statements confidently can be made because sports have an inbuilt means of determining a clear hierarchy of achievement: the very purpose of the enterprise is to produce an outcome where, according to their performance on the day under the particular rules of the game, one competitor or team is shown to be the best. (7) However, when we turn to assess the relative merits of court decisions, this evaluative process is not as straightforward. There is no preordained method of direct comparison inherent in the very practice of judicial decision-making that allows us to say that the judgment in A v B outperformed that in C v D, much less to anoint the court's decision in Y v Z as obviously the poorest example of the lot. (8) So if the act of rendering judgment does not permit us to measure a court's case-versus-case performance as we would a football team's or marathon runner's, we must develop and impose a means of evaluation that will permit us to achieve our goal.

At this point we could try and cheat a bit by adopting a shortcut method of establishing such a ranking through pointing to some general consensus amongst those involved in legal education or practice.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

What Was That Thing You Said? the NZ Supreme Court's Vexing Vector Gas Decision
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.