• Introducing the New Zealand Justice Forum

    The New Zealand Justice Forum aims to pool the collective experiences of our citizens, lawyers, and academics in order to discuss the many defects that weaken the integrity of the legal system.
  • Hart decision hidden by judge’s justice 'tax'


    A High Court judge has imposed a rare "justice tax" on a decision involving struck-off lawyer Barry Hart’s bank battles.To get a copy of his reserved judgment in a case involving Mr Hart and ANZ Bank, Associate Judge David Abbott ordered media to pay a fee of $36.30.

    The judge this week issued his decision to Mr Hart and the bank, and to commercial legal publications, but not to the public. NBR ONLINE earlier reported the case in court and in the normal course of events requested a copy of the reserved judgment as soon as it became available.

    A court official later told NBR ONLINE the decision – which would normally be emailed through – was available.
    But on this occasion, for some unclear reason, NBR ONLINE was told Associate Judge Abbott ordered media to pay if they wanted a copy. No further explanation was given.

    Judgment payment rare
    Ordering media to pay for High Court judgments is rare.Judges usually take the view quick access to their judgments is part of the open justice principles under which New Zealand courts operate.There have been numerous High Court judgments in the Hart affair, none of which have been subject to a release fee.There is considerable public interest in the financial and professional troubles of Mr Hart, so this judgment is of particular interest.In due course the judgment may appear on the publicly accessible Judicial Decisions Online website, but there is no guarantee this will happen and if it does it can take two to three weeks or more to appear.

    Justice boss yet to clarify
    When justice ministry CEO Andrew Bridgeman visited NBR a couple of months back he was keen to remove inconsistent administrative hurdles journalists have to overcome in order to promptly advise the public of High Court judgments.
    Mr Bridgeman has yet to reply to our request for clarification.
    But already NBR ONLINE has been told this week it would have to apply for permission to report a straightforward commercial court case in open court.

    Credit- Jock Anderson NBR
    Comments 2 Comments
    1. courtwatcher's Avatar
      courtwatcher -
      This is the dirty little secret about New Zealand courts. Hart is lucky to get a judgment at all!! It is very common for judges to issue unrecorded Minutes to dispose of applications, particularly in respect to judicial bias and disqualification. I believe top constitutional lawyer Tony Ellis received a reply from court staff in one case informing him the judge had written his decision on the file.
    1. PJ and AJ Harrison's Avatar
      PJ and AJ Harrison -
      The Law Society (evidence held against them) condones the named lawyers R Parmenter, P Macky, S Wyness, W (Bill) Patterson, G Pollak, P Wicks, N Birdsey in their breaking of the LCCCR legislation to aid and abet defrauding a legal family trust deed. Peter Macky (Auckland) the ring leader. Added to this H Bouchier the LCRO champions P Macky and partakers in his deceit. She misuses the Crown Stamp in attempt to endorse the abetting of this fraud. The heavy hand from the Law Society clamps down on Mr Hart while the hypocrisy of the Standards Committee 3 Law Society whitewashes and so partakes to aid and abet trust fraud. This is what is called hypocrisy and Mr Hart should be made aware that this two-timing of the Law Society, the heavy hand against him, in comparison with the abetting of Standards Committee 3 (David Chisholm, Stewart Germann, Greg Blanchard, Alan Webb, Maria Dew, Steve Antunovich, Glenn Teal) with the knowledge of Jonathan Temm to cover up for these named lawyers (above) is what is called corrupt disparity against Mr Hart when a band of lawyers violate the LCCCRs and get pampered for it. All strong substantive evidence is held. For example amongst many others, G Pollak stood up at an interlocutory hearing in the Auckland High Court and stated a malicious lie to deceive made by P Macky and his accomplices who instructed G Pollak to falsely state that a Final Beneficiary was a stranger of the family trust which is total deception so as to cheat entitlement. When subsequently faced with what he had done after I got evidence of the lie, Pollak replied he was "under instructions" to say it, which is Peter Macky and Raymond Parmenter's dishonest instructions. In comes Raymond Parmenter later who stated his "joy and pleasure" calling G Pollak a "clever chap" after having pulled their fraud. Also, Parmenter emailed to G Pollak stating "so that Mr Pollak does not receive further unwanted correspondence from you I have suggested that he consign your address to junk mail". P Macky prepared the Trust Deed and has known all along that I am an absolute final beneficiary of my sister's family trust and he deliberately calculated to deceive me for dishonest assistance to his clients (the trustees) who have stolen my entitlement greater than $100,000.00 in Trust Property. His clients are using the Trust Property as a "bach" for themselves and have never managed the Trust as a prudent investment and have mixed Trust money with their personal bank accounts, and have made a sham trust for themselves behind the final beneficiary's back without consultation in an attempt to push out and cheat an absolute final beneficiary. In conflict of interest Peter Macky has betrayed his client the settlor and instead given dishonest assistance to his other clients the trustees so as to defraud the final beneficiary of her entitlement which is protected in the terms of the Trust Deed which is legally binding in Trust Law under the Trustee Act 1956. Mr Hart needs to know what is going on with the Law Society flourishing favours to other lawyers for dishonest acts and violation of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 and Trust Law. Mr Temm, President of the New Zealand Law Society, has been written to an he's not interested and won't raise his little finger, and it was asked why are you speaking publicly in a newspaper against Mr Hart on behalf of the Law Society when you don't raise a finger to dishonest lawyers in this other case. It is clear that Mr Hart is being used as a scapegoat for the appearance that the Law Society is doing something when in fact the Law Society has corrupt double-standards, proof held. These dishonest lawyers also intentionally dishonestly lapsed my legal caveat over the family trust property when they knew I am a absolute final beneficiary and they hide behind malicious silence when they have been found out. They are still stealing my entitlement and this case is currently dangling in the Auckland High Court all because of the corrupt collusion between recalciitrant biased judges in breach of rule 1.2 of the High Court Rules, Trust Law, LCCCRs and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and Crimes Act 1961 on Deception, and these lawyers dishonest interference and deception against trust final beneficiary entitlement. The LCCCRs prohibit lawyers from advising a client to engage in conduct, or assist any person with any fraudulent or criminal activity. The cover sheet of the Trust Deed proves that P Macky has known all along I am a final beneficiary and his own signature on the Trust Deed exposes him. There is definitely indeed double-standard, disparity, duplicity, hypocrisy, favours, against the Principles of the Rule of Law, and these are being exercised out by the Law Society and its Committee who hypocritically haul up Mr Hart yet hand out corrupt favours to Peter Macky, Raymond Parmenter, Susan Wyness (at Macky Roberton), William (Bill) Patterson, Garry Pollak, Nicholas Birdsey, Paul Wicks, and the firm of Macky Roberton. A law for one and not for another by obvious two-faced hypocritical beaurocrats on the Law Society who clearly as shown in the case of Mr Hart pick out a scapegoat when they have the urge when it suits them to promote their image, which is hypocrisy, but at the same time turn a blind eye to the other named lawyers dishonesty and grant them largess favours, thus partaking and abetting fraud. My email is pjharrisonnz@gmail.com
  • Copyright

    The New Zealand Copyright Act 1994 specifies certain circumstances where all or a substantial part of a copyright work may be used without the copyright owner's permission. A "fair dealing" with copyright material does not infringe copyright if it is for the following purposes: research or private study; criticism or review; or reporting current events. If you are a legal copyright holder, or a designated agent for such, and you believe a post on this website falls outside the boundaries of "fair dealing," and legitimately infringes on your or your client's copyright, please contact the administrator of this site. NZJF contains both original material and material from external sources. Original material: Copyright NZJF. Material from external sources: Copyright the respective owners / authors.