LAW COURTS

Waikato Times, Volume 124, Issue 20785, 21 April 1939, Page 5

LAW COURTS

AUSTRALIA AND DOMINION INTERESTING COMPARISONS Comparisons between the administration of the law in Australia and New Zealand were made by Mr A. L. Tompkins, of Hamilton, upon his return this week from a visit to the Commonwealth. “In Australia there is an astonishing multiplicity of law courts,” said Mr Tompkins in describing a visit to the different courts he made with a Sydney Barrister. In Australia the Magistrate's Court had jurisdiction up to £SO only as compared with jurisdiction up to £3OO in New Zealand. In Australia there was a County Court which had jurisdiction up to £4OO but it was presided over by a judge and often had juries for some cases. The High Court of Australia, explained Mr Tompkins, was divided into Courts of Equity and Courts of Common law. The old English distinction between equity and common law had not been abolished in the Commonwealth as it had been in England and New Zealand. A? a result there was considerable difficulty in AuMrali ■ in distinguishing which was the appropia*e court for any particular case. Often cases were struck out because they had been brought in the wrong court. Tlie Labour Laws in Australia were administered partly by the state Arbitration Courts and partly b> the Federal Arbitration Court. TV-re again considerable difficulty was <- •- pecit ed in determii labour dispute was a state nr federal matter. Litigation in Australia w is more expensive than in New Zealand because in every case a solicitor must first be instructed and he must then

appoint a barrister. No barrister may practise as a solicitor and no solicitor as a barrister One of the most impressive features of law in Australia was the early age at which judges were appointed. One judge was 32 and a judge of Ihe High Court of Australia was appointed when 38. In New Zealand the average age of appointment was very much higher.