Little Justice: Neil Cameron’s battle for justice through the civil courts after rent-free debacle

The Camerons' house in Christchurch. Photo / Supplied

Nearly 100,000 New Zealanders every year will engage with the civil justice system with claims totalling $150 million. But it can be a costly and frustrating process for some who spend years seeking the justice they believe they are entitled to. Jeremy Wilkinson talks to one man who’s been through the process about whether it’s worth the time, money and effort.

Neil Cameron has spent several years in and out of tribunals and the courts trying to settle with a landlord who claimed he was owed rent, and the company that bungled repairs to his earthquake-damaged townhouse.

It’s cost the Christchurch man tens of thousands in legal fees and hundreds of hours of his own time - and been an incredibly frustrating process.

“Unless you have an unlimited amount of time and money, don’t f***ing bother,” he told NZME while mired in several civil justice cases in 2023.

Cameron spoke to NZME at the time about his struggles after being partially successful in overturning a Tenancy Tribunal order that ruled he pay the owner of the house he lived in rent-free for almost 15 months nearly $53,000.

Cameron and his wife, and the landlord, incorrectly assumed their insurer was footing the bill for rent while his home was being repaired. But the company thought it was only funding six months’ worth of accommodation.

Cameron said they’d always accepted the landlord was due rent - but not from them.

The landlord took the couple to the Tenancy Tribunal three years after the fact for the unpaid rent and was successful.

It then took over a year, an appeal, a trip to the district court and thousands of dollars in legal bills for Cameron to have it partly overturned, halving the amount he had to pay the landlord as well as getting his legal costs back.

Cameron also had a claim in the Disputes Tribunal against the company that bungled the repairs on his townhouse and caused the delays, which he won to the tune of $30,000 - the maximum amount the tribunal can award.

But it also cost him tens of thousands in legal fees and hundreds of hours of his own time.

Cameron is unable to comment on the case now as he’s recently reached a settlement.

However, in 2023 he said he wouldn’t have been able to navigate either tribunal, where lawyers aren’t allowed inside the courtroom but can be employed for advice, without legal assistance.

Cameron took his claim to the Disputes Tribunal, which claimed it didn’t have jurisdiction. So he filed with the Tenancy Tribunal because it was an issue with the body corporate and its own insurance.

The Tenancy Tribunal sent him back to the Disputes Tribunal, which initially ruled against him but then he won on a rehearing.

“It sounds complicated because it is. Now imagine trying to navigate it,” he said at the time.

“I have work flexibility, and am not too bad off financially, and it was just an insane process.”

However, there were multiple instances where he’d been to court, with his notes in order, only to find his hearing had been adjourned.

“If I was just a regular person on a regular salary who had a real problem and I was in the right, the court would have just cost me half a day’s salary,” he said.

“I think it would have killed somebody who didn’t have the time to spare.”

Despite his frustrations, Cameron said taking the cases was worth the ordeal, despite not breaking even on what he spent on legal costs versus what he actually recouped.

Tribunals are not always accessible to the public

Cameron is one of nearly 100,000 New Zealanders who are party in a civil justice case in New Zealand every year, with claims averaging $150 million annually across the various jurisdictions.

With this being one of the main ways the public accesses justice, it’s meant to be a cheap and easy way for people to sort out their grievances without needing to get a lawyer involved.

However, civil justice expert at Otago University, Associate Professor Bridgette Toy-Cronin told NZME navigating the various tribunals was not always straightforward.

“I can see where it would be confusing for people,” she said.

“There could be a better front end for people to understand what their options are.”

Bridgette Toy-Cronin. Photo / ODT

Toy-Cronin said some applicants likely looked at the process, felt daunted by it and decided it wasn’t going to be worth their time.

The large number of dispute resolution options was seen as a strength by the Ministry of Justice in a recent report it commissioned. However, it was also a bit of a double-edged sword.

“The lack of information about the different options, confusion about pathways, suitability of different mechanisms for particular disputants, costs, and availability in a particular place, are all potential barriers,” that report noted.

Similar problems were found by the Law Commission in 2008.

“Tribunals are not always accessible to the public and there are problems of awareness and information about different tribunals,” its report, authored by Sir Geoffrey Palmer, noted.

Sir Geoffrey Palmer. Photo / Steven McNicholl.

“There is wide variation in procedures, powers and appeal rights from tribunals. While we must be careful to avoid the trap of ‘one size fits all’, a more coordinated approach is needed.”

Palmer found a lack of overall coherence, with tribunals developed on an “ad hoc” basis, which contributed to a fragmented system.

A recent survey of 5000 people carried out by the Ministry of Justice, called the Legal Needs Survey, intended to bridge a gap in understanding the way New Zealanders engage in the civil justice system.

It found only 5% of people had applied to a court (3%) or to a tribunal (2%) to resolve an issue they had.

The primary reasons people didn’t take civil action were that they viewed it as a waste of time, it was too stressful or they were too busy, they didn’t understand the process, feared an unfavourable outcome or had simply cut their losses.

Eight per cent didn’t take action because they weren’t confident doing so would make a difference. That was despite 85% of respondents who did use a court or tribunal saying it resolved their issue.

Justice delayed

A phrase often touted in legal circles is “justice delayed is justice denied”.

It’s a simple concept meaning a swift resolution to any legal issue is the most ethical way to achieve justice.

The Disputes Tribunal had a 29% increase in the number of cases it heard annually in the last five years, from 13,000 in 2019 to 17,000 in the past year. There was also a 20% increase in the average number of days it took for a case to be resolved from 96 to 116 days.

The Tenancy Tribunal heard 14,000 cases in 2019, which dipped to just 10,000 in 2021. In the 2023 to 2024 year it heard another 14,000 cases and had a turnaround time averaging about 34 days.

Meanwhile, the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal doubled its caseload in the last decade, with 584 hearing applications in the past year. In the last five years it also had a 25% increase in the time it took to resolve a case, with the average being 84 days.

According to the Legal Needs Survey, 62% of cases lasted up to six months, 12% lasted between six months and a year. A further 12% took between a year and two years while 13% lasted more than that.

Taking a claim to the Human Rights Review Tribunal however took more than 900 days on average - a time that had nearly doubled in five years, despite its caseload remaining consistent at about 180 per year.

The Human Rights Review Tribunal has a nearly 3-year resolution timeline for cases. Photo / Jeremy Wilkinson

That tribunal had a much higher claim cap of $350,000, required a referral from the Privacy, Health and Disability or Human Rights Commissioner and generally heard cases that were significantly more complex than other tribunals.

Still, some people had to wait four years from the time they lodged a complaint, through to resolution.

By comparison, the High Courts of New Zealand had an expectation that 90% of judgments would be delivered within three months of the conclusion of the hearing.

Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.