Estimates Committee A - Answers to Questions Fifty-First Parliament, Second Session (51-2) 51 2 Parliament of South Australia Estimates Committee A - Answers to Questions published Estimates Replies Courts Administration Authority COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY In reply to Mrs REDMOND House of Assembly Heysen COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY In reply to Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (26 June 2008). The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON House of Assembly Croydon Attorney-General Minister for Justice Minister for Multicultural Affairs Minister for Veterans' Affairs COURTS ADMINISTRATION AUTHORITY The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Veterans' Affairs): I have received this advice: It is my understanding that the Chief Judge of the District Court of South Australia has written to the Member for Heysen with additional information about the District Court civil backlog. The issues are the number of lodgements more than 12 months old represented 43 per cent, the disparity between that figure and the target of 10 per cent, and why personal injury matters have an effect on the backlog indicator. Lodgements older than 12 months The material prepared for the Estimates Committee was based on figures for the first complete quarter of 2008. As at 31 March, 2008, there were 3,128 civil matters pending, that being the total across all three civil divisions of the court, of which 1,332 (42.583 per cent) had been pending for more than 12 months. As explained in the budget papers, many of the District Court civil matter are personal injury matters. The nature of those matters is that they take longer than 12 months to resolve. That is because of the time it takes for the full extent of injuries to be assessed. Similarly in the budget papers it is noted that performance against both the 12 month and 24 month standards for Supreme Court civil has show little movement. The greatest number of matters remain in the 'pre-trial' stage. A review of these matters by the masters confirmed that they are being actively managed towards finalisation. It is my understanding that the full extent of psychological and physical injuries can often take several years to manifest themselves. Similarly long-term medical treatment can greatly improve a plaintiff's physical health. Therefore these delays cannot be attributed to short comings within the CAA. Target of 10 per cent The Chief Judge noted in his letter to the Member for Heysen that the performance targets were fixed in the early 1990s for both the Supreme Court and the District Court by Chief Justice King and Chief Judge Brebner. As the Chief Judge understands, that was the first time such a target had been set in Australia and, although it was based on studies by Chief Judge Brebner of some US courts, there were no direct comparators available. It was an arbitrary figure and it was applied to both courts notwithstanding that their profiles were different. The targets have remained as they are for the reasons mentioned by the Chief Justice and the difference between the target and the estimated result of 43 per cent needs to be seen in that light. Personal injury matters/backlog indicator The Chief Judge explained in his letter that in each category of civil work except personal injuries, the number of files decreases as the files get older. However, in personal injury matters there is a significant disposal rate in the first 12 months but analysis by the registry shows that if they are not settled within the first 12 months, there is a good chance that they will take longer than two years to resolve. The Chief Judge explained there are any number of reasons why some personal injury actions can take longer to mature, e.g. complex injuries that have not stabilised, causation issues, child plaintiffs or class actions. Whatever may be the reasons for personal injury files being open longer, because of the different trend in disposal they make up a greater proportion of files still pending more than 12 months after lodgement.