Court delays and human dignity

“In passing”, in a recent judgment, Justice Ian Jackman has criticised delays in judgments being delivered, going back to a 2013 decision, as an example, and noting its 8 months delay, with the appeal court then taking “21½ months”. 

His particular words were that “the primary judge (Kenny J) reserved judgment for about 8 months after a two-day hearing (see 470 St Kilda Road Pty Ltd v Robinson [2013] FCA 1420; (2013) 308 ALR 411) and the Full Court (comprising Foster, Robertson and Davies JJ) reserved judgment for 21½ months after a one-day hearing”, this being Chubb Insurance Company of Australia Ltd v Robinson [2016] FCAFC 17, 

He went on to say that “the Full Court’s reasons were substantially the same as those of Kenny J. None of the judges gave any reason, nor offered any apology, for their delay”.

Jackman J then went on to explain that he has “referred to the lamentable delay in Chubb because:

(a) the standards one walks past are the standards one accepts;

(b) public exposure and scrutiny are the most effective spurs to judicial exertion, and judges are well placed to keep other judges up to the mark, acknowledging that the media also have an important role to play, and acknowledging also that the legal profession is in an impossible position in criticising the judges before whom they appear;

(c) the duties of judges to serve the public in the proper administration of justice should rank ahead of the desirability of cordial internal relations within the judiciary;

(d) the delivery of judgments within a reasonable time is an important aspect of access to justice and of respecting the human dignity of litigants;

(e) there is no threat to judicial authority by judges making such criticisms, but only a threat to judicial comfort and complacency; and

(f) the accountability of the powerful is fundamental to the rule of law, and reflects the reciprocity which exists in a healthy legal system between the rulers and the ruled, rather than a one-way projection of authority”.

Justice Jackman then continued with his judgment.

All rather odd.  His own matter had been commenced over 12 months ago, in August 2025, and went through 14 interlocutory hearings before the final hearing on 30 September 2026.

Any appeal from Jackman J’s decision must be filed within 28 days.

See Rosenlund Constructions Pty Ltd v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London Subscribing to Policy Number 08070017 [2026] FCA 1442