Final Sitting of Associate Judge Matthews at the High Court at Christchurch on 12 April 2019

Address by Jonathan Eaton QC on Behalf of the New Zealand Bar Association | Ngā Ahorangi Motuhake o te Ture.

E ngā mana, e ngā reo,  e te iwi whanui, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou
All people, languages and creeds, welcome, welcome, welcome. 

He mihi nui ki a koe, Kaiwhakawā Matthews
A special acknowledgement to Associate Judge Matthews

Your Honour Associate Judge Matthews, it is my very great pleasure on behalf of the New Zealand Bar Association | Ngā Ahorangi Motuhake o te Ture to speak at this your final sitting and to thankyou on behalf of the independent bar for all that you have contributed to the legal profession, to the judiciary, particularly here in Christchurch,  over so many years.

A very special welcome to your wife Jane, Jane’s daughters Hannah, Amelia and Lucy, and husband George and your Honour’s daughter Amy and husband Steve.  I am sure Amy’s twin Genevieve who is a busy GP in Rotorua and your third daughter Katie who is in London would love to be here today.

We make a break with tradition today. Customarily your honour would sit alone on your final sitting. Judicial company is a feature of a swearing in. But we break with tradition for very good reason.

We, the legal profession are want to celebrate with formality, pomp and ceremony the success or achievement of one of our number. And in late January 2011 when your appointment was announced by the A-G of the day, we, and I am sure your Honour and family, looked forward to the very special occasion that is a swearing in ceremony.

But history will record that the Christchurch earthquakes intervened and sadly your appointment was very much subsumed by the chaos, the distress and the sadness Christchurch then faced.

The Chief Justice had always intended that there be formal ceremony in Christchurch to celebrate your appointment.  However, the months turned into a year and by then your Honour selflessly resolved that your formal ceremony ought to be adjourned sine die.

And so today, some eight years later, we right that wrong.

It is traditional at the swearing in of a new judge that the practising career of the judge be traversed. That of course did not happen in 2011. I thought it appropriate to do so today even though that necessarily takes us back some 48 years!

The records indicate that your Honour was an outstanding student at the University of Canterbury where you graduated with an Honours Degree in 1971.  One perhaps little-known fact about your Honour is that but for not having taken bursary art at High School your Honour would have embarked on a degree and career in architecture.  

But your passion for architecture has endured and is perhaps reflected in, well let's be frank, the quite extraordinary number of houses that you have bought, built, renovated and sold over the years and your flair for design is reflected in your rather extravagant passion for expensive motor vehicles.  In excessive of 100 I am reliably told (by you) since you first obtained your driver’s licence.  Perhaps a sign of things to come that on your 4th birthday you were photographed on your plastic pedal car which proudly bore the personalised plate JGM4.

Anyway, law it was and successful you were. In your final year at UC you lead a moot team comprising John Fogarty and Nick Davidson to success at an Australasian event in Sydney.

You began work as a law clerk at Lane Neave Ronaldson (as it became) and were admitted as a barrister and solicitor of this Court on 2 February 1973.  Clearly you made quite an impression because you were invited to join the partnership as an equity partner  commencing 1 April 1974 after merely 2 years legal experience.    

And that is when your Honour’s legal career hit its first real and possibly greatest snag.  As we all know, s 22(1) of the Law Practitioners Act 1955 provided that any solicitor seeking to practice in partnership must have accumulated three years legal experience.  Undeterred and no doubt acting on advice if not instruction from senior litigation partner Mr SR Maling application was made pursuant to s.22(2) of the Act by a very young Matthews for a waiver of the statutory requirement. A discretionary remedy.  Your application was heard in chambers in the Supreme Court at Christchurch by Mr Justice MacArthur.  The application was declined.  My take on his Honour’s reasons is that you had not demonstrated sufficient maturity. The case is reported in the 1974 New Zealand Law Reports as Re D. As Re D did the rounds last week courtesy of her Honour Justice French, one of your supposedly closest allies on the bench (presently sitting to your right) said that story reminded him of a precocious toddler!

You quickly recovered from that early setback and became an integral member of Lane Neave, and through until 1987 engaged in a general transactional practice with interest and expertise in all matters commercial.

1986 was an important year. Your Honour took a sabbatical and headed for London. To investigate the historical origins of the independent bar? No. In search of a publisher for your manuscript. A romance novel I am reliably told. A novel a member of the bar appearing today recalls typing after hours whilst in the employ of Lane Neave. Sadly, London was not quite ready for John Matthews the romance novelist, but, as we know, the yearn to write was not lost. 
 
With that door shut, on your return to NZ, at the age 37 with a young family your Honour still sought a new challenge.  A shift to the independent bar loomed. But in 1987 the bar in Christchurch was very much in its infancy. The NZBA was not established until the following year. There were no established sets of chambers as we now know them. There was a handful of outstanding litigators at the bar, many Queen’s Counsel including Atkinson, Penlington, McClelland and Hearn giving some context to the challenge your Honour faced.  

Notwithstanding your Honour made the bold move. You took over the chambers of Ralph Wylie QC following his elevation to the High Court and within a short period Terry Sissons and Chris McVeigh, who had established Merely Chambers, invited your Honour to join them. You were later joined in chambers by Graeme Pankhurst QC and then Pip Hall QC, Peter Graham on occasion, (and briefly with James Rapley QC) and it was of course through Merely Chambers that I first got to know your Honour both as a colleague and a friend. Merely Chambers was a wonderful place to practice law. And your Honour was very much at the forefront of those chambers. Both aesthetically and otherwise.

Within a short period at the bar your Honour had taken up a number of directorships with finance companies including the precursor to the Heartland Bank.  Your significant contribution to the NZ automobile industry (as an obsessive purchaser) was recognised in your appointment as Chairman of the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal, and significantly, your Honour began a very long and very loyal relationship with the NZBA.  You were the Canterbury representative on the Bar Council for many years through until 2005 when you passed me that batten. The Association remains grateful for your contribution and ongoing interest. 

It would be remiss of me in discussing your Honour’s career at the bar not to mention your less well-known criminal law practice, the highlight being the SFO gaming machine prosecution of five reasonably prominent businessmen.  A non-economic fraud. The trial was held before Justice Panckhurst.  You were being led by Chris McVeigh QC.  I was being led by Rod Hansen QC.  Colin Carruthers QC and John Billington QC joined the defence team for other defendants and of course there was the redoubtable Paul McMenamin acting for a defendant colloquially known as half day Smith (reflecting his work ethic).  Messrs Stanaway and later Rapley were co-prosecuting with Gus, now Judge Andre-Wiltens. That was the case where Paul McMenamin had the entire court in fits of laughter as, in a closing address only he could deliver, he rattled off a series of one liners very effectively portraying poor old half day as not only bone idle, but so bereft of any semblance of intellect that he could not possibly have comprehended the niceties of the fiduciary duties of a gaming licensee. 

It was a great stoush lasting a few weeks.  It was your first serious foray into criminal law and it ended in a hung jury.    By the time the case was set for retrial both your Honour and I had graduated to the roles of lead counsel.  Translation, there were funding issues. You will recall we then presented a compelling argument to Justice John Hansen as to why reformulated counts were legally unsustainable and the defendants were discharged. Your Honour, being commercially astute had some doubt as to the viability of criminal law practice. That was until your South African client, in that case, presented you with a handful of stunning diamonds that he offered in lieu of a fee. An offer that was politely declined I must add. 

I know your honour has fond memories of Merely Chambers.

As your career at the bar flourished you were appointed to the role of Environmental Commissioner, then Chair of Commissioners for the Buller District Council and heard a number of applications related to the handling and loading of coal at the Port of Westport. You clearly made an impression on the Coast. In 2005 you were briefed by DOC to represent their very real interests at the Cave Creek Inquiry. Royden Somerville QC then encouraged you to allow your name to be put forward to chair the Commissioners to hear and determine the Contact Energy resource consent applications in relation to electricity generation infrastructure on the Clutha River.  That involved 11 weeks of very important hearings in Cromwell and, for a period, Dunedin.  

 It was around this time that your Honour and Jane made the decision to re-locate to Queenstown.  You simply transferred your practice. One particular case that occupied much of your time was the unconscionable bargain case of Gustav v MacField, a case you lead in both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. 

Your reputation as a leading lawyer in RMA lead to your appointment as Chair of Commissioners for the Queenstown Lakes District Council and in about 2007 you embarked on a case as a Commissioner that was to assume significance in your career.   

That case was known as Project Hayes.  Meridian Energy had applied to the Central Otago District Council and the Otago Regional Council for consent to build a massive wind farm, some 176 windmills in an area covering 92 square kilometres of the land known as the Lammermoors. Land that features in Graeme Sydney paintings. Meridian had spent millions on the consenting process.  There was significant pressure on the Commissioners to grant the consent. Following a very lengthy hearing in Alexandra, your Honour issued a very carefully considered and well-reasoned dissent declining the application. You were the sole dissenter. The application was granted by a majority of 3:1. But opponents of Project Hayes lodged an appeal with significant reliance on, and guidance from your Honour’s dissent. And in 2009 the Environment Court allowed their appeal and Project Hayes was eventually put to bed.

That case highlighted to your Honour the very stark distinction between the role of a lawyer in case presentation and the role of a decision maker and that lead to some personal reflection as to where your future lay.  Quite properly Your Honour took great pride in your role as a decision-maker. You had demonstrated fearless independence throughout a process where you became somewhat isolated. 

I know your support Jane, was unwavering and pivotal.

In September 2010 your Honour and Jane returned to Christchurch where you briefly re-established chambers on Armagh Street and then, inevitably but with significant encouragement from Judge Doherty, and another very good friend, Justice John Wild you expressed interest and were then promptly appointed an Associate Judge of this Court in January 2011.

So that is what might have been said of your career as a lawyer back in February 2011.

As we know, the formal ceremony scheduled for February 2011 could not proceed but the demands of the High Court could not be held in abeyance and on 7 March 2011 your Honour was sworn in, in the common room of the Auckland High Court by then Chief High Court Judge, Justice Winkelmann.  It was no doubt a ceremony of sorts, but there was little pomp. That was a Friday and you presided over your first fixture on the Monday. Straight into the deep end and you have never looked back.  By Queens Birthday you were back in Christchurch and beginning to lay the foundational stones of what was to become a very special relationship with your associate Trish Morrison. That included spending six months working out of Trish’s family home.  

As Mr Riach has mentioned, it is difficult to imagine a more challenging time to take an appointment as an Associate Judge of this court.   Together with Justice Osborne, you set about resolving the ongoing fallout from the GFC and then the demanding and distressing consequences of the Christchurch earthquakes.

And throughout your Honour has maintained the same qualities of dignity, kindness, compassion and wisdom that have made you so popular with our profession for so many years.

That is not to say that your Honour’s patience has not been tested. Frazer Barton happened to be in this Court when your Honour was dealing with yet another application from an infamous litigant in person who, I am reliably told made the following submission to your Honour ; 
“You are functus officio.  Would you like me to translate that for you?”  
To which your Honour calmly replied;   “That won’t be necessary”.  

Mr Barton describes the applicant’s submission as extremely provocative and your Honour’s response as calm.  However, even from the back of this Court, Mr Barton could distinctly hear every stroke of your fountain pen as it scratched your Honour’s ruling across the page.

As we have heard, Your Honour has dealt with such an extraordinary variety of cases. Recently,  your Honour wrote a very challenging and considered judgment in the Commissioner of Inland Revenue v New Orleans Hotel (2011) Limited.  That was a decision debated at the Bar Association Council table as the issue of a costs award in favour of in-house counsel or a litigant in person was considered to be of such moment that the Association sought and was granted leave to intervene in the closely related Supreme Court case of McGuire.

Your good friend Justice French has described her favourite case of yours being one where your Honour exercised your discretion to decline to make an elderly couple bankrupt in circumstances where the wife was in ill health and the couple had lost everything in the earthquakes.  The human touch.

Your Honour, Trish probably knows you better than anyone as an Associate Judge and, with her approval, I can do no better than borrow her words:

“It has been a very special time for me over the past 8 years to have had the privilege of working for John.  There has been a lot of fun and laughter in our working relationship where he has treated me more as an equal working alongside him, not for him.  He is a wise man and someone I and many others have found easy to talk to about anything. He is compassionate kind and understanding with a keen sense of humour and leaves people feeling really good about themselves.  He has touched the hearts of many in this registry and other registries throughout the country.  He is an excellent mediator and judge.”

Your Honour, I extend to you our very warmest congratulations on a stellar career. The Bar Association wishes you a most rewarding and deserved retirement and continued success in your next endeavour.

Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.