The former judge discusses why he decided arbitration was the right direction to go in
In November 2024, Mark Cooper, who presided over cases in the Court of Appeal and the High Court as a judge for over 20 years, retired from the bench. However, it didn’t take long for him to realise that retirement did not suit him.
He decided that becoming an arbitrator would best utilise his talents and experience, eventually launching the next phase of his legal career at Bankside Chambers. In the first part of this interview, Cooper tells NZ Lawyer how it feels to return to practice, commutes on the harbour, and the trials that stuck with him the most in his time as a member of the judiciary.
Following your retirement from the judiciary, what led to the decision that joining Bankside Chambers was the right move for you at this stage of your life and career?
I retired in November 2024 having reached the compulsory retirement age of 70. After some time off, I started to think that rather than reflecting on the past I should find something else to do. Arbitration appealed as a way of using the talents and experience I had developed over the years.
You’ve had a long and illustrious tenure on the bench – what has it been like to return to practice?
I’ve been excited by it. Lawyers who litigate are lucky because there are a number of recognised progressions in their career. In my case: young solicitor, partner in Simpson Grierson, barrister, Queen’s Counsel, judge, and now back to work as an arbitrator. It’s a good feeling, that there is another phase after the judiciary.
Going into chambers most days, enjoying the commute on the harbour, reconnecting with people I knew from my days as a practising lawyer and judge and meeting the younger lawyers at Bankside has been stimulating. I have loved getting back to work. It turns out I wasn’t ready to retire!
What for you was the most memorable matter you heard as a judge, and why?
Well “most memorable” is an interesting expression. It’s really hard to choose, because of the variety of cases. Most murder trials are memorable and so are the trials of other serious crimes, where the victim has lived through it. They are memorable because of the graphic recounting of extreme violence and the need to remain calm and objective to ensure the issues are left to the jury after a fair trial. It’s best not to mention names, but some of them will always stay with me, particularly trials I presided at in New Plymouth (the murder of a young German backpacker), in Whanganui where I grew up (the murder of an elderly lady in her home and her children, many grandchildren and great grandchildren were present throughout a three week trial) and in Timaru, a trial in which there were six defendants blaming each other for a death resulting from a fatal group attack.
At the other end of the spectrum, but definitely memorable in its own way, was a long civil trial about the alleged under-performance of a boiler at the Kinleith paper mill. There was a vast amount of technical evidence with experts from all around the world. It went for 153 sitting days before it settled. We were only part way through the first defendant’s case, and Rolls Royce was the second defendant! It settled at 9.30 one morning. The court’s scheduler, Corrina MacDonald, congratulated me on the good news, then asked if I could do the bails at 11.30. For some reason I have always remembered that.
In the Court of Appeal I wrote the judgment in the Lundy case, which involved a very close examination of scientific and forensic evidence. And more recently there were some difficult cases involving Treaty issues, the Waitangi Tribunal and others involving the New Zealand Bill of Rights, sentencing and police powers of search. These cases were memorable because of the importance of the issues they raised, and sometimes the tensions around them.
