Good decision making, returning the serve in Court

Novak Djokovic is courageous for standing up for his right to choose not to be vaccinated and for defending himself when the Border Control line-person gets it wrong in calling his vaccination exemption out of court.


It is a choice to enter into a construction contract and we are entitled to ask for the lines-person’s decision to be reviewed. NZS3910 allows for decisions to be subject to review repeatedly, serve, volley, return, back and forth, until the ball lands either in or out of court.


Like half the world right now, I eagerly read the NZ Herald’s early reporting this morning to see how the decision played out. [NZ Herald Link]


This article focused on the tennis player's fate with destiny, the emotional reaction to his situation, citing public showings of support as one of the main reasons why he won his case, and the Govt saying “it’s not over yet”. Which is fine, but I really wanted to know the basis of the courts ruling? I would love my variation claims to be decided by the mob I can muster outside the project managers office, construction sites have a lot of mouths to feed. But that is just not right. Good decision making 'is not' a popularity contest.


Umpire’s Decision Pending


The world is extremely interested in,

[1] history making tennis,

[2] the individual’s freedom to choose for oneself, and

[3] the transparent rule of law over the rule of hidden power.


Only a ‘good decision’ will see history be kind to the decision maker, at a time when world sport, and tennis in particular, is the front line in the fight for universal human rights over monetising the popularity of sport.


“Celebrating 50 years of New Zealand Building Economist 1972 to 2021”


By Matthew Ensoll

FNZIQS. Reg.QS.

Editor New Zealand Building Economist.


Join the NZBE Blog


Explore NZBE Products

0 comments

Recent Posts

See All