NLJ this week: What judging really demands

Drawing on his judicial experience, he describes statutory interpretation as a ‘nightmare’, criticises legislative drafting that reads like it was written by ‘an embittered post-structuralist’, and recalls cases where the ‘right answer’ risked grave injustice.

Zellick emphasises the importance of dialogue between Bench and Bar, clarity in judgments, and restraint when authority produces absurd outcomes. He also worries about bloated judgments and whether AI will cure—or worsen—the flood of material courts must sift through.

Judging, he concludes, is a privilege, but one shaped by uncertainty, imperfect tools and the constant tension between certainty and justice.