Allsworth v Young [2012] CKHC 60; Plaint24.2011 (27 June 2012)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE COOK ISLANDS
HELD AT RAROTONGA
(CIVIL DIVISION)
PLAINT 24/2011

BETWEEN

PAUL ALLSWORTH
of Rarotonga, Public Servant
Plaintiff

AND

ROBERT YOUNG
of Rarotonga, Builder
Defendant

Hearing: 27 June 2012

Counsel: Mr Arnold for the Plaintiff
Ms Rokoika for the Defendant

Date: 27 June 2012

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

[1] This is a building dispute which was set down for a defended hearing today 27 June 2012, but, as almost inevitably happens in building disputes, it is only in the last little while that the issues between the parties, the pleadings and the evidence, for and against the claim and counterclaim have appeared. In particular, it was only yesterday 26 June 2012 that an amended claim was filed which substantially increased the amount in issue and altered to a degree the nature of the pleadings.

[2] Ms Rokoika for Mr Young has had no chance in the less than 24 hours to file an amended defence, and the Court’s direction will be that an amended statement of defence should be filed and served within three weeks of Friday of this week, i.e. by 20 July 2012. Just an aside there, it should be noted that the counterclaim in the current statement of defence is intended as a quantum merit claim.

[3] In formal terms, and after discussions between bench and bar, counsel took an opportunity of discussing the issues with their clients in the hope that a cost efficient and relatively rapid course might be found to deal with this matter and resolve the dispute without the lengthy Court proceeding that is so often a feature of building disputes. Unfortunately no such method has been found so the matters of the claim will have to be adjourned to be dealt with at a fixture, hopefully in the sessions beginning on 27 August 2012.

[4] The case is currently set down for one day but given the number of issues between these parties, the number of witnesses required to be called, and one’s experience of the type of evidence customarily called in building dispute cases, it would be prudent to allow 2 days for the hearing.

[5] At the conclusion of the discussion this morning, it was suggested to the parties who were present in Court that, as an alternative to a form of arbitration or mediation, they might care to give consideration to the possibility of a judicial settlement conference presided over by a judge and held either in the Court room or possibly on-site. It was explained that a settlement conference, if conducted on an issue-by-issue basis rather than the usual longitudinal basis, in evidence in the Court might yield better results and more quickly. The parties are to consider their attitude to that suggestion and advise the Court as soon as they have reached a decision.

[6] It was unfortunate that the matter cannot proceed today but the late appearance of a wealth of material and the time available simply precludes that.

Hugh Williams, J

Editorial Note: Derived from the Court’s electronic records and believed to be correct and final.