PacLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of the Cook Islands

You are here:  PacLII >> Databases >> High Court of the Cook Islands >> 2013 >> [2013] CKHC 61

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Decisions | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

  Download original PDF


Raiyawa v Glassie [2013] CKHC 61; Plaint 31.10 (8 May 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE COOK ISLANDS
HELD AT RAROTONGA
(CIVIL DIVISION)


PLAINT NO. 31/10


BETWEEN


SETAREKI RAIYAWA formerly of Nikao, Rarotonga,
now residing in Deuva, Fiji
Plaintiff


AND


HON. NANDI GLASSIE Minister of Health, Avarua, Rarotonga
First Defendant


AND


HON. HENRY PUNA Attorney-General, Avarua, Rarotonga
Second Defendant


Date: 8 May 2013


Counsel: Mrs Browne for the Plaintiff
Ms Henry for the Defendants


Ruling: 8 May 2013


RULING OF THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DAME JUDITH POTTER


[1] By application dated 11 April 2011, the First and Second Defendants seek to have this proceeding dismissed for want of prosecution. A careful chronology of events included in the Defendant’s submissions, shows that this proceeding was commenced on the 22nd December 2010 but there has effectively been no action in the matter since the 20th February 2012.


[2] By judgment dated 7 April 2011, Hugh Williams J ordered the Plaintiff to pay security for costs in the sum of $3,000 and stayed the proceeding until payment was made. Payment has not been made despite enquiry by the Defendants, most recently on the 24th July 2012 when Ms Rokoika for the Plaintiff advised that the Plaintiff was near impecunious and was trying to collect the money to pay for the security for costs. Ms Browne appearing this morning on instructions for the Plaintiff advises that no further instructions have been received and there is no indication that the Plaintiff is in a position to pay the security for costs.


[3] The Defendants submit that the significant delay in this matter is prejudicial to them. I note that the Plaintiff resides in Fiji and there is no confirmation of his ability or willingness to come to Rarotonga to pursue his claims.


[4] Against that background, in reliance on Rule 4.2 and the Courts inherent jurisdiction it seems to me that there are valid grounds for the Defendant's application to be granted.


[5] The proceeding is dismissed for want of prosecution.


Judith Potter, J


PacLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/ck/cases/CKHC/2013/61.html