Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
High Court of Fiji |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION
Civil Action No: HBC 175 of 2001L
BETWEEN:
WESTMALL LIMITED
Plaintiff
AND:
CUL (FIJI) LIMITED
Defendant
INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT
Judgment of: Inoke J.
Counsel Appearing: Mr A Patel and Mr P Dale for the Plaintiff
F Haniff for the Defendant
Solicitors: S B Patel & Co for the Plaintiff
Munro Leys for the Defendant
Date of Hearing: 13 December 2010
Date of Judgment: 30 December 2010
INTRODUCTION
[1] On 27 March 2008, Master Udit dismissed and struck out this action because the Plaintiff failed to comply with his "Unless Order" of 25 September 2007. On 8 December 2008 the Plaintiff's solicitors filed an application to re-instate the action.
[2] On 30 June 2010, I heard the application and delivered my judgment on 6 October 2010, reported in Westmall Ltd v Cul (Fiji) Ltd [2010] FJHC 448; HBC175.2001L (6 October 2010), in which I made the following orders:
- The Master's Order of 27 March 2008 is vacated.
- This action is re-instated.
- The action is adjourned to the Master for Pr-trial directions and to take its normal course.
- The costs of this application are to be costs in the cause.
[3] On 22 October 2010, I set the matter down for hearing on 14 and 15 December 2010.
[4] The Defendant has filed two applications; one to have those trial dates vacated and the other for leave to appeal and stay of my orders of 6 October 2010. This judgment is on the application to set aside the trial dates.
ATTEMPTS TO SET THE MATTER DOWN FOR TRIAL
[5] The matter came back before me on 21 October 2010 to be set down for hearing, the Notice of Adjourned Hearing having been faxed to both counsels on 20 October 2010. Only Mr Patel appeared for the Plaintiff and no one appeared for the Defendant. I then adjourned the matter to allow Mr Patel to liaise with Mr Haniff for a suitable trial date. I was prepared to give the case a priority hearing, even during the Court vacation, because of the long delays that this matter has suffered. Mr Patel gave up in frustration because Mr Haniff was apparently in meetings the whole day so I adjourned the matter to the next day, 22 October 2010.
[6] On 22 October 2010, Mr Patel appeared for the Plaintiff and Mr Faiz Khan appeared on instructions for the Defendant first before my brother Judge, Justice Fernando, for some unknown reason, the matter eventually coming before me later that morning.
[7] Mr Khan informed me that his instructions from Mr Haniff were to object to the matter being set down for hearing because the Pre Trial Minutes had not been completed.
[8] Mr Patel informed me that he managed to speak to Mr Haniff for only a short time on the day before and he told Mr Haniff about the Memorandum of Counsel for the Plaintiff dated 18 October 2010 in which Mr Dale as leading counsel had put forward specific dates from 3 November 2010 to 9 December 2010 and from 7 February 2010 to 22 July 2010 on which he was available to conduct the trial. He said he waited till noon but there was no reply. He said he had tried to extend all professional courtesies to Mr Haniff without success so he urged me to set the matter down for hearing this year.
[9] This matter had suffered too many delays, much of it has been caused by the failure to comply with discovery and other pre trial steps. I agreed with counsel for the Plaintiff that the issues in this matter are not complex and that the Defendant was using the pre trial process to delay the hearing. I therefore ordered that the Pre Trial Conference be dispensed with and set the matter down for hearing during the Court vacation on 14 and 15 December 2010 because these were the only dates available for me to hear the case this year.
CASE HISTORY
[10] Before I deal with the application, I repeat my observations on the history of this matter from my judgment of 6 October 2010:
The action commenced in 2001. It took till 2006 to be allocated a trial date on 6 March. This was not so unusual for cases in this Court. The Defendant was not entirely blameless for the delay in my view for the reasons given below. The hearing did not proceed because the Plaintiff was not ready so it was adjourned to a new date in June 2006. The Defendant blames the Plaintiff but I note that counsel did not insist on the hearing proceeding or object to the adjournment to 19 June 2006. The Defendant took advantage of the trial not going ahead on 6 March by having its own application for security for costs heard instead. The trial Judge ordered the Plaintiff to pay security for costs of $15,000 by 8 May 2006 and, in the absence of some persuasive explanation for not paying it, the Plaintiff was debarred from bringing its case. The costs were not paid until 24 May 2006. The delay in payment was explained and the trial Judge accepted it. When the matter was called on 19 June 2006, no one appeared for the Plaintiff. Again, an explanation for the non-appearance was given and accepted. The action was again set down for hearing on 16 October 2006. However, on 16 September 2006, the Plaintiff filed an application to amend its statement of claim. The reason given was that the Defendant disclosed very late documents which made the Plaintiff realise that its claim had to be amended. The Defendant did not object so leave to amend was granted by consent. Further costs were ordered to be paid by the Plaintiff before a hearing date was given. The matter was adjourned to 23 February 2007. The amended statement of claim was filed on 16 October 2006. The Defence was filed on 2 November 2006. Then followed an application by the Plaintiff for further and better discovery and particulars of the Defence filed on 14 February 2007. The application was to be called on 23 February 2007. Further directions were given and the matter called on three more occasions until the Defendant agreed to file a better list of documents by 29 May 2007. The list was filed by the Defendant on 30 May 2007. The matter was called again on 8 June 2007 and further pre-trial directions given. On 31 July 2007, the matter was called before the Master, who also gave further directions and adjourned it to 25 September 2007. On 25 September 2007, only counsel for the Plaintiff appeared before the Master. The Master's handwritten notes for that date are impossible to read. The matter was called again before the Master on 27 March 2008. This time the same counsel who appeared on 25 September 2007 for the Plaintiff now appeared for the Defendant. No one appeared for the Plaintiff. The Master's notes for 27 March 2008 too are impossible to read. However, the Order taken out by the Defendant's solicitors on 2 April 2008 reads:
"IT IS THIS DAY ORDERED that the action herein be wholly dismissed and struck out for failure to comply with the Unless Order of 25 September 2007"
On 31 March 2008, the current solicitors for the Plaintiff wrote to the Registry indicating the Plaintiff's intention to seek re-instatement, copied to the Defendant's solicitors. The Plaintiff's application to re-instate did not get filed until 8 December 2008. It was first called on 21 January 2009 before the Master who gave directions for filing affidavits and set the application down for hearing on 13 May 2009. However, the application did not get heard but got adjourned to further dates between September and December 2009 and in early 2010 because dates did not suit either counsel or the Court, eventually the application came to be heard on30 June 2010.
I think any delay caused by the Plaintiff up to the time when the amended statement of claim was filed (16 October 2006) should be ignored. The Defendant was quite happy to just move along at the pace dictated by the Plaintiff. Further, part of the delay was caused by the Defendant's defective discovery. The Pre-trial conference minutes, as in many other cases, dogged the parties as well. It is not the sole responsibility of the Plaintiff to comply with the Court Rules in this regard as made clear from the rules and the above judgments. This is clearly not a case of intentional or contumelious or inordinate delay in prosecuting the case.
APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT
[11] By Summons dated 8 December 2010, the Defendant's solicitors applied to have the December trial dates vacated on the grounds that: (1) the Defendant had applied for leave to appeal my decision of 6 October 2010 to reinstate this matter, (2) the matter was not ready for trial given that a number of pre trial steps had yet to be completed, and (3) sufficient time had not been given to counsel for the Defendant to prepare for the trial.
[12] Due to the lateness of the application, I directed that it be called on 13 December 2010, the day before the scheduled start of the trial.
[13] The application was supported by the affidavit of the litigation clerk of the solicitors for the Defendant. She gave the reasons for the adjournment as stated in the grounds of the application. The Defendant wanted to exercise its right of appeal. She said that if leave to appeal is granted the Defendant would immediately file its appeal but if refused, the Defendant would apply to a single judge of the Court of Appeal. She gave the reasons for the matter not being ready for trial as incomplete disclosure of documents, the Plaintiff having disclosed 111 documents and the Defendant 73, and there being no pre trial conference held to narrow the issues for trial. She had been informed by Mr Haniff that he had not been able to prepare for the trial because he has had to attend trials and interlocutory matters since 22 October 2010.
[14] Mr Haniff however, informed the Court that he would be able to attend to this trial after March 2011 because he already had trial commitments for the prior months.
[15] The Plaintiff filed an affidavit in opposition by its director. He says that he believes the Defendant was only raising these issues to frustrate the claim being heard. The Defendant's list of documents could not possibly be accurate in that it disclosed only one document, a surveyor's report prepared after the lease was entered into. On the other hand, the Defendant's solicitors have had the Plaintiff's lists of documents for sometime and the documents have always been available for their solicitors to inspect yet neither request nor inspection have taken place. The issues are not as complex as the Defendant makes them out to be.
[16] Mr Dale opposed the application for adjournment on the grounds of the long delays and the lateness of the application. He said he was not vigorously opposing it as he would have otherwise done because the Defendant's solicitors have now disclosed to him in a supplementary list some 100 documents which he had reluctantly agreed to look at them on 4 conditions.
REASONS FOR ADJOURNMENT
[17] I think the reasons given for the adjournment, the lateness of the application and the checkered history of delays are not sufficient, and had it not been for Mr Dale's reluctant concession I would have refused the application.
[18] I think such a decision would have been supported by principle as decided by the Court of Appeal in Goldenwest Enterprises Ltd v Pautogo [2008] FJCA 3; ABU0038.2005 (3 March 2008):
37. Generally, this is the principle covering courts' discretion to adjourn or not to adjourn. If refusal to grant an adjournment amounts to a denial of a fair hearing and hence denial of natural justice or procedural fairness, or where a refusal to adjourn would cause definite and irreparable harm to the party seeking it, an adjournment should be granted. If it is not, an appeal court has power – and one might say a duty – to redress the wrong by allowing an appeal against the denial of the adjournment: Gasparetto v. Sault Ste-Marie [1973] 2 OR 847 (Div. Ct); see also Jim Patrick v. United Stone (1960) 21 DLR (2d) 189 (Sask. CA)
38. An objecting party is compensated by costs – unless the adjournment would cause irreparable damage to it. Then a court must weigh up the competing interests and consequences ruling according to the fairness and justice of the particular case.
39. Counsel for [Goldenwest] also drew the Court's attention to Dick v. Piller [1943] 1 All ER 627 where in a part-heard matter, Counsel for one of the parties applied for a further adjournment on grounds that the Defendant's evidence 'was essential for the proper determination of the case', however he 'was too ill to attend'. There was no objection from the Plaintiff's Counsel and a medical certificate was provided together with an assurance from Counsel that an Affidavit from the medical practitioner could be obtained that day. The adjournment application was refused. No Affidavit was produced, and a refusal to adjourn met a fresh application made at the conclusion of the Plaintiff's case.
40. The appeal court agreed that the Defendant had been deprived of a fair hearing.[7]
41. In Dick v. Piller in issue was whether the appeal was on a point of law or fact. It was a question of law, said the Court, for by refusing the adjournment the judge 'caused a serious miscarriage of justice, and ..., in doing so, rejected the first principle of law, for he deprived the defendant of his very right to be heard before he was condemned': at 628
42. There is, however, a requirement that there be no 'fault' on the part of the party seeking the adjournment: Piggott Construction v. United Brotherhood (1974) 39 DLR (3d) 311 (Sask. CA) In this regard, Goldenwest's position is that there is nothing in the record to support the proposition that it was at fault in any of the delays or what may be perceived to be delays in bringing the matter to trial: there is nothing on the record to show that it was 'at fault' in earlier adjournments. As to the proposition that Goldenwest could be considered dilatory in that the hearing date had been set in advance, by consent between Counsel, so that any failure of witnesses to be present indicated 'fault', Goldenwest's response is – as set out above – that when on the day Counsel for Mr Pautogo failed to appear Goldenwest could have taken advantage of the striking out of the Petition but did not do so. Hence, it should not now, and should not on the day of the trial, be held 'at fault' in light of its cooperation and not standing in the way of Mr Pautogo's right to be heard and to put his case.
COSTS
[19] The Plaintiff is entitled to his costs thrown away. I summarily assess them at $2,500.
ORDERS
[20] In the circumstances I made the following orders:
- The matter is set down for hearing on 19 and 20 April 2011 at 10.00 am.
- Parties to sort out pre trial discovery with liberty to apply before me on 3 days notice.
- Costs for the Plaintiff of today thrown away to be paid by the Defendant $2,500.
Sosefo Inoke
Judge
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJHC/2010/567.html