Tompkins v Francois [1999] VUCA 17; Civil Appeal Case 05 of 1998 (22 April 1999)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

CIVIL CASE No. 05 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE TOMPKINS
Appellant

AND:

ANDRE FRANCOIS
Respondent

MINUTE

There is listed in the current session of the Court of Appeal an appeal from a decision of Justice Reggett Marum dated 12th November 1998 which was concerned with a constitutional petition commenced by the Respondent against the present Appellant and the Acting Chief Justice

Before the hearing in November there were various questions raised about the issue of whether Judges could be represented in this type of proceeding by the Attorney General.

At the hearing the Acting Chief Justice was struck out as a party. But it is far from clear what was actually decided in respect of the present Appellant. Findings consistent with the matter being struck out were made but no final conclusion is recorded.

When the case was called on Monday Mr. Francois appeared in person.

The documentation on this file particularly the pleadings and affidavits appear to come mainly from Mr. Francois although there are some documents in the name of Mr. C. R. de Robillard.

Mr. Francois handed to the Bench a letter from Mr. de Robillard indicating he was in Europe and seeking that the matter be adjourned.

We have now had an opportunity to read all the material on this file. There has been further communication in a letter of 21st April from Mr. Francois.

Most of the material available suggests it has been filed personally by Mr. Francois. That is probably a good thing because had it been the work of a member of the legal profession it would have invited the most swift and serious response. Much is scandalous, unprofessional and contrary to the discipline and standards expected of legal practitioners anywhere in the world.

The traditions of the bar are an essential aspect of legal practice. There is no reason why those who practice in this country should not be bound to maintain them and adhere to them as anywhere else in the world.

The material filed by Mr. Francois indicates that there was an application to add two members of this Court to the petition. That application was refused and has not been appealed. However in the circumstances it is inappropriate for this Court to hear this matter. We accordingly adjourn the matter for consideration at some other time.

Mr. Francois will understand that so long as the present appeal remains outstanding and unresolved it is not possible for his original proceedings to be heard. In the circumstances the appeal cannot however be an impediment to any other matters awaiting determination in the Courts being heard particularly the summons in this present case which seeks clarification and completion by Justice Marum of the hearing before him.

The primary reason that Mr. Francois has asked for the adjournment this week is because Mr. Robillard is not here.

That is not the reason that we grant the adjournment. Mr. de Robillard asserts that he is a local practitioner. The date of this session has been notified for months as is the position with regard to another session later in the year.

Dates of the visit of Justice Tompkins to Vila in 1998 were similarly announced a substantial period in advance of his sitting here.

On a previous occasion Mr. de Robillard told the Court that he would never again practice in Vila. Frequently there have been arguments about his right to practice in this jurisdiction and he has told us that he will make an application to the Law Council or the Court to sort out his position. We are advised that he has taken no steps in that regard.

We are unable to understand why the Law Council itself fails to initiate action to resolve once and for all the issue.

Our concern is for Mr. Francois and his legal problems. He should not imagine that because he insists on employing Mr. de Robillard (who perhaps is unable or unwilling to be present when the Court sits) that other litigants will be denied their day in Court because of that situation or because of unresolved disputes about Mr. de Robillard’s status as a legal practitioner.

Mr. Francois should also understand that although Courts will always extend a degree of indulgence to a litigant in person he is on dangerous ground. In the material which is on this file in his name (and we note written in perfect English although whenever he appears in Court Mr. Francois informs us that he has no ability in that language) he is reaching the point where his own position becomes vulnerable.

The case is accordingly adjourned with costs reserved.

Dated at Port Vila this 22^nd day of April 1999.

Robertson J.
Judge

von Doussa J.
Judge

Daniel Fatiaki J.
Judge