Taso v Duch [2000] VUSC 28; Civil Case 010 of 1999 (14 June 2000)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

(Civil Jurisdiction)

Civil Case No. 10 of 1999

BETWEEN:

MATHEW TASO/p>

Plaintiff

ass="MsoNoMsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align: center; margin-top: 1; margin-bottom: 1"> AND:

HEINZ DUCH

First Defendant

AND:

ERIKA

Second Defendant

Coram: Mr Justice Oliver A. S

Ms Cynthia Thomas - Clerk

Mrs Saling N. Stephens of Saling N. Stephens & Associates for the Defendants<

No Appearance by or for the Plaintiff

JUDGEMENT

This case was called for hearn Tuesday 13^th June 2000 at 9 am pursuant to a No a Notice of Hearing issued out of the Court Registry dated 6^th April 2000. An affidavit of service duly sworn on 13^th June confirmed personal service on the Plaintiff on 10^th April 2000 at 2 pm.

The Defendants appear through Counsel Mr Stephens. On instructions offirst Defendant, Mr Duch dech denies any liability and involvement in this case. The second Defendant resides and works in Australia. She is the daughter of the First Defendant. She sent a note through counsel certifying that she is unable to attend the hearing because her employer was unable to release her from work. On her instructions, she denies liability of the Plaintiff's claim saying that severance allowances have been paid. The Court notes that no formal defences have been filed and served by the Defendants. Such was the basis of the Court not granting an Order for costs in their favour.

It was clear that the Plaintiff had notice of hearing and he did not attend. That is being discourteous to this Court. Whilst the Registry facilitated and assisted the Plaintiff by allocating a hearing date which is often difficult to do, it is disappointing when parties, especially as here the Plaintiff, whose duty it is to prosecute his claim, after they have been served, do not turn up in Court without any good cause or reasons. If a party is represented by Counsel it is always polite to send a note stating reasons why a party cannot be available in Court on the date fixed by the Court Registry. Such notice should come into hand in good time so as to alert the other party. In this case nothing of this sort has occurred. It can only indicate to the Court that the Plaintiff is not keen on prosecuting his claim. In any event the claim is within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court and could be heard in that Court.

For those reasons the case was dismissed with no order as to costs. Each party is to pay their own costs.

DATED atnville, this 14^th day of June, 2000.

BY THE COURT

OLIVER A. SAKSAK

Judge