BCH Investments Ltd v Nguy

The defendant, Jesse Seang Nguy, a former solicitor, applied for a second adjournment of the trial fixture scheduled for 18 October 2021 against the plaintiff, BCH Investments Limited. The plaintiff sued Nguy for breach of contract and negligence relating to the acquisition of a property without Overseas Investment Office (OIO) consent, resulting in a civil penalty. Nguy sought an adjournment on the basis that he had not been able to properly prepare and present his defence. The court found that there were no special circumstances justifying a second adjournment and that the interests of justice did not support vacating the fixture.

The legal issues the court had to decide were whether leave was required for Nguy to make a second application for adjournment and if the application itself should be granted. The court held that Rule 7.52 of the High Court Rules 2016 required leave to make a second application for the same or similar order, which could only be granted in special circumstances. The court also considered whether the application should be granted under Rule 10.2, which requires the court to balance the interests of justice. The court found that Nguy had ample time to prepare for the trial since the fixture date was set in September 2020, and there were no special circumstances to justify a second adjournment. The court also noted that Nguy had not made any effective steps to pursue his third-party claim and that the matters in issue at trial were legal questions that Nguy should be able to address from his personal knowledge.

The court found that Nguy had not shown any special circumstances to justify a second adjournment of the fixture. The court noted that Nguy had been aware of the trial date since September 2020 and had ample time to make arrangements to ensure he was in a position to arrange representation and arrange any witnesses he might have wished to call. The court also found that there was no evidence to suggest that postponing or adjourning the fixture would enable Nguy to instruct other counsel who would be willing to represent him at any adjourned fixture. The court further noted that the matters in issue at trial were legal questions that Nguy should be able to address from his personal knowledge. The court held that the interests of justice did not support vacating the fixture scheduled for 18 October 2021.

The court declined Nguy's application for leave to bring a second application to adjourn the fixture and to have the fixture adjourned. The plaintiff's claim against Nguy would proceed on 18 October 2021. The court also ordered that Nguy was to pay the plaintiff's costs of this application on a 2B basis.